Superfund is Making a Visible Difference

By Mathy Stanislaus

Thirty-five years ago, the Superfund program was created to clean up sites where hazardous releases have occurred or might occur.  At some of these sites, there are potential long-term human health effects from contamination, such as cancers, birth defects, or respiratory issues. Contaminated sites can also cause long-term harm to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources if not addressed and managed.  At other sites, the risk might be more immediate in the form of fires and explosions.  By implementing the Superfund statute with the help of residents, and collaboration with state, tribal and local officials, we can restore these sites that threaten the health and environment of communities across the country.  That is why we recently added five sites, and proposed adding an additional eight to the National Priorities List (NPL).

During the last seven years leading our Office of Land and Emergency Management, I have seen first-hand the benefit of the Superfund program and how it invests in and transforms environmentally blighted sites into community assets.  The Superfund program is an excellent example of collaboration and public partnership.  For example, in downtown Corinna, Maine at the Eastland Woolen Mill site, a former 22-acre textile mill left extensive soil, groundwater and drinking water contamination, making the area a challenge for the community to develop.  The Town of Corinna took action and obtained a grant from us to develop a plan for the area.  Working with the town officials and community the Corinna Village Center reuse plan was completed.  When the work was finished, what once stood as a contaminated industrial site was a revived landscape complete with features including a restored downtown, recreational trail, river walk, and a community bandstand for events.

This success story isn’t limited to Corinna, or the state of Maine; it’s one that I’ve observed in hundreds of cities and towns across the country.  In addition to aesthetic and health benefits, research has shown that the cleanup of these sites can result in increased property values of between 18.6 – 24.5 percent for the surrounding areas as compared to their pre-NPL proposal values.  This creates economic vitality for areas that were previously challenged with the threat of contamination. We also found that last year 454 of our national clean-up sites in reuse supported 3,900 businesses, which employed more than 108,000 workers and generated annual sales of $29 billion. These workers also earned a combined income of $7.8 billion.  It’s all of these benefits that make lasting visible differences in our communities and demonstrate the impact of the Superfund program.  We will continue to work with communities across the country to address contaminated sites which will provide benefits to those areas for generations to come.  If you would like more information about the Superfund program, please visit https://www.epa.gov/superfund.

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.

Permission to Build? Why Well-Maintained Hazardous Waste Permits are Good for the Environment, Good for our Communities, and Good for Business

By Mathy Stanislaus

We all know this principle: that which is built, also must be maintained. This applies to the houses and buildings we live in, the bridges and roads we travel, and the infrastructure that provides us reliable electricity and clean water. And it also applies to the facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste – including the operating conditions and requirements at manufacturing facilities that also manage hazardous waste (treatment, storage, or disposal facilities). These requirements are maintained in their hazardous waste permits.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), facilities that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste must obtain a hazardous waste permit in order to ensure safe management of those wastes (i.e., ensuring tanks have secondary containment and will not leak). RCRA regulations for general permitting standards have been in place for over 30 years, and the majority of hazardous waste facilities have been properly permitted by their state or EPA regulating authority. However, as our new Permit Modification Report describes, the initial permit tells only the beginning of the story of a RCRA permit.

Now that most of these facilities already have their initial permits, the bulk of RCRA hazardous waste permitting activity has shifted to tasks that maintain and modify these permits. Permit modifications enable improved operational efficiency, economic development, and environmental protection at hazardous waste facilities. Throughout the modification process, effective and meaningful public participation keeps the local community abreast of ongoing changes at the facility. Public participation also helps inform facility managers, as well as the regulating agency, of public concerns.

Permittees request changes to their permits to keep pace with evolving business practices, technology, cleanup decisions, and regulations. Timely permit modifications ensure that these changes maintain protection of human health and the environment. These modifications can help with the cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater, increase recycling, reuse and sustainable materials management, reduce corresponding waste streams, minimize fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions and have economic benefits for the facility. At the same time, companies can keep pace with changes in the market place and bolster their competitiveness.

The 1,429 facilities permitted under RCRA and identified in the Permit Modification Report employ approximately 100,000 people and generate close to $400 billion in annual revenue. On average, states approve approximately 800 RCRA permit modifications annually. Details on that estimate are in our Permit Modification Report.

