THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT;
A PRIMER ON EPA'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY
July 1972
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
GARY H. BAISE
Director, Office of Legislation
ROBERT G. RYAN LANE R. GENTRY
Special Assistant to the Director Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation Office of Legislation
STAFF
Wm. Lee Rawls, Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations
Randy M. Mott, Research Assistant
James G. Chandler, Research Assistant
Jeffrey D. Light, Research Assistant
Ruth L. Johnson, Staff Assistant
Janis Y. Collier, Clerk
-------
CONTENTS
pg-
Air 4
Water 12
Solid Waste 17
Pesticides 20
Radiation 23
Noise 26
International 28
Bibliography 32
1—GPO 514-121 (1908) B. 3126
-------
INTRODUCTION
In the continuing and often heated discussion of pollution and envi-
ronmental issues, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is frequently in the public eye. This booklet is intended to give citizens
an idea of the scope of the agency's duties and responsibilities by providing
a brief summary of its legal authority.
EPA was created because of increasing public and governmental concern
about the dangers to the health and welfare of Americans caused by pol-
lution. Clearly, immediate and positive action was necessary to cope with
the deterioration of the natural environment. Grounds for deep concern
were not difficult to find: on all sides, noxious air, foul water and other
serious threats to the health and well-being of all Americans were abun-
dantly evident.
EPA was given the main Federal responsibility for coming to grips with
these complex problems and at the same time, striking a balance between
the protection of the natural environment and securing for our citizens the
benefits of economic and technological progress.
On July 9, 1970, President Nixon sent to Congress a reorganization
plan removing 15 units from existing departments and agencies, and
relocating them in a new independent agency. When the reorganization plan
became effective on December 2, 1970, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency opened its doors for business with William D. Ruckelshaus
as Administrator.
EPA brings under one organizational roof Federal activities in controlling
air and water pollution, drinking water quality, solid wastes, pesticides, en-
vironmental radiation and noise. It is an independent regulatory agency that
has no obligation to promote agriculture, commerce or industry. It has only
one mission—to protect and enhance the environment. In general, the agency
is responsibile for conducting research and demonstrations, for establishing
and enforcing standards, for monitoring pollution in the environment, and
perhaps most importantly, for assisting State and local governments in their
own efforts. The purpose is to mount an integrated attack on pollu-
tion and at the same time, to make orderly progress toward understanding
the environment as a single system of independent, but interrelated parts.
-------
EPA was organized with five Assistant Administrators in program and
functional areas, all operating from the Washington headquarters. Con-
sistent with the President's goal of decentralizing Federal government serv-
ices, ten EPA Regional Administrators, who report directly to the Admin-
istrator, exercise broad operational responsibility in the field. Compared
with other Federal agencies, the EPA is not large, employing about 8,000
people. The headquarters staff consists of about 2,000 people, with the
rest assigned to the regional offices and laboratories throughout the United
States. In all, there are now 31 laboratories located in 19 States.
EPA's most recent budget was about $2.5 billion, of which about $2 bil-
lion, or four-fifths, was earmarked for the construction of sewage treatment
facilities and for assistance to the localities and municipalies in sewer de-
sign and construction. The operating budget is currently about $450 mil-
lion per year, slightly more than one-fourth of which is devoted to re-
search and monitoring activities.
EPA, in fulfilling its assigned functions, cooperates closely with the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Council, created by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, operates in the Executive Office of the
President to coordinate and assess Federal environmental programs.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is landmark
legislation in the environmental field which requires a systematic considera-
tion of the environmental impact of all major Federal activities. Federal
agencies must now file a written analysis of the environmental impact of a
proposed action, together with a discussion of any adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. The
impact statement must also discuss the alternatives for the proposed action,
and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources must be speci-
fied. In the preparation of these statements, the Federal agencies have been
directed by Congress to consult with and to obtain relevant comments from
other agencies having jurisdiction over or special expertise on the subject
matter involved. EPA is required to comment on draft impact statements
which fall within the agency's special expertise before the final statement
is filed with CEQ. Some observers have suggested that the true significance
of NEPA is that it makes environmental considerations an integral part of
the decision-making process of government.
From the start, EPA has consciously sought to encourage citizen partici-
pation in its work. Citizen challenges and court decisions under NEPA have
had the effect of making all Federal agencies more sensitive to their re-
sponsibilities to our shared environment. EPA has a policy which en-
courages the fullest possible public disclosure of information to any person
or group requesting it. Public participation in EPA hearings has similarly
been sought since its beginning. We know that all efforts to solve our
enormous environmental problems will be ineffective without the under-
-------
standing, cooperation and help of the American citizen. With this booklet,
EPA hopes to provide the interested citizen an understanding of its legal
authority and responsibility in meeting the challenge of the environment
in the last quarter of this century.
-------
AIR
". . . we cannot escape the fact that air
pollution is one of the problems which
presses us most urgently. Even now we can
clean the litter off a piece a land before we
use it, though we may not know how best
to dispose of the litter. And we purify a
glass of water before we put it to our lips,
though we may leave untreated vast water
resources we shall soon need. But in the
air we breathe, we must accept what comes
to us."
