Mathy Stanislaus

About Mathy Stanislaus

Posts by Mathy Stanislaus:

Tools Promoting Reuse-Evaluating Clean Energy for Contaminated Properties

By Mathy Stanislaus

Last month while attending the Brownfields conference in Chicago, I spoke with numerous mayors, community members, developers, financiers, and many others working to revitalize their communities. One common theme I heard was the need for tools and resources that could be deployed at the community or site level to help facilitate the cleanup or reuse of degraded or blighted properties. Toward that end I am pleased to announce the release of our RE-Powering America’s Land electronic decision tree tool. It will let communities and stakeholders examine the key considerations associated with solar or wind development on a formerly contaminated property or a landfill.

You may not have thought about siting renewable energy on a landfill or formerly contaminated property but it presents a unique opportunity to transform dormant and degraded properties into productive community assets. To date, more than 150 renewable energy installations have been installed on contaminated lands, landfills and mine sites across the U.S., providing clean energy to power cleanups, on-site operations and community electricity needs. The Agency’s RE-Powering Initiative has supported and continues to advance this trend. Because of these projects, communities across the country have saved millions of dollars in energy costs, created construction jobs, and received new property tax revenue as a result of reusing these sites for renewable energy.

The electronic decision tree is a downloadable computer application that walks users through a series of questions supplemented by tips and links to relevant tools and information sources. The user is guided through various considerations associated with the site, redevelopment process, and criteria specific to landfills and contaminated properties. In addition, it helps users explore how the regulatory context, financial incentives and future electricity usage affect projects. You would think that the amount of sun and the site conditions would mainly determine feasibility; however, these other factors tend to dominate.

This new tool helps communities and other stakeholders explore their sites, engage developers and drive their vision of productive reuse. The tools inform and empower communities to plan and align their desires for economic development within a sustainable land management strategy.

RE-Powering encourages renewable energy on contaminated lands in a variety of ways by:

  • Identifying and screening contaminated properties
  • Disseminating success stories and best practices
  • Clarifying liability
  • Articulating associated environmental, economic and community benefits
  • Disseminating financing strategies and information on incentives
  • Highlighting favorable policies; and
  • Developing partnerships and pursuing outreach

Most of all, RE-Powering brings two important ideas together: the interest in cleaning up contaminated land and in siting renewable energy. And, all this in the context of what’s appropriate for the site and what is desired by the community.

Check out the new RE-Powering website and all its resources, its updated mapper and, of course, the new electronic decision tree tool.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Explaining How We Address Contaminated Sites – Learn About the Superfund National Priorities List

By Mathy Stanislaus

Love Canal. Valley of the Drums. In the late 1970s, these sites created a growing national awareness that if hazardous waste was released into the environment and left abandoned, it presented potential human health and environmental risks. On December 11, 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, better known as “Superfund”) into law. Finally, the federal government had a statutory authority to clean up sites where releases had occurred or threatened to occur.

EPA maintains a list of the nation’s most serious abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous sites, the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL helps us determine which sites warrant further investigation and cleanup. There is a statutory requirement to update the NPL annually, though as a matter of policy, we typically update the NPL twice a year. Recently, we added five and proposed seven hazardous waste sites to the NPL.

Only sites on the NPL are eligible for federal funding for long-term cleanup. The Superfund program operates on the principle that polluters should pay for the cleanups, rather than passing the costs to taxpayers. We search for parties legally responsible for the contamination at sites and the law holds them accountable for the cleanup costs. For the newly added sites without viable potentially responsible parties, we will investigate the full extent of the contamination before starting substantial cleanup at the site.

We undertake removal actions to address more immediate threats, including emergencies that require on-scene arrival within hours, and time-critical situations, where a response is needed within six months. Removal actions may speed up the cleanup of portions of a site or eliminate the need for long-term actions at portions of a site.

Listing a site on the NPL is a multi-step process. To propose a site to the NPL depends on many factors such as:

  • site complexity;
  • extent of stakeholder interest;
  • state and tribal support; and
  • availability of other cleanup options.

After initial investigation and sampling determines the site warrants further evaluation and potential remediation, the data gathered is used to   evaluate a site’s relative threat to human health or the environment through the Hazard Ranking System.