There is a wide variability on how many permit modifications a single facility will require, but, if evenly distributed, these facilities need changes to the permit on average about every 18 months, with the more active facilities requesting multiple changes in a single year. This important segment of the economy stands to benefit from responsive permitting programs that can address changes (modifications and renewals) in a timely manner while ensuring those changes are protective of the environment. In order for the permitting programs to remain responsive to modification requests, the state programs need adequate and available resources and staffing.

The public participation aspect of the permit modification process allows communities to be informed and involved, and it ensures that the regulating agency can consider and address local concerns—especially environmental justice concerns. We recommend expanded public participation efforts, such as the use of social media that goes beyond regulatory requirements. For example, greater public outreach may be needed for changes to permits that involve potential off-site impacts to the community, such as air emissions or cleanup of releases that may have migrated off-site. Greater outreach may be warranted when the facility is located in disadvantaged neighborhoods or when the facility is clustered near other industrial facilities and may add to cumulative impacts to adjacent communities. One report from 2007 found that neighborhoods surrounding hazardous waste facilities are 56% people of color compared to 30% people of color in neighborhoods without hazardous waste facilities. Additionally, the report found that poverty rates in neighborhoods with hazardous waste facilities are 1.5 times greater than neighborhoods without hazardous waste facilities.

We have information currently available on our website regarding expanded public participation, and we are updating our RCRA Public Participation Manual to provide further guidance. We will post the draft updated public participation manual for public review, and we will provide notice through our mailing lists. I encourage you—regulators, facilities, and citizens alike—to learn more about the Permit Modification Report and the hazardous waste permitting process. After all, well-maintained hazardous waste permits serve everyone’s need for economic and environmental well-being in the areas we call home.

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.

Expanding EPA’s Partnership with State Health and Environmental Experts

By Gina McCarthy

EPA is, at its core, a public health agency. The simple fact is, you can’t have healthy people or a strong economy without clean air, clean water, healthy land, and a stable climate.  And we’ve come a long way over the last 45 years to help protect those resources for the American people.

But we haven’t done it alone. EPA shares the responsibility of protecting public health and the environment with state environmental and health officials. We depend on these partnerships every day to achieve our missions.

That’s why I am really proud to announce that EPA, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) have signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to work even more closely together to share information and advance public health protection in the United States.

I got my start as a local health official in my hometown of Canton, Massachusetts and then worked for the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut before joining EPA. Whether I was investigating asthma triggers or helping a community deal with contamination from a local chemical facility, I quickly learned that public health and environmental health are one and the same. I also learned that effective protection happens when people at every level of government work together.

That’s why this partnership is a big deal. By working together—not just with state environmental commissioners at ECOS, but with health officials at ASTHO—we can do more to prevent environmental exposure and keep people healthy.

Since EPA was established, we have made tremendous progress together in protecting Americans’ health from pollution. Fifty years ago, our smokestacks, cars, and trucks pumped out black soot unabated. Rivers burned, litter was widespread, we pumped toxic leaded gas into our cars, and we even smoked cigarettes on airplanes. One newspaper headline described the smog in Los Angeles as “a dirty gray blanket flung across the city.”

Forty-five years later, by working with our state partners, we’ve cut air pollution by 70 percent, we’ve cleaned up beaches and waterways from industrial pollution, and we’ve helped pregnant women and mothers have healthier and safer children—all while our national GDP has tripled.

But not everyone has shared fully in these benefits. Too many communities have been left behind—especially low-income and minority communities—which face disproportionate levels of pollution, and suffer disproportionate health impacts.

Recent events in Flint, Michigan and in struggling communities across the country show that environment and health officials at all levels of government need to find ways to be more responsive, innovative, and inclusive. Today’s MOA is an important step toward expanding our engagement and sharing information to protect all Americans from environmental health threats.
Moving forward, we’ll look at how states and EPA are tapping into each other’s expertise, whether we have the technologies, tools, and investments necessary to protect people—and how to best focus on underserved communities that are too often left behind, so we can meet the challenges of the future.

That’s why I’m so proud of today’s MOA. Because by working with our nation’s health and environmental experts, we can help keep our kids healthy and our economy strong.

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.