William D. Ruckelshaus
The alarming deterioration of the quality of the air we breathe has
forced us to take a hard new look at air pollution, its causes, its results, and
the means we have at our disposal for stopping it. While it is difficult to
measure with any precision the costs Americans are paying for polluted air,
we know the dollar total is enormous. Our most careful estimate is that
about $6 billion each year is lost because of pollution-rated sickness and
premature death. If we add an estimated $10 billion in property losses each
year, we come up with a total of $16 billion a year for polluted air—a pol-
lution bill of about $80 per American per year.
EPA estimates that it will cost $15 billion spread over the next five
years to control air pollution from existing sources. Simply letting pollution
continue will be far more expensive than spending what it takes to
curb it.
Statistics do not tell the entire story. The abatement of air pollution1
in many cases will force industry to reduce obsolescence and inefficiency in
1 Pollution Abatement—ending pollution. Distinguished from pollution control which may
only reduce pollution—and penalties which principally punish violations.
-------
its operations. For in many industries, the older and less efficient plant is
also the biggest polluter. Forced to clean-up, many plants will be compelled
to be more efficient. Moreover, the recaptured byproducts of industrial
activity may provide usable, marketable products. Taking all of these fac-
tors into account, it makes good practical sense to end air pollution in
America.
Legislative Background
The Federal government's concern ivith air pollution officially began with
the Air Pollution Act of 1955, authorizing the first Federally-funded air
pollution research. Passage of the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act of
1965 expanded Federal activity to include setting emission2 standards for
automobiles.
Current Federal activity in air pollution abatement and research stems
from the Air Quality Act of 1967 and the Clean Air Act of 1970. This
undertaking is perhaps EPA's most controversial and comprehensive pro-
gram and is certainly the most sweeping Federal pollution control scheme.
The Clean Air Act set up a new system of national air quality standards
and called for a roll-back of auto pollution levels.
Research
Specifically, the Clean Air Act, as amended, directs EPA to conduct re-
search on the causes, effects, extent and ways to control air pollution. The
agency is charged with the duty of providing technical and financial as-
sistance to State and local air pollution control agencies and special investi-
gations by EPA may be instituted at the request of State governments.
Federal interagency coooperation is encouraged and EPA's own research is
directed into specific areas, including health problems, fuel combusion, air-
craft emissions, cost-benefit studies, and control technology.
Ambient Air Quality
The 1970 Act was the first law to call for national, uniform air quality
standards based on geographic regions. Ambient air quality1 is regulated
by two sets of standards, both determined by EPA. Primary standards con-
cern the minimum level of air quality that is necessary to keep people from
becoming ill. These levels are based on the proven harmful effects of in-
dividual pollutants. Secondary standards are aimed at the promotion of
public welfare, and the prevention of damage to animals, plant life and
property generally. EPA has now set primary and secondary national stand-
2 Emissions—what is discharged into the air by a pollution source. Distinguished from
"effluents" which are discharged into water.
1 Ambient Air Quality- the average atmospheric purity as distinguished from discharge
measurements taken at the source of pollution. The general amount of pollution present in a
broad area.
-------
ards for six pollutants: sulfur oxide, paniculate matter, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, photochemicals, and nitrogen oxide. Standards for these pol-
lutants establish the maximum amount of each pollutant that will be per-
mitted in the atmosphere consistent with public health and welfare.
Interstate Regions
Since pollution does not follow State boundaries, the Administrator was
given expanded power to establish interstate air quality regions;1 each State
however, retains authority for implementing national standards within its
portion of an interstate region.
Implementation Plans
State governments within each air quality region determine how national
air pollution objectives are to be reached, subject to a three-year deadline for
primary standards and a more flexible timetable for secondary standards.
The States have submitted implementation plans showing in detail how and
when they will achieve these standards within their own territory.
Federal standards apply to a list of identified pollutants that constitute the
chief health problems associated with air pollution. The States have the
broad responsibility of deciding which activities to regulate or prohibit in
order to achieve the national standard. The Administrator will then re-
view the individual implementation plan under prescribed criteria set out
in the act itself: whether it expeditiously meets primary standards within
the three-year timetable; whether it includes appropriate emission limitations,
schedules, and timetables for compliance; whether it provides for sufficient
monitoring capabilities; whether it provides for review of new sources of
pollution; whether it is sufficient from the point of view; of inter-
governmental cooperation within the air quality region; and whether it pro-
vides for sufficient personnel, money, review, and inspection. The Admin-
istrator must substitute a plan of his own if the State fails to submit one,
or if the State fails to revise its plan to meet the objections he has raised.
Although States are required to meet the national primary standards by
1975, the Clean Air Act provides for waiver of that deadline for up to an
additional two years if compliance is technologically impossible and reason-
able alternatives are inadequate.
National Emission Standards
Although Federal legislation has emphasized State participation, a few
areas were singled out by Congress for special treatment because of their
1 Air QntiUlu Control Ref/wm—the Ia\v requires the country to be divided into geographical
units, reflecting common air pollution problems, for purposes of reaching national standards.
-------
essentially interstate nature or because of the severe threat to health involved.
Special Federal authority exists to control new stationary sources of pollution,
hazardous air pollutants, motor vehicle emissions, fuel and fuel additives,
aircraft emissions, and low-emission vehicle procurement.