In addition, if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issues a health advisory recommending removing people from the site and we determine it will be more cost-effective to use our remedial authority rather than our emergency removal authority, a site can be placed on the NPL. Further, each state can designate one top-priority site for addition to the NPL (16 states or territories have yet to designate a top-priority site). Sites are proposed for addition to the NPL as a rulemaking published in the Federal Register. EPA generally accepts comments for 60 days, responds to the comments, and places those sites on the NPL.. For most sites, the time between proposal and final listing is six months.

State partnership is critical to the cleanup of Superfund sites. We often work with states to conduct site assessments, and as a matter of policy, we request state support to place sites on the NPL. In some cases, states lead the remedial action work with our oversight. As a statutory requirement, states contribute a “cost share” equal to 10 percent of the fund-financed costs of the remedial action, and are responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the site remedy. When we list sites on the NPL, federally recognized tribes are afforded the same treatment as states at sites for which they have jurisdiction.

Superfund cleanups protect communities’ health, environment and economic wellbeing. The study Superfund Cleanups and Infant Health, shows that investment in Superfund cleanups reduces the incidence of congenital abnormalities in infants by as much as 25 percent for those living within 2,100 yards of a site. Another study found that once a site has all cleanup remedies in place, nearby property values reflect a significant increase as compared to their values prior to the site being proposed for the NPL.

Superfund not only protects health and the environment, it can serve as a catalyst for beneficial reuse.  Today hundreds of communities are reusing Superfund sites for ecological, recreational, industrial, military, commercial, residential, and other productive uses. At the end of FY 2014, based upon data from 450 of the of the 850 sites that have some type of reuse, ongoing operations of more than 3,400 businesses are generating sales of more than $30 billion and employing over 89,000 people representing a combined income of $6 billion.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Brownfields Revolving Loan Funds – Transforming Communities across America

By Mathy Stanislaus

Here at EPA, we’re proud of our brownfields program, which addresses contaminated sites with a community-driven and innovative approach. We provide grants and other technical assistance to communities to plan for, assess and clean up brownfield sites. There is no better example of the flexibility a brownfield grant affords a community than the Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) program, which provides capital to make low- or no-interest loans and sub-grants to finance brownfields cleanup.

When these loans are repaid, the loan amount is then returned to the fund and re-loaned to other borrowers, providing an ongoing sustainable source of capital within a community for additional brownfields cleanups. The RLF program is important in brownfields cleanup and redevelopment and a central component of the brownfields program. Since the Brownfields Law was passed, we have awarded 330 RLF grants totaling more than $319 million. RLF grants account for over one-third of the total sites cleaned up under the brownfields program and are responsible for leveraging over 24,000 jobs and over $5 billion in other cleanup and redevelopment funding.

A great feature of the RLF is our ability to recognize and reward successful grantees by re-capitalizing their grants through supplemental funding as loan funds are depleted. We recently announced the re-capitalization of 31 of our highest performing RLF grantees with $13.2 million in new funds, allowing them to continue to issue loans and sub-grants to cleanup brownfields sites.

Many of these sites start as a high priority or target area for redevelopment. After going through the assessment and planning process, sites must secure cleanup funding. When used effectively, the RLF can clean up sites that would otherwise not be revitalized. Since traditional lenders can be reluctant to finance the cleanup component of a redevelopment project, the RLF can provide the critical gap financing needed to jump-start the redevelopment process. After that, the site is positioned to attract additional leveraged funding for redevelopment.

RLFs are key tool for states and regional planning commissions to target small and rural communities who don’t have the capacity to manage a brownfields grant or have the needed cleanup funding. In this way, the RLFs expand our reach into rural communities that may otherwise not receive our funding. In fact, in this recent round, 30 percent of the planned projects are in rural communities with populations under 20,000.

RLFs can also be great for urban areas, as demonstrated by the program established in Kansas City, MO. Kansas City has a rich history of revitalizing their brownfield sites – they’ve received funding from us, HUD, and the Missouri Housing Development Corporation. In this instance, the Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council (INC), a nonprofit community development organization, led the effort to clean up the former Horace Mann School, a site in a historically disadvantaged neighborhood with prominent blight and health risks of asbestos, lead paint and mold. Through the use of $671,862 of brownfield assessment and RLF funds, Kansas City was able to assess and cleanup the site.

The site is now being redeveloped into various affordable housing options and a community building with a fitness center, library, pharmacy and community garden.  The complete redevelopment project, named Ivanhoe Gateway at 39th Street, will cost approximately $100 million dollars. The use of the RLF funds have enabled the nearly $5 million first phase of the redevelopment project to go forward.