Environmental Governance: A Key Stepping Stone on the Path to Peace and Stability

By Ethan Shenkman

Public participation. Information disclosure. Implementable and enforceable laws. Strong accountability mechanisms. In the United States, we sometimes take principles like these for granted. For those who practice environmental law here, we feel intuitively that they are necessary features of any effective legal system.  But in many countries around the world — grappling with fundamental issues of democracy and rule of law — these basic principles of “environmental governance” take on an even greater meaning and significance.

The legal community, both in the U.S. and abroad, increasingly recognizes a direct connection between environmental governance and the promotion of rule of law more generally.  And we see, based on firsthand experience, how sound environmental governance is essential to ensuring public health — and a healthy economy.

"Good environmental governance is critical not only to achieving a healthy environment, but to achieving a healthy economy." Ethan Shenkman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to join diplomats from the State Department in Vienna, Austria for the Economic and Environmental Forum of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  The OSCE includes more than 50 countries from North America to Europe to Central Asia. It has a comprehensive focus on security and its activities range from conflict resolution to energy security. The OSCE hosts several Economic and Environmental and Forum events each year because it recognizes the importance of effective environmental institutions, laws, and enforcement in promoting economic growth and ensuring peace and stability in the region. As the U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE, Daniel Baer, emphasized in his plenary statement, environmental governance is an area that “touches all of our lives.”

While discussing environmental governance with officials from throughout the OSCE region, including the newly independent states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, I was impressed by the uniformly positive response and desire to engage on these issues. The forum recognized promoting strong environmental governance and sustainable development as central elements of OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security and stability. Other countries highlighted a number innovative pilot projects, ranging from the use of microfinance to green the economy, to harnessing the ideas generated by civic participation in promoting resource efficiency.

We look forward to following up on numerous opportunities to transform principles of environmental governance into progress on the ground.  Exciting possibilities ahead range from an important international initiative to help countries establish and implement laws to reduce the use of lead paint, particularly in homes where vulnerable children are exposed; to compiling legal framework models to reduce air pollution; to providing implementation assistance for countries seeking to modernize and improve their environmental laws.

EPA has useful wisdom to share on advancing environmental governance given our decades of experience in developing and implementing environmental regulations while the U.S. economy has expanded steadily over time. Supporting international cooperation to address environmental problems is essential to EPA’s mission of protecting human health and the environment. Pollution and other failures to protect valuable natural resources have concrete and direct impacts on people’s lives, and those problems do not respect borders. Because effective governance systems are fundamental to the success of environmental protections, helping build strong environmental institutions and legal structures is a top priority.

About the author: Ethan Shenkman is EPA’s Deputy General Counsel.

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.

Good News for our Health at Home: Safety Sells

By Gina McCarthy

Last spring, EPA unveiled a new label to help consumers make informed choices about the products they use at home.

Today, hundreds of products with the Safer Choice label are on store shelves at major retailers in all 50 states. We’re starting with household cleaners and laundry detergents, and will soon expand the label to a wider range of other cleaners, car and yard-care products, and do-it-yourself items like coatings and adhesives.

The name says it all: the Safer Choice label can help you find cleaning products that are made with ingredients that are safer for you, your kids, your pets and the environment. EPA scientists use a strict set of health and safety standards when reviewing products to allow them into them Safer Choice program. So consumers can trust that any product with the Safer Choice label is backed by EPA science.

So far, feedback has been spectacular. Last summer, Consumer Reports released survey data showing that nearly half of American consumers would be willing to pay more for safer products.

But the great news is… they don’t have to.

A price comparison study found that Safer Choice products are cost-competitive – most often costing about the same as cleaners without the label, and sometimes – costing even less.

And in marketing studies, some manufacturers have found that the label isn’t just informative, it’s attractive to consumers – leading many companies to move the label front and center on their product packaging.

The point is – consumers want to make informed choices about the products they’re bringing into their homes, and around their kids and pets. And companies know that developing and selling safer products is good for business. When they demonstrate a commitment to the health of their customers and the planet, consumers respond.

Already, more than 500 manufacturers make products with the Safer Choice label – and new companies are seeking to join the program in force.

Here’s some more good news. Not only does the Safer Choice program put the power of choice into the hands of consumers, it actually incentivizes manufacturers to change the ingredients in their products – so they can meet the strict safety criteria the Safer Choice label demands.

That means more products made with ingredients that are safer on store shelves, and less harmful chemicals in households across America.

So keep your eye out for the Safer Choice label when you’re out shopping.

