Environmental Protection Agency Study

A good example of a prescriptive approach to quality assessment is the protocol outlined in Figure 15.2, published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for laboratories involved in monitoring studies of water and wastewater. Independent samples A and B are collected simultaneously at the sample site. Sample A is split into two equal-volume samples, and labeled Ai and A2. Sample B is also split into two equal-volume samples, one of which, Bsf, is spiked with a known amount of analyte. A field blank. Dp, also is spiked with the same amount of analyte. All five samples (Ai, A2, B, Bsf, and Dp) are preserved if necessary and transported to the laboratory for analysis. 

F. Rubel, Jr. and F. S. Williams, Pilot Study of Fluoride and Arsenic Femoralfrom Potable Water, EPA-600/2-80-100, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1980. 

Report to the Congress, Waste Oil Study, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Apr. 1974. 

T. Pheiffei, "Case Study of the Eglin Ait Eoice Base Ground Water Bioremediation System," in Innovative Operational Treatment Technologiesfor Application to Supefund Sites Nine Case Studies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1990. 

M. Gans and B. J. Ozero, Hydrocarbon Process. 55(3), 73 (1976) B. DeMaghe, Hydrocarbon Process. 55(3), 78 (1976) D. E. Field and co-workers. Engineering and Cost Study ofAirPollution Controlfor the Petrochemical Industry, Vol. 6, EPA Report No. EPA-450/3-73-006-1, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June, 1975. 

Data obtained from the 1976 data file of the Regional Air Pollution Study Program. U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1976. 

Prototype Study of Iruiustry Motivation for Pollution Prevention, EPA 100-R-96-001. Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Case Studies No. 1-23 Remedial Response at Hazardous Waste Sites, EPAy540/2/84-002b, March, 1984. 

The Clean Air Act of 1970 set new standards that went beyond the capabilities of the then existing technology, and spurred a very intensive research effort. The Clean Air Act also called for a study by the National Academy of Sciences of the technological feasibility of meeting the emission standards. On April 11, 1973 William D. Ruckelshaus, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, announced a delay in enforcing the 1975 standard by one year, to be replaced by an interim standard for California and a more relaxed interim standard for the rest of the forty-nine states. 

Note Tnis article is abstracted from a comprehensive state-of-the-art study of the military expls and-proplnts production industry and its w pollution abatement problems and programs, carried out by an ad hoc committee of the American Defense Preparedness Association for the Environmental Protection Agency. A comprehensive report authored by Col. Norman I. Shapira (USA, Ret), Drs James Patterson and John Brown, and Messrs William Duckert and Jack Poison is available from the National Tech-nical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161, in two volumes EPA-600/2-76-213a... 

EPA. 1978c. Environmental pathways of selected chemicals in Ifeshwater systems Part II. Laboratory studies. Athens, GA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA-600/7-78/074. 

EPA. 1972. The pollution potential in pesticide manufacturing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Products. Pesticide Study Series 5. EPA540/11-72-06. 

EPA. 1985b. Endosulfan technical Review of 13-week toxicity study in mice. Memorandum. Washington, DC U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Document no. 004733. 

USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Mercury study report to Congress, Vol VI An ecological assessment of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the United States. Office of Air Quahty Planning and Standards and Office of Research and Development, U S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, EPA-452/R-97-008. 

Finally, to avoid the parallel use of similar but not identical method validation studies to fulfil the registration requirements, e.g., of the EU, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Japanese authorities, an adaptation of different data requirements for residue analytical methods for post-registration control and monitoring purposes would help to save resources. 

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Report, Review of Proposed Revised Guidehnes for Conducting Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies , SAP Report No. 90-01, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p. 32 (1998). 

USEPA. A Case Study Advancing Ecological Risk Assessment Methods in the EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2001). Also available on the World Wide Web http //www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/2001/ index.htm march. 

---