New Stationary Sources
All sources of air pollution, other than vehicles, are broadly described as
"stationary" sources and they include such things as power plants, municipal
incinerators, pulp plants, oil refineries, and other fixed-point sources. EPA
directly regulates new stationary sources by setting uniform national stand-
ards for new air polluters.
One of the Administrator's initial responsibilities under the new law
was to establish a list of the categories of stationary sources. As each cate-
gory is established, EPA sets a standard for performance.1 The Administrator
also decides the procedure the States will follow in setting emission standards
for existing stationary sources.
EPA has devised new source performance standards for five major sta-
tionary sources of air pollution: fossil fuel-fired steam generators, incinerators,
cement plants, and sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing operations. These
standards are designed to require application of the best available tech-
nology, considering the cost of new facilities. Other industrial activities
will be added to this list: petroleum refineries, asphalt batching plants, iron
and steel mills, secondary lead smelters, and brass and bronze refining
operations.
Hazardous Air Pollutants
For hazardous air pollutants,2 EPA was also given authority to set na-
tional standards. The law directs that proposed standards are to be aired
at a public hearing, where the burden of proving the safety of a particular
polluants will be on the polluter. If the polluter fails to show the safety
of the pollutant "on trial," a standard is set. Hazardous emission standards
are being set for asbestos, beryllium and mercury. Mercury, for example,
was popularly thought of as a water pollutant only, but recent studies have
revealed that mercury is emitted by air polluters, such as coal-burning power
plants, municipal incinerators and industrial plants.
Automobile Emission Standards
Like hazardous pollutants, automobiles have been singled out for direct
Federal regulation. Air pollution from transportation sources outweighs
1 Standard of Performance—the measure of pollution control required by law. Tn the Clean
Air Act of 1970, the term is used as the best technological control available and economically
feasible. It applies to new stationary sources.
- Hazardous Air Pollutants—materials discharged into the atmosphere that have a proven
relationship to increased human death rates.
-------
pollution from all other activities combined. In 1965, recognizing that pol-
lution from motor vehicles could only be handled by national standards, Con-
gress enacted the National Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards Act (Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Act). Building on'this base, the 1970 Act set
up an accelerated schedule for abatement of auto pollution by adopting a
roll-back approach. By 1975, new automobiles will be required to show
a 90 percent reduction in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions over
1970 models, and a 90 percent reduction, by 1976, in nitrogen oxide emis-
sions from those allowed in 1971 models. Standards are now in effect that
will steadily move us toward this objective.
The 1970 law prohibits the sale of a new car unless it is certified by
EPA to comply with emission standards, after testing of prototype vehicles.
Averaging emissions from an assembly-line sample, the normal quality con-
trol technique of industry, will provide EPA with the testing results called
for under the act. Such assembly-line testing, however, is structured to
assure that individual cars with excessively high emissions are not sold. Rec-
ords of all testing done by EPA are available for public inspection.
Standards under the 1970 law are applicable to vehicles and engines for
their useful life, five years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. The manu-
facturer is directed to warrant to the ultimate purchaser and each subse-
quent purchaser that the vehicle or engine meets the applicable standards
at the time of sale and that it is free from defects preventing conformity
during its useful life.
In early 1972, auto manuacturers filed a request for a one-year suspension
of the effective date for application of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
standards. After public hearings, the Administrator determined, under the
specific criteria of the Clean Air Act, that such a suspension was at that
time inappropriate.
If the Administrator determines by testing that large numbers of ve-
hicles do not meet the standards, he can order them to be recalled. In addi-
tion, tampering with or removal of control devices is also prohibited. The
agency may obtain court injunctions to restrain violators and may seek civil
penalties for up to $10,000 for each violation.
Low-Emission Prototypes
In the long run, however, an increased number of cars on the road
could negate the effectiveness of these standards. EPA therefore, has en-
couraged the development of low-emission engine prototypes as alternatives
to the reciprocating, internal combustion engine.1 The grant program has
been used for this purpose, along with special Federal purchases of cleaner
1 Reciprocating, Internal Combustion Engine—the standard American, piston-type gasoline-
powered motor vehicle propulsion system. Distinguished from wankel, turbines, steam-
generators, and other unique systems.
-------
vehicles and engines. The 1970 Act expressly gives the Administrator the
power to set standards for and to certify any new type of engine.
Fuel and Fuel Additives
The Clean Air Act also included authority for EPA registration of fuels
for motor vehicles. The Administrator may regulate fuel and fuel additives
which endanger public health, or which interfere with the performance
of anti-pollution devices. Unless EPA has specifically ruled to the contrary,
States may also regulate any fuel or additive. If the State regulations are
different from those set by EPA, the State must submit its regulations through
the implementation plan process described earlier.
Leaded gasoline has been found to impede the effectiveness of pollution
control devices and atmospheric lead is known to be a danger to human
health. EPA, therefore, is currently writing regulations which will make
available to the motoring public one grade of non-leaded gasoline by mid-
1974.
Aircraft Emissions
Initial study of the problems and impact of aircraft emissions on air
pollution was directed by the 1970 Act. EPA was required to issue a report
following its study and to propose means of controlling aircraft pollution.
Because it obviously involves a national problem, State regulation of aircraft
emissions is pre-empted by the law.1 A 1970 voluntary agreement, signed
before EPA came into existence, provided that at each major engine overhaul
a smokeless combustor would be installed on commercial jet engines. All
commercial engines covered by the agreement are expected to have smoke-
less combustors by the end of 1972. EPA is continuing its study of air-
craft emissions and is planning to publish a full report in 1972.