You can visit EPA’s interactive map to find Safer Choice products that can be used in your own community — at schools, stadiums, homes, and businesses near you.

And in case you missed it, my dog Emma joined me in debuting the new Safer Choice label last year. Check out the video below.
 

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.

The Deepening Story of How Climate Change Threatens Human Health

This is a joint blog from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, EPA, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Climate change poses risks to human health through many pathways, some more obvious than others. Rising greenhouse-gas concentrations, driven by human activities, result in increases in temperature, changes in precipitation, increases in the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. These climate-change impacts endanger our health by affecting our food and water sources, the air we breathe, the weather we experience, and our interactions with the built and natural environments. As the climate continues to change, the climate-related risks to human health will continue to grow.

Today, building on the Third National Climate Assessment issued in May 2014, the Administration released a new report summarizing the growing understanding of how climate change is directly and indirectly affecting human health.  The report, The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, finds that “every American is vulnerable to the health impacts associated with climate change.” Drawing from decades of advances in the science of climate change and its influences on ecosystems and human society, the report strengthens our understanding of the significant threat that climate change poses to the health of all Americans and highlights factors that make some individuals and communities particularly vulnerable.

Among the new assessment’s specific findings is the projection that, under mid-range growth of global greenhouse-gas emissions, the combination of resulting summer temperatures in the United States and the known physiology of human sensitivity to heat would result in an increase of thousands to tens of thousands of premature heat-related deaths per year by the end of the century. Extreme heat poses a particular risk for children, the elderly, disadvantaged and socially isolated groups, and even people taking some prescription drugs that may impair the body’s ability to regulate temperature. The increase in heat-related deaths in most regions is expected to outweigh any reduction in cold-related deaths from warmer winters.

Changes in the climate also affect air quality. Human-induced climate change has already made conditions more favorable for ground-level ozone pollution – the key component of smog – in some regions of the United States. Higher temperatures increase the rate at which ozone forms, and associated changes in meteorological conditions can lead to stagnation events where large pockets of still air allow pollution levels to accumulate over a region. These effects are especially concerning when combined over urban areas. Unless offset by additional emission reductions of ozone-forming pollutants, these climate-driven increases in ozone will cause increases in premature deaths, hospital visits, lost school days, and acute respiratory symptoms.

Rising temperatures and hotter, drier summers are projected to increase the frequency and severity of large wildfires, especially in the western United States. Wildfires emit fine particles and ozone-forming pollutants that in turn increase the risk of premature death and adverse chronic and acute cardiovascular and respiratory health symptoms. Firefighters, in particular, are exposed to significantly higher levels of combustion products from fires.

A changing climate is also affecting the seasonality and geographic ranges of vector-borne diseases – such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus, which are transmitted, respectively, by  ticks and mosquitoes. Between 2001 and 2014, both the distribution and number of reported cases of Lyme disease increased in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. The assessment found that vector-borne pathogens of a number of kinds are likely to emerge or re-emerge due to the interactions of climatic factors with many non-climatic drivers, such as changing land-use patterns and human population density.

The assessment also highlights the disproportionate impacts of certain other climate-change-related health issues on certain communities. Indigenous people, for example, face decreasing access to traditional wild and cultivated foods, which have both health and cultural implications for these communities. And warming can exacerbate shellfish disease and make mercury more readily absorbed into fish tissue, posing a particular hazard to indigenous communities that consume above-average quantities of fish and shellfish.

The assessment highlights how climate change can exacerbate existing health risks, but also create health threats in new locations or new times. Some threats will occur over longer time periods, or at unprecedented times of the year. For example, increases in water temperature will alter the geographic range and seasonal window of growth for harmful bacteria and algae, exposing more people in more places. Changes in temperatures, precipitation, and extreme events such as flooding are also expected to increase risk of foodborne illnesses from pathogens like Salmonella and E Coli.

Impacts on people’s physical health can also affect their mental health. In addition, many people exposed to extreme weather events experience serious mental health consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. The mental health impacts of hurricanes, floods, and drought can be expected to increase as more people experience the stress—and often trauma—of these disasters.

Reducing the health risks from climate change is a top priority for President Obama and will be a key benefit of implementing his Climate Action Plan. The information about those risks contained within this new assessment should be a strong additional impetus for decision-makers across the Nation to support all three elements of the Plan—reducing domestic emissions of the carbon pollution that is driving global climate change, investing in measures to increase preparedness and resilience against the changes in climate that occur, and working with other nations around the world to encourage and help them to do the same.

John Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Gina McCarthy is the Administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy is the U.S. Surgeon General.

Kathryn Sullivan is Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 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.

Taking Action on HFCs to Protect our Climate at Home and Abroad

By Gina McCarthy

This week, EPA took another important step in a series of recent actions to help reduce our country’s use and emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – a potent greenhouse gas. I signed a proposed rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program that will expand the list of climate-friendly HFC alternatives and phase out certain HFCs in favor of safer options that are already available. 

HFCs are predominantly used in air-conditioning and refrigeration and can be up to 10,000 times more damaging to our climate than carbon pollution. Left unchecked, growing HFC emissions would undo critical progress we’ve made to act on climate and protect the planet. 

That’s why cutting their use and emissions is a key part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The new proposed rule not only supports the President’s goals, it also recognizes the key role of innovative companies in bringing new HFC alternatives to the marketplace. 

This is an example of the important work we’re doing at home. But we’re also making tremendous progress with our international partners to fully address HFCs.

Just yesterday, in a joint announcement, President Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping committed to working bilaterally and with other countries to achieve successful outcomes this year in related multilateral fora, including on an HFC amendment under the Montreal Protocol.

And I’m pleased to announce that I’m planning to lead the United States delegation at the Montreal Protocol’s Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties (ExMOP) this July in Vienna. I had the honor of leading the United States delegation to the Montreal Protocol’s 27th Meeting of the Parties in Dubai last November. At that time, the world took a significant step by agreeing to work together on a 2016 Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to reduce the production and consumption of harmful HFCs and achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions. 

Next week is the first preparatory session for the 2016 negotiations in Geneva. This will be the first opportunity since Dubai for countries to come together and make concrete progress on our 2016 phase down amendment. 

As we saw with the historic Paris Agreement, the world can unite in action when the health of our kids and shared home is at stake. The U.S. is ready to build on this spirit and follow through on our commitments to reduce HFCs at home and abroad.

We are making tremendous progress with our international partners. This July in Vienna, I look forward to making more progress on adopting an HFC amendment that will protect our climate for future generations.

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.

EPA Partners Leading the Way On Climate Action

By Janet McCabe

Climate change is one of the most critical challenges of our time. We are committed to partnering with industry, communities, and government at all levels to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, and to prepare for the changes that are already underway.

Some important collaborations are our voluntary climate partnership programs. For decades, we have been partnering with the private sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote the use of cleaner energy sources, and improve energy efficiency efforts. These voluntary programs have achieved significant environmental benefits: in total, more than 19,000 organizations and millions of Americans have participated in our climate partnerships and, together in 2013 they prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to the annual electricity use of more than 57 million homes.

Today, we launched a new voluntary program to reduce harmful methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and 41 companies have stepped up as founding partners. Our Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program builds on the success of our Natural Gas STAR Program and encourages partner companies to make company-wide commitments to cut emissions from sources within their operations by implementing a suite of best management practices.

We expect program participation to grow over time and are actively working to expand the options for participation by finalizing an additional Emissions Intensity Commitment option through the ONE Future Coalition. The ONE Future coalition is a group of companies from across the natural gas industry focused on increasing the efficiency of the natural gas supply chain.

To understand the potential of this program, let’s look at the successes of the Natural Gas STAR Program. When Gas STAR began in 1993, it promoted six best management practices that companies could take to reduce methane emissions; that list has increased to over 50 mitigation best practices. In 2015, a total of 103 oil and gas companies from across the natural gas value chain were U.S. Natural Gas STAR Partners. Since the Natural Gas STAR program started, our partners have collectively achieved over 1.2 trillion cubic feet of methane emission reductions, equivalent to the emissions savings associated with the use of over 1.4 million barrels of oil or reducing over 606 million metric tons of C02 equivalent emissions.

Our other voluntary programs are making similar strides. Since 1992, ENERGY STAR has helped consumers save $362 billion on their utility bills while significantly reducing their greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. Since the Green Power Partnership was introduced in 2001, more than 1,200 organizations have committed to using about 33 billion kilowatt-hours of clean, renewable green power each year. Through the Combined Heat and Power Partnership, more than 480 partners have installed nearly 6,800 megawatts of new combined heat and power since 2001. And in 2013 alone, our methane and fluorinated greenhouse gas program partners used our tools and resources to prevent emissions equal to the annual electricity use from more than 12 million homes in 2013.