It’s rewarding to see how communities are leveraging the RLF funds to transform their downtowns and bring positive change to their inhabitants. We look forward to seeing what our next round of RLF recipients will accomplish.

For more information


Former Horace Mann School, 2008 E. 39th St.

Former Horace Mann School, 2008 E. 39th St.

Ivanhoe Gateway at 39th Street Vision

Ivanhoe Gateway at 39th Street Vision

Phase I Construction – June 2015

Phase I Construction – June 2015

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Making Hazardous Waste Regulations Work for Today’s Marketplace

The pace of technology and change in the modern world can be dizzying. As new medicines and treatments are developed, new types of waste emerge. However, our hazardous waste generator regulations were written in the 1980s and haven’t changed much over the years.
Well, today we’re taking steps toward changing that. I’m excited to announce that we are proposing two rules to provide businesses with the certainty and flexibility they need to successfully operate in today’s marketplace.

Over the last 35 years, we’ve heard from states and the regulated community that our hazardous waste generator regulations, which were designed for manufacturing, don’t fit all sectors and especially not the healthcare sector. We’ve listened and these two proposals make a number of updates and improvements to the existing regulations. We have proposed over 60 changes to the regulations to improve the effectiveness of and compliance with the hazardous waste generator program. This includes rearranging some of the generator regulations that had outgrown their original numbering system so it will be easier for facilities of all sizes that generate hazardous waste to find everything they need to know in one place.

The second rule will make it easier for healthcare providers to comply with hazardous waste rules while protecting the nation’s water. We’re proposing to remove the traditional manufacturing-based hazardous waste generator requirements and instead provide a new set of regulations designed to be workable in a healthcare setting while ensuring safe management and disposal of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals. The primary focus for nurses, doctors and pharmacists is providing healthcare – they are not experts in hazardous waste identification and management. This rule seeks to reduce the burden and increase compliance by proposing a more flexible, common sense approach for healthcare providers and the elimination of unnecessary management practices.

Pharmaceuticals entering the environment, through flushing or other means, are having a negative effect on aquatic ecosystems and on fish and animal populations. Our proposal is keeping pace with today’s environmental issues by banning the sewering, or flushing down the toilet or sink, of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals from healthcare facilities. It is projected to prevent the flushing of more than 6,400 tons of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals annually making our drinking water safer.

In order to keep our world safe and healthy, regulations should not only effectively manage sources of environmental harm, but also be flexible and clear enough for newcomers to understand. The updates and tailoring of the hazardous waste generator regulations by these two proposed rules increases compliance, which then increases environmental benefit. The new rules respond to the needs of both the environment and businesses, benefitting both sides.

Our proposals will be available for public comment online in the coming weeks once they are published in the Federal Register. We’d love to hear your thoughts. To review these proposed rules now, visit:

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Strengthening Local Economies and the Environment Go Hand in Hand

Last week in Chicago, I participated in a series of events as part of the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP). The IMCP works with counties and private and non-profit organizations to advance manufacturing in the U.S. by aligning a range of federal government programs with community goals. EPA has been a strong partner with the Department of Commerce and the White House, encouraging the integration of sustainability, smart growth, and industrial legacy site reuse as part of community manufacturing investment strategies.  The Chicago metro area was one of the first IMCP communities, and they’ve focused on expanding the metal fabricating sector.

The Chicago Metro region epitomizes what the IMCP can do through a coordinated redevelopment approach.   During my visit, I went to Sterling Lumber, which straddles Harvey and Phoenix, two small, economically challenged older inner ring suburbs.  To accommodate his rapidly growing and diversifying wood products business, CEO Carter Sterling relocated and consolidated his business on a brownfields site.  The site already had a large existing manufacturing building space that could be adapted for Sterling and transportation access.  Starting with an EPA assessment grant to the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (long active in Cook County brownfields efforts) to characterize and quantify the cleanup costs, Mr. Sterling  built partnerships and leveraged considerable support from state agencies and Cook County.  Improvements included upgrading road access and adding a rail spur to the site. He also partnered with OAI (a local workforce training organization and recipient of our Environmental Workforce and Job Training grants) and the Calumet Green Manufacturing Partnership, to hire about a third of Sterling’s new workforce – about 20 individuals – from the community.

Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus and Mike O’Connell, CEO of Sterling Lumber Company

Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus and Mike O’Connell, CEO of Sterling Lumber Company

Next, we visited LB Steel, a leading steel manufacturer that employs around 300 workers.  I toured its 450,000 square foot facility and observed numerous metals products being manufactured for customers around the world. LB Steel is a great illustration of the existing strength in metals manufacturing that is the foundation for expanding metals manufacturing in the Chicago Metro area.

Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus and David Abshire, Vice President of LB Steel tour the LB steel products factory.

Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus and David Abshire, Vice President of LB Steel tour the LB steel products factory.

Before leaving, I addressed the semi-annual meeting of the Chicago Regional Growth Initiative, a bi-partisan collaboration of the elected leadership of all of the counties of the Chicago Metro area (Cook, Will, DuPage, Kendall, McHenry, Lake, and Kane Counties), established to support the IMCP designation under the leadership of Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle.

I noted that I represented the U.S at the G7 earlier this year to advance a circular economy strategy to maximize the recovery of used materials through life cycle-based sustainable materials management. The U.S. has seen a 57 percent increase in new materials acquired (e.g., mining, lumbering); 42 percent of greenhouse gases stem from materials management in the U.S. economy.  Similar statistics were shared by other G7 countries. This led to the adoption of a sustainable materials management/resources efficiency platform built on production and environmental considerations. The G7 declaration noted that global raw material use rose during the 20th century at about twice the rate of population growth. Furthermore, much of the raw material input in industrial economies is returned to the environment as waste within one year.

I recognized that the collaboration of these counties around a common manufacturing agenda is the vision of the IMCP.  I shared the role of EPA in advancing manufacturing, and why EPA is so involved in attracting new manufacturing activity, and attracting new foreign direct investment aimed at industrial production.  What better place to encourage new manufacturing investment than at old brownfields and other previously used sites?  Their location near community centers, transportation and established universities and R&D centers as well as their past industrial uses make many of these sites uniquely situated to attract new manufacturing activities.  I concluded my comments by noting that the Chicago IMPC model is a strong example of how manufacturing can advance economic, environmental and social outcomes.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Planes, Trains And Automobiles — And Safely Storing The Fuel That Moves Them  

This blog is not about a remake of the 1987 movie, Planes, Trains and Automobiles.  But, it’s about safely storing the vitally important fuel that moves planes, trains, and automobiles – as well as trucks, boats, and other vehicles.

Underground tanks are in every community: at gas stations and other non-retail facilities, such as school district bus fuel stations, police and fire stations, marinas, taxi fleet facilities, postal and delivery service facilities, and federal facilities such as military bases.

Did you know that even a small amount of petroleum released from underground storage tanks can contaminate land as well as groundwater?  And, groundwater is a source of drinking water for approximately 50 percent of United States’ citizens.

Because underground storage tanks are in every community, it’s important to ensure tanks don’t leak.  That’s why on Monday we issued revised regulations that will better prevent and detect underground storage tank releases. These revised underground storage tank regulations will ensure all tanks in the United States meet the same release protection standards.

The revised underground storage tank regulations improve EPA’s original 1988 tank regulation by closing some regulatory gaps, accommodating new technologies, and focusing on properly operating and maintaining existing underground storage tank systems. Many state tank programs already have some of these revised requirements in place.

For more about how we’re protecting our environment from underground storage tank leaks and the revised tank regulations, see our underground storage tank website

About the author:  Mathy Stanislaus is the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

New Guidance for Vapor Intrusion Investigations and Response Actions

The quality of outdoor air frequently comes to mind as an important public health concern and rightly so. What sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, though, is the role indoor air quality plays in public health. With the average American spending nearly 90 percent of his or her time indoors, the quality of air in our homes, schools, offices and other buildings is also critical to people’s health.

Vapor intrusion is a type of indoor air pollution that occurs when hazardous vapors from underground contaminated sources, like ground water, seep into buildings through openings such as cracks in basements. The vapors can build up to the point where the health or safety of residents or workers in an affected building could be at risk. Sensitive and vulnerable segments of the population, like pregnant women and the elderly, can be especially susceptible to indoor vapors. Vapor intrusion is a potential concern at any building—existing or planned—located near soil or groundwater that contains toxic chemicals that form vapors.   Early identification and remediation is critical to protect communities.

To support vapor intrusion investigations and cleanup activities across the country, we recently released two technical guides. One guide, the Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air applies to all sites being evaluated under federal land cleanup statutes by EPA, other federal agencies, state and tribal governments and brownfields grantees. A companion document, the Technical Guide for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites addresses any site where vapor intrusion related to petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks is a potential concern. Relying on a large body of peer-reviewed science, the guides allow for flexible and effective approaches for a variety of situations. We believe that states, tribes and localities will find them helpful for vapor intrusion assessments, risk management decisions and mitigation actions.