Grants
The basic responsibility for air pollution control and enforcement re-
mains at the State and local level with EPA giving assistance to pollu-
tion control agencies through grant programs. The portion of a specific
project's cost financed by EPA will vary in each grant area, but the agency
tries to avoid simply substituting general funds for State appropriations in
the hope that Federal assistance will supplement State efforts, not replace
them.
In providing assistance to States for implementation plans, EPA may fund
100 percent of planning costs for two years. The agency has also used ten
private consulting firms to assist State officials in preparing these detailed
plans to meet national air quality standards.
1 Federal pre-emption—the assertion of Federal regulatory power to the exclusion of State
regulatory power. Hsed where uniformity and urgency require one ,s-?/,s£em of regulation.
-------
With the completion of State planning, the grant program will soon
shift emphasis and move toward greater support for actual pollution control
activities, such as State motor vehicle inspection and emission detection.
Specific grants have already been made for low emission engine development
and for test vehicles.
Grants may also be awarded to various universities and private institu-
tions and occasionally to individuals for specific research.
Special Powers and Duties
Congress gave EPA various special powers in the Clean Air Act, includ-
ing subpoena power (to gain necessary information for performance of
other duties) and emergency authority. Another sanction available under
the Clean Air Act is that wilful violators of EPA regulations may also find
themselves denied Federal contract awards. Liberalized licensing of patents
necessary for pollution abatement is also authorized, but a special provision
was included to avoid the lessening of competition.
The Administrator must also review and comment publicly on the en-
vironmental impact of legislation introduced in Congress and regulations is-
sued by Federal agencies or departments. When there are adverse effects on
environmental quality, the statement must be published and referred to CEQ.
Enforcement
Most enforcement of standards or regulations under the Clean Air Act
is not done in court. Although a few court cases have received the lion's
share of publicity, the bulk of the work remains administrative. The De-
partment of Justice represents EPA in legal actions. The Administrator may
notify a polluter that he is in violation of the law, issue an order to stop the
pollution, and then seek an abatement action in court. If a violation occurs
due to State inaction, EPA may notify the State and enforce abatement itself.
It may also enforce State implementation plans. EPA may delegate any
other enforcement responsibility to any State that has adequate enforcement
procedures of its own. Any polluter who knowingly violates a regulation or
order issued by EPA or a State implementation plan may be subject to fines
or imprisonment on the Federal level.
In order to develop and enforce standards, the Administrator may re-
quire persons or firms which cause pollution to keep records, make reports,
and test emissions. He may also enter and inspect the premises of the
emission source if necessary. Consistent with the general agency policy, in-
formation obtained by EPA is available to the public for inspection, with the
single exception of trade secrets.
10
-------
Citizen Suits
It was clearly the intention of Congress to involve citizens in the en-
forcement of our Federal standards. When certain conditions are met, pri-
vate citizens may bring legal action against polluters under the Clean Air
Act, based on violations of standards and orders, provided notice is given
to the polluter and EPA. Citizens may also bring an action against the
Administrator of EPA if he fails to perform an act required of him under
the law.
Other Legislation
Several other legislative programs involve EPA in the struggle against dirty
air. The Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 assigns to EPA the
responsibility of evaluating the environmental impact of major airport con-
struction. Under a tax program designed to encourage the use of pollution
abatement equipment by business, the Administrator must certify anti-
pollution devices to make them eligible for accelerated depreciation.
11
-------
WATER
"Our water resources, more perhaps than
any other, illustrate the interaction of all
parts of the environment and particularly,
the recycling process that characterizes every
resource of the ecosystem. . . . Everything
that man himself injects into the biosphere
—chemical, biological or physical—can
ultimately find its way into the earth's
water And these contaminants must be
removed, by nature or by man, before that
water is again potable.
Charles C. Johnson, Jr., Assistant
Surgeon General of the United States
Three out of every four people in the United States get their drinking
water from public supply systems. In 1969, a Federal study found half of
these systems substandard. Health specialists are increasingly concerned
about neutralizing toxic substances and viruses when natural water purifica-
tion fails. We are finally realizing that there are limits to natural purification—
that our nation's waters cannot indefinitely absorb an endless avalanche of waste.
Legislative Background
Federal water legislation dates back to the nineteenth century, when Con-
gress enacted the River and Harbor Act of 1886, recodified in the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899. It is only within the last seven years, however, that
major water pollution legislation has been passed.
Recognizing the threat that dirty water posed to the public health and
welfare, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA), in order to "enhance the quality and value of our water re-
sources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control and
abatement of water pollution." FWPCA and its several amendments set out
the basic legal authority for Federal regulation of water quality.
The original Act was passed in 1948. Its amendments broadened the
12
-------
Federal government's authority in water pollution control. The Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1956 strengthened enforcement pro-
visions by providing for an abatement suit at the request of a State pollu-
tion control agency; where health was being endangered, the Federal govern-
ment no longer had to receive the consent of all States involved. The Federal
role was further expanded under the Water Quality Act of 1965. That act
provided for the setting of water quality standards which are State and Fed-
erally enforceable; it is the authority for the standards currently in effect.