Our country has been building momentum towards a cleaner energy economy for quite a while, and with the help of our voluntary programs, our partners have been helping to pave the way. To address the global challenge of climate change, we need to use all the tools in our toolbox, and voluntary programs are an important complement to regulatory action. Through the innovation and leadership of our partners, our voluntary climate partnership programs have proven to be an important lever for change.

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.

A New Chapter in the Fight against Radon Exposure

By Janet McCabe

Nearly five years ago, we launched an ambitious and far-reaching radon action plan with eight other federal agencies to help save lives and create heathier indoor environments in government-influenced buildings like housing, schools, and childcare facilities. Why? Each year an estimated 21,000 Americans die from radon-induced lung cancer, which is unacceptable. Radon exposure is preventable.

So far our shared efforts have reached an estimated 1.6 million homes, schools and childcare facilities and led to testing for and mitigation of high radon when necessary in nearly 200,000 of those units. And we’ve nearly completed all of our Federal Radon Action Plan (FRAP) commitments like the General Services Administration’s goal to test its 103 childcare facilities for radon and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s goal to establish radon testing and mitigation requirements for participants in its multifamily housing mortgage insurance programs. You can view the progress we made by visiting our FRAP Scorecard.

While we have made significant progress — in 2013 and 2014 we saw the highest rates of radon mitigation and radon resistant new construction ever recorded in the United States — there’s still more work to do. Elevated radon is still a serious challenge in an estimated 1 out of 15 homes across the United States. The good news is that we have help. Led by the American Lung Association, twelve organizations representing government, nonprofit and industry sectors have crafted and launched an expanded game plan known as the National Radon Action Plan (NRAP).

NRAP builds on, leverages, and accelerates the momentum we created at the federal level. The new and improved strategy aims to incorporate radon testing, radon mitigation and radon-resistant construction into the systems that govern the purchase, financing, and construction and renovation of homes and other buildings. It will have a huge impact on improving public health and in cutting health care costs. Our near-term goal is to reduce the radon risk in a total of five million homes and save 3,200 lives annually by 2020. Our ultimate goal is to eliminate avoidable radon-induced lung cancer in the United States.

As we close the chapter on the Federal Radon Action Plan, I’m excited to see what we will accomplish through our National Radon Action Plan.

I also encourage you to test your home for radon. Affordable do-it-yourself radon test kits are available online, at many home improvement and hardware stores, or you can hire a qualified radon professional. For more information on how to test your home, visit http://www.epa.gov/radon. Test. Fix. Save a Life.

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.

Location is important, especially when it comes to household products

By Jim Jones

Where do you keep your cleaning supplies? If you’re like most of us, you probably said under the sink. What about other household products like insect repellents and flea or tick products? Where you store your household products might seem like a small detail. However, storing cleaning and other products incorrectly could be putting your kids at risk for an accidental poisoning.

Here are some interesting statistics from the American Association of Poison Control Centers:

  • Poisoning is our country’s leading cause of injury-related death.
  • 91% of poisonings occur at home.
  • Exposure to household cleaning products is the second leading cause of pediatric poisonings.

The good news is that most poisonings are preventable. Storing cleaning and other household products out of children’s reach, is one of the easiest things you can do to protect your kids from accidental poisonings.

One of the most common cleaning products kids are exposed to is bleach. In 2014, the American Association of Poison Control Centers reported over 15,000 poisoning incidents involving only bleach for kids 12 and under. Making cleaning products inaccessible to kids by simply moving them to a higher shelf or installing safety latches on cabinets where cleaning products are stored could have prevented some of these incidents from occurring.

Here are a few more things you can do every day to prevent poisonings:

  • Read the label first. Follow the directions as they are written on the label before using a product.
  • Use child-resistant packaging correctly by tightly sealing the container after every use.
  • Never put cleaning or other household products in containers that could be mistaken for food or drinks.

When you think of environmental protection you probably don’t automatically associate it with poison prevention. However, an important part of our mission involves ensuring the safety of public health around the country. But we can’t do it alone – we need your help!

Check out more poison prevention tips at http://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/reduce-your-childs-chances-pesticide-poisoning.

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.