National awareness and concern about vapor intrusion has grown over the last several decades.  At the same time, our knowledge of and experience with vapor intrusion has increased substantially, leading to better approaches for evaluating and managing it. The guides harness this knowledge and present our current recommendations for identifying, evaluating and mitigating vapor intrusion in both residential and non-residential settings.

While vapor intrusion can pose a serious threat to people’s health in certain circumstances if it goes unaddressed, the good news is that exposures usually can be prevented or reduced through relatively simple actions such as changing building pressure and ventilation. In most cases, costs associated with addressing vapor intrusion can be very manageable, resulting in long-term benefits including improved public health and savings down the road, especially when issues are addressed early.

For more information, visit:

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Chemical Facility Safety and Security: A Shared Commitment

Chemical-Facility imageThe small town of West, Texas will never be the same after April 17, 2013, when the community was deeply shaken by a powerful explosion at the West Fertilizer Company storage and distribution facility that killed fifteen people and injured more than 160.  Investigators found that the explosion was caused by improperly stored Ammonium Nitrate.

In response, President Obama issued Executive Order 13650 Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security in August of 2013. The order asks the Tri-Chairs of the Chemical Facility Safety and Security Working Group (the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, and the Environmental Protection Agency), to work closely together to improve the of safety and security of chemical facilities across the country. The chairs have worked diligently over the past two years on the following areas:

  • Strengthening community planning and preparedness;
  • Enhancing federal operation coordination;
  • Improving data management;
  • Modernizing policies and regulations; and
  • Incorporating stakeholder feedback and developing best practices.

The working group knows that stakeholders are essential to managing and mitigating the risks of potential chemical facility hazards and has engaged in a robust stakeholder outreach effort to identify successes and best practices.  This outreach included engagement across all levels of government, with owners and operators, industry associations, labor organizations, and communities affected by chemical plant disasters.

One year ago, the working group released a status report to the president, entitled Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment, which summarized the Working Group’s actions, findings and lessons learned, challenges, and short and long-term priority actions to that point. Last year’s status report was a milestone, not an end-point.

Today we are releasing another update to highlight actions that have been taken since the release of the Final Status Report last year. These highlights include:

  • Developing an on-line training module on the key requirements under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA);
  • Initiating a multi-organization working group to identify a list of government approved training courses for first responders and emergency planners, Training Repository;
  • Institutionalizing a Federal Working Group to improve communication and coordination between agencies;
  • Establishing Regional Working Groups in all ten Federal Regions;
  • Incorporating chemical facility safety and security data into the EPA’s facility registry service (FRS);
  • Reissuing the Chemical Advisory: Safe Storage, Handling, and management of Ammonium Nitrate to incorporate stakeholder comments and concerns and the latest practices in ammonium nitrate safety;
  • Hosted a public webinar to share updates on EO activities taken in November 2014 with the next webinar planned for June 19, 2015; and
  • Launching actions to modernize OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard and EPA’s Risk Management Program.

Safety and security are a shared commitment. We are committed to preventing more incidents like those in West, Texas, and ensuring that every worker comes home to their family safe and healthy at the end of every shift.

About the authors:
Mathy Stanislaus is the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA.
Caitlin Durkovich is the Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Infrastructure Protection.
David Michaels is Assistant Secretary at the Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Chemical Facility Safety is a Shared Commitment

Recently I attended meetings in Austin, TX organized by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). CCPS is part of the not-for-profit American Institute of Chemical Engineers that was formed 30 years ago in the wake of the Bhopal, India chemical release tragedy, to eliminate chemical facility major process safety incidents.

During the first session, I was asked about collaborative opportunities between EPA and CCPS to advance CCPS’s Vision 20/20. Vision 20/20 looks into the not-too-distant future to describe how the right process safety can be delivered when it is collectively and strongly supported by industry, regulators, academia, and the community worldwide. I identified a number of areas where EPA can collaborate with stakeholders to reduce chemical facility releases and deliver Vision 20/20. For example, Vision 20/20 calls for a range of stakeholders to work together “to effectively remove barriers to reporting of incidents, develop reporting databases, and promote mutual understanding of risks and effective process safety systems.” EPA strongly supports this concept and made it a core recommendation in the report for the president, Actions to Improve Chemical Facility Safety and Security – A Shared Commitment. This federal interagency working group report resulted from President Obama’s Executive Order 13650,Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security.