The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 imposed a $100 per day fine
on a polluter who failed to submit a requested report. The most recent
amendment, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, again ex-
panded Federal authority, and established a Federal certification procedure
to prevent degradation of water below applicable standards.
Water Quality Standards
Reflecting basic State responsibility for water pollution control, FWPCA
requires the States to submit to EPA water quality standards for all interstate
navigable water.1 These State standards spell out water use classifications,
such as recreation, fish and wildlife propagation, public water supplies, indus-
trial and agricultural uses. States are then required to set out the quality
of water required to achieve these uses and detailed plans for main-
taining the desired levels of quality. The critical limits of any pollutant
which may be discharged are consequently determined at the State level.
Of the fifty-four jurisdictions covered by the water pollution control pro-
gram, slightly more than half have fully approved standards; EPA has the
power to reject State plans that fail to adequately protect public health and
welfare. EPA's rejection of all or part of a State's plan forces the State to draft
an acceptable alternative within six months; failure to revise a plan will
result in EPA setting a standard. Under this procedure, over 90 percent of all
interstate waters have been classified for either recreational use or fish and
wildlife propagation uses.
FWPCA Certification
The FWPCA was amended in 1970 to insure that the activities of all
Federal agencies meet applicable State standards. The law imposed a new
requirement on all applicants for a Federal license or permit. If a proposed
activity may result in a discharge into navigable waters, a certificate must be
obtained from the affected State, which assures that the activity would not
violate State water quality standards. Through this certification process, harm-
ful pollution can be stopped before it begins. This is a significant milestone,
13
-------
a departure from the idea of abatement to one of prevention. It is easier to
cut off pollution before it begins, rather than trying to stop it in midstream.
Enforcement
Existing violations of water quality standards, on the other hand, may be
enjoined by EPA, even though States retain basic responsibility. The agency
issued 91 notices in its first fifteen months of existence, placing polluters on
notice that corrective action had to be taken within 180 days to avoid prosecu-
tion. Another means of enforcement is the joint Federal-State conference,
designed to give all parties a fair hearing before arriving at an acceptable
abatement plan for the specific violation.
Interstate Compacts
An additional approach under the act encourages cooperation between the
States by Congressional consent to interstate compacts. These agreements for
solving regional problems have been approved by Congress for many years
as a kind of middle ground between purely State action on the one hand, and
exclusive Federal control of regional problems on the other.
The compacts are administered by interstate commissions. While earlier
commissions were limited to studies of regional pollution problems, recently
formed commissions have been given authority to issue legally binding pollu-
tion abatement orders throughout a multi-State region.
There have been other innovations: the Federal government has entered
into several Federal-interstate compacts, reflecting the need to protect national
interests in those regions. EPA involves itself in this area by encouraging
effective river basin planning, providing expert technical assistance, and sup-
porting manpower training.
Oil Spills
Another area of national concern, the widely publicized oil spill problem,
produced Federal legislation to protect water quality. In 1970, the Federal
government was given broad authority to clean up oil spills, to make the
polluter pay the cost of clean-up, and to levy fines and penalties against him.
The law applies to all oil facilities and empowers the Federal government to
levy up to a $10,000 civil penalty for each offense. EPA cooperates with the
Coast Guard and other agencies in administering the law and in drafting the
National Contingency Plan for removal of oil spills.
Marine Sanitation Devices
To curb other pollution of coastal and navigable waters, EPA in 1970 was
given authority to set performance standards for marine sanitation devices.
Standards were published by the agency in June 1972.
14
-------
Grants
Since so much of the authority for cleaning up the nation's water was
retained by State governments, Congress authorized numerous grants, provid-
ing assistance to States for research and development, for manpower training,
for abatement of acid and other mining waste products, for watershed projects,
and for control of pollution in the Great Lakes. Federal grants for these
projects match State funds, with each contributing a certain percentage of the
cost of a particular project.
More than 1300 local communities have sewer systems which still discharge
untreated sewage; an equal number provide for no more than primary treat-
ment which only removes 30% of some pollutants. The major part of Federal
funds for water pollution control goes to municipalities for the construction
of sewage treatment plants.
Federal grants to institutions of higher education are available for programs
designed to bring students into professions that deal with water pollution
control, engineering and related sciences. The limitation on use of funds is
minimal. Funds can be used for training faculty members, carrying on experi-
mental programs, research, planning and development. In encouraging such
programs, EPA has recognized that the nation's colleges and universities
contain a vast body of intelligent manpower that will have to be tapped to
advance our current knowledge of water pollution control and to administer
our increasingly complex control programs.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
The Federal government found dangerous levels of mercury in fish, fowl, or
water in 33 States in mid-1970. To reduce discharges of mercury to safer levels,
the Federal Water Quality Administration, EPA's predecessor, cut discharges
by 85% through authority of a rediscovered law, the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899, also known as the Refuse Act.
The Refuse Act prohibits obstructions to navigation and the dumping of
any refuse (except municipal sewage) into navigable waters. It provides for
abatement of actual and potential pollution. In addition, there are provisions
for a reward, one-half of any fine imposed, for information which leads to the
criminal conviction of a violator. A person or corporation may lawfully dis-
charge only after obtaining a permit from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. EPA reviews applications filed with the Corps for permits and
makes recommendations.
The permit program does not give a person the right to continue pouring
wastes into water indefinitely. The program is not a license to pollute. EPA
determines the environmental impact of an individual's activities and requires
the polluter to stop the offending discharge within a reasonable time. A
polluter who discharges without a permit or who violates a condition upon
15
-------
which a permit is granted may be prosecuted. The Refuse Act has been the
basis of over 280 court actions during fiscal years 1971 and 1972.
Drinking Water Quality
EPA also inherited functions of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (HEW) through the Bureau of Water Hygiene regarding interstate
quarantine regulations, national emergencies and disasters in the area of
drinking water quality.
Other Legislation
Other legislation expands EPA's role in the fight against water pollution.
The Water Resources Planning Act gives the Administrator of EPA a seat on
the Water Resources Council. The Council studies and assesses policies and
programs regarding regional or river basin plans. By Executive Order, EPA
has been appointed a member on river basin commissions. Additionally, under
the Appalachian Regional Development Act the Administrator can make
grants for the construction of sewage treatment plants without considering
FWPCA ceilings or allotments to States. Further authority comes to the
agency through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which makes the
agency an integral part of the effort to protect America's wildlife.
16
-------
SOLID WASTE
"We can no longer afford the indiscrimi-
nate waste of our natural resources; neither
should we accept as inevitable the mounting
costs of waste removal. We must move in-
creasingly toward closed systems that recycle
what now are considered wastes back into
useful and productive purposes."
Richard M. Nixon
America's high level of technological developments combined with our
standard of living has produced a staggering accumulation of waste and refuse.
Our appetite for resources promises to continue to swell, but our methods of
dealing with the waste products of our way of life remain rather primitive. This
nation generates 360 million tons of solid waste each year—garbage, trash and
other solid materials, exclusive of sewage and dissolved material. That 360
million tons may double within ten years. In 1970, each American consumed
578 pounds of packaging material alone. While the levels of solid waste
continue to grow, the most common method of disposing of the by-products
of America's consumption is the same as it was a century ago: open dumping.
We have historically operated on the assumption that the earth, water and
air around us will absorb all of our waste products indefinitely. We now are
beginning to realize that the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere are finite,
and that nature's capacity to assimilate more waste is coming to an end.
Legislative Background
In 1965, Congress enacted the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the first Federal
legislation to attempt to deal with the effects of solid waste disposal on the
environment. Up to that time, only five States had made any kind of organized
effort to address the problem. The Federal program under the 1965 Act was
largely a system of grants which stressed State and local responsibility.
17
-------
By 1970, the more far-reaching implications of disposing of used resources
and waste products were widely recognized. Congress amended the 1965 Act
with the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which officially recognized the
potential economic benefits of recovering a portion of the "trash" we were
casually discarding. That legislation also directed new grant programs to urban
areas, where solid waste problems were getting out of hand.
Nature of Federal Role
Although the primary responsibility for the management of solid waste
materials clearly resides with State and local officials, Federal activity was
directed by Congress into several areas:
(1) construction, demonstration, and application of waste management and
resource recovery systems for the preservation of air, water, and land resources;
(2) technical and financial assistance to agencies in planning and developing
resource recovery and waste disposal programs;
(3) national research and development programs to develop and test
methods of dealing with collection, separation, recovery, recycling, and safe
disposal of non-recoverable waste;
(4) guidelines for the collection, transportation, separation, and recovery
and disposal of solid waste;
(5) training grants in occupations involving design, operation, and main-
tenance of solid waste disposal systems.
Resource Recovery
Comprehensive study of the recovery of useful energy or materials from
solid wastes involves four broad types of recovery: systems of returnable,
reusable products such as beverage containers; repulping systems to make
similar products as the original, including steel, glass, paper, and aluminum;
chemical conversions of raw material that provide a completely new type of
product such as humus for composting or protein developed through yeast
culture; and the use of energy developed by waste disposal, such as steam
generation from incineration.
The ideal system of solid waste management would recover the maximum
amount of resources for reuse or recycling, and deposit the residue or legitimate
waste material in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. This em-
phasis on recycling or reuse, while not a panacea, may well represent a return to
old-fashioned common sense, a necessity in the days when resources were more
scarcely distributed. In 1929, for example, almost twice as much recycled
material was annually used in paper pulp production as in 1970. The amount
of resources being systematically and uneconomically wasted by our current
practices is enormous. A Bureau of Mines study, for instance, estimated that if
all refuse were burned in properly designed incinerators, the residue on an
18
-------
annual basis might contain some 10 million tons of iron, almost one million
tons of nonferrous metals including aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, and tin,
about 14 million tons of glass, substantial amounts of nonmetallic minerals
and even small quantities of precious metals. Continued experimentation
through model projects and systematic research will produce useful knowledge
about resource recovery and about more efficient disposal methods.
Federal-State Activities
The Administrator, besides being charged with research and development,
is empowered to award grants and enter into contracts for studies and demon-
stration projects. EPA makes annual reports on such progress to Congress and
the President. A special report and a plan for disposal of hazardous waste are
required to be submitted to Congress by October 27, 1972.