There is a tremendous nexus between Vision 20/20 and the report for the president. The federal working group identified the shared commitment for safety between companies, local preparedness officials, responders, federal government and state government that requires engaging through mutual sharing of information and mutual understanding of risks. This relates to another important element of Vision 20/20: Enhanced Stakeholder Knowledge, which “allows the public to effectively challenge industry to prevent process safety incidents.” I believe that EPA can be a tremendous partner to CCPS to advance this goal and simultaneously advance the commitments articulated in the report for the president.

Other areas that I highlighted from CCPS’ Vision 2020 included the need for strenuous verification by independent parties of engineered systems and process safety management to help companies evaluate their process safety programs as a supplement to internal audits. A committed culture includes executive, managers, supervisors and all employees, as well as vibrant management systems that emphasize vulnerability of accidents and enable a consistent adherence to process safety.    As documented in the report for the president, accidents continue to occur that cause death and property damage.  These incidents are infrequent but the consequences are severe to local communities. Vision 20/20’s emphasis on a vibrant management system engrained throughout an organization based on incident vulnerability is welcome and would advance chemical plant safety. One strategy identified in Vision 20/20 is enhanced application and sharing of lessons learned: “to reduce incidents, everyone needs to continually learn”.  I agree that we learn from accidents, near misses, industry benchmarking and success stories.

The collaboration with CCPS to advance the operationalization of Vision 20/20 is precisely the type of actions envisioned by the commitment in the report for the president. The dialogue needs to continue. As duly noted in the title of the report, chemical facility safety and security is a shared commitment. Through the combined efforts of all stakeholders, we can make a positive difference in, near, and around chemical facilities.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.

Making Significant Progress in Land Cleanup, Prevention and Emergency Management

Recently, we’ve had two exciting accomplishments – we’ve released our annual Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 2014 Accomplishments Report and launched a new Twitter account, @EPAland.

First, the report. With 51 percent of America’s population living within three miles of a Superfund, brownfield, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action site, our cleanup activities are an important part of people’s lives. Our annual interactive accomplishments report helps those affected by our programs understand how we clean up contaminated sites, ensure communities are prepared in the event of an oil spill or chemical accident, and responsibly manage and control hazardous and non-hazardous materials.  In fiscal year 2014, we:

  • Conducted 466 inspections at industrial facilities across the country handling extremely hazardous chemicals.
  • Made 11,161 Superfund, RCRA corrective action, brownfields and leaking underground storage sites ready for anticipated use by communities.
  • Completed or oversaw 304 Superfund removal actions to contain and remove contaminants and eliminate dangers to the public.
  • Increased the number of sites where human exposure to harmful chemicals is under control to 82 percent of Superfund sites and 87 percent of RCRA corrective action sites.
    Leveraged more than $418 million in community investments with brownfields area-wide planning grants.
  • Worked with federal agencies and Navajo Nation to assess 520 miles, 800 homes and 240 drinking water wells potentially contaminated by abandoned uranium mines.
Mathy Stanislaus speaks with a chemical facility representative.

Mathy Stanislaus speaks with a chemical facility representative.

The report also provides an update on the sustainable materials management (SMM) program’s efforts to reduce the amount of materials people and businesses consume and integrate SMM into business practices to conserve natural resources and stay competitive globally. In fiscal year 2014, we worked with our partners to:

  • Divert 375,000 tons of food from landfills.
  • Collect more than 220,000 tons of used electronics.
  • Save $42 million for U.S. taxpayers by reducing the federal government’s waste, water, and electricity usage.

Addressing the complex environmental challenges facing us today is a shared responsibility.  The activities highlighted in the report would not be possible without partnerships with state and tribal co-regulators, local governments, and the regulated community. I want to thank all of our stakeholders and partners for their commitment to our mission.

Finally, we’ve launched the @EPAland Twitter account to help you stay up to date on local site cleanups, learn about renewable energy technologies on contaminated sites, understand how we respond to hazardous material emergencies and more. We encourage you to stay engaged in our programs and your feedback is important to us. Join the conversation today, I’ll see you there.

Editor's Note: The views expressed here are intended to explain EPA policy. They do not change anyone's rights or obligations.

Please share this post. However, please don't change the title or the content. If you do make changes, don't attribute the edited title or content to EPA or the author.