Federal law also encourages cooperation between States and localities. EPA
makes grants to eligible States, municipal, interstate and intermunicipal
agencies to survey solid waste disposal practices, to develop disposal plans, to
demonstrate resource recovery systems, and to construct test facilities. Money
is also provided for personnel training, involving management supervision,
design, operation, and maintenance of pilot projects.
Mission 5000 is one example of the type of intergovernmental cooperation
made possible under Federal law. EPA is acting as coordinator in a joint effort
of all levels of government to eliminate 5000 open dumps in the country. Since
the program began two years ago, many State governments have passed laws
outlawing open dumping.
Federal Disposal Efforts
On the Federal level, the Administrator is required to publish guidelines
for solid waste recovery, collection, separation, and disposal systems. Federal
agencies will attempt to pioneer new techniques in accordance with Executive
regulations. Additionally, methods of disposal that will capitalize more efficient
waste management will be tested and evaluated by EPA.
19
-------
PESTICIDES
"People no longer want benefits promised
without due regard to the detriments they
may produce. They realize that the desire
to have the maximum amount of food at
the lowest possible price must be tempered
by the amounts and kinds of agricultural
chemicals they are willing to tolerate being
released into the environment."
William D. Ruckelshaus
One of the crucial pillars of the agricultural revolution in America is
pesticides. These chemicals—with their capacity to kill those insects, weeds
and pests that have historically competed with man—have, along with
machinery, fertilizers, and new miracle strains of seed, made America's farmers
the most productive on earth. Pesticides have also provided man with a potent
weapon against disease. Through the exportation of the techniques of modern
agriculture, the nations of the developing world are on the way to becoming
at least temporarily self-sufficient in food production.
Over the past decade evidence has pointed to the fact that pesticides are a
mixed blessing. In the early 1960's, some people began to express serious
concern about their impact on birds and wildlife. Dead fish began lining the
shores of our lakes; shellfish were shown to be susceptible to these chemicals
and DDT was found in the flesh of deep-ocean whales. Around the world,
man was annually introducing close to a billion pounds of chemicals into
the environment, with little or no idea of their long-term consequences or
effects.
Federal Background
The Federal responsibility for regulating these chemicals in the public
interest was transferred to EPA in 1970. The major legal tools available to
20
-------
EPA for this job are found in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Roden-
ticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947, (the original Federal regulation of insecticides
dates back to 1910) and portions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, first enacted in 1938. FIFRA empowers EPA to register all pesticides
moving in interstate commerce while the Food and Drug Act allows EPA to
specify permissible pesticide residues on raw agricultural products. An ad-
ditional EPA authority designed to protect small children is the Special
Packaging Act of 1970, which deals with the packaging of toxic substances.
Research capabilities are provided by the Public Health Service Act, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Pesticides Research Act of
1958.
Registration
Under FIFRA, pesticides moving in interstate commerce must be registered
with EPA under a procedure which calls for the manufacturer to supply data
supporting his claims as to the chemical's safety and effectiveness. If required
by EPA, the manufacturer must also disclose the chemical's complete com-
position and the test results on which the claims are based.
Tolerances
If the pesticide is to be used in such a way that it may leave residues on
crops that provide food for man or animal, a tolerance must be established for
the pesticide. This means simply the amount of residue that can safely remain
on the crop when it moves to market after the pesticide has been applied in
the proper manner. Such tolerances are usually stated in parts per million
(ppm). In establishing tolerances, once again the manufacturer must submit
information to support his claims. Data on safety (toxicity to lab animals),
the amount, frequency and time of application, and methods for identifying
and removing excessive residues must accompany the petition. Where the
supporting data is inadequate or a health hazard may be present, the Adminis-
trator may establish a "zero" tolerance.
Cancellation
Both laws provide for sanctions (including seizure) against goods that might
be misbranded, adulterated, or contain excessive residues. But cancellation is
the major weapon in the Administrator's arsenal when it comes to deciding
whether the benefits of using a pesticide are overshadowed by its risks.
Cancellation does not automatically result in the chemical being removed from
the market (although if there is an "imminent hazard" the Administrator may
suspend the product during cancellation procedings). Rather, cancellation may
trigger a debate between all interested parties on the desirability of the
21
-------
pesticide's continued use. As in registration and tolerance setting, the manufac-
turer bears the burden of proving the product's safety and effectiveness.
Technically, cancellation occurs because the product has been improperly
labeled, and thus falls within the "misbranded" category. An item can be
declared misbranded under FIFRA when found to be unsafe after the benefits
and risks of its continued use have been carefully weighed.
In reaffirming his cancellation of DDT in June 1972, Administrator
Ruckelshaus found that DDT had been misbranded because, on balance, its
risks, toxicity to non-target species, mobility, persistence, ability to move
up the food chain, and potential role in cancer were "unjustified" in the
presence of "safer alternatives." Consequently, DDT was declared misbranded
because "no label directions for use can completely prevent these hazards."
Decisions as to registration, tolerance setting, and cancellation are not per-
formed in an arbitrary fashion or in a bureaucratic vacuum. When the
manufacturer receives an adverse decision, he has an elaborate appeal mecha-
nism available to him including advisory committees, public hearings and
court appeals.
Decisions as to risks and benefits of pesticides, and their desirability in
relation to alternatives are not easy. Prudence requires that any error be on
the side of safety. In the case of DDT, a more toxic but less persistent
chemical was found to be a better alternative. While the risks of the
alternative could be minimized by properly training the applicators, the hazards
of DDT could not be mitigated.
Research
The drawbacks of chemical pest control have hastened research by EPA into
non-chemical methods. Introduction of predators (biological control), strategic
planting of a variety of crops within an area (cultural control), using insect
specific viruses and diseases, sterilization, and developing pest resistant crop
strains are all possibilities that may eventually supplant much of the present
reliance on chemicals.
Monitoring
EPA has established monitoring networks to provide the empirical data
needed for informed, sound policy making. These networks also provide the
locus for much of EPA's assistance to State and local officials as they wrestle
with many of the same problems.
22
-------
RADIATION
"But the most immediate alternative to
shrinking supplies of fossil fuels in any
massive satisfaction of the world's future
power needs lies in the various forms of
atomic energy. And here we confront, with
a seriousness which demands the utmost
integrity of judgement and depth of human
care, the profoundest implications of the
Promethean legend."
Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos,
Only One Earth
With the nation's energy needs doubling every decade, and its reserves of
traditional fossil-fuel energy sources—coal and oil—being inevitably depleted,
the task of fully harnessing the atom has taken on a new urgency. The full
extent of this urgency is reflected in some recent studies that conclude we will
have to construct at least 1,000 one-million-killowatt electric generating
plants in the next twenty years to meet our burgeoning needs.
Ironically, the nuclear power industry's attainment of the economic and
technological maturity needed to supply atomic power on a large-scale has
coincided with the rise of citizen concern over the undesirable side-effects
of that same technology. Most of this concern is centered on several potential
hazards: those associated with the release of radioactivity into the environment
during the normal operation of nuclear reactors, accidents through human
error or mechanical failure, and the disposal of radioactive wastes produced by
the reactors. There is also the widely held concern that the discharge of
heated water used to cool the reactors—"thermal pollution"—may cause
irreversible damage to fish and plant life.
23
-------
Legislative Background
Although the problems of reactor safety are handled by the Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC), the problems of thermal pollution (under EPA's water
authority) and some generally defined authority over radioactivity in the
environment and the disposal of wastes are now within the EPA's jurisdiction.
Under amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, EPA has been given
standard-setting powers, while authority for research is lodged in the Public
Health Service Act. This is in contrast to other areas where EPA was also
given an enforcement role. In radiation, the AEC remains responsible for
enforcing EPA's standards through its existing licensing authority.
Research
Implicit in any standard-setting endeavor is the need for accurate estimates
on levels of radiation in the environment, their pathways to man, and the health
risks from these doses. The Administrator, under the Public Health Service
Act, has broad research powers. The paraphenalia of fellowships, grants-in-aid,
consultants, and contracts are all available and are widely used.
Much of the current discussion on radiation has centered -around science's
lack of information on the long-term genetic and health consequences of low
levels of radiation. In studying this issue, EPA has meshed its research and
monitoring efforts with those of the AEC. Both agencies are studying the
health effects of radiation along with monitoring the environment (particu-
larly around nuclear power plants) to calculate the population's total exposure
to various forms of radiation. EPA is also conducting a complete review of
present radiation standards, along with an assessment of the entire nuclear fuel
cycle. Plans are also underway for developing the needed information for future
standards for the coming of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor.
Breeders
These breeder reactors, now in the development stage, are designed to
capture neutrons lost during the fission process by today's reactors and use them
to create more nuclear fuel. When perfected, breeders will create more fission-
able materials than they consume, giving us, according to the AEC, abundant
economical fuel for the future. This could be the much awaited solution to the
present shortage of nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, there are several known safety
problems with a liquid metal fast breeder reactor. First, its core is to be cooled
by a liquid metal—sodium—which can react violently when it comes in
contact with water or steam. Secondly, the nuclear fuel produced by the
captured neutrons is plutonium, which retains its radioactivity for thousands
of years, posing exceptional disposal problems.
24
-------
Wastes
The problem of disposing of radioactive wastes is currently being studied
by the agency under its solid waste authority. Given the extraordinary
persistence of some of these wastes, finding a safe place to store them is both
a technically and politically intriguing problem.
Tritium
Two other areas of concern to EPA relate to the hazards of tritium and
non-ionizing radiation. Tritium is a radioactive gas that will be a major
by-product of fusion (combining atoms, rather than splitting them), a source
of energy man is hoping to tap in the next century. Non-ionizing radiation
refers to the microwaves produced by the communications industry—such as
radio transmitters—that each of us is bombarded by daily; until EPA, no one
had attempted a systematic study of its effects on man.
Technical Assistance
The Public Health Service Act has also directed EPA to dispense techni-
cal assistance to the States. The emphasis here is placed on developing compre-
hensive plans for State response to nuclear incidents, and for training local
personnel. Hopefully, the results of these and other ambitious research and
monitoring programs will serve as a basis for informed decision making that
will protect the American pubic as we move further into the nuclear age.
25
-------
NOISE
"America is the noisiest country that
ever existed. One is waked up in the morn-
ing not by the singing of the nightingale,
but by the steel worker."
Oscar Wilde, Impressions of America (1882)
Our experts define noise as "unwanted sound." The national recognition of
noise as a pollutant is relatively recent, probably because it is not an obvious
one. Each of us has noticed such "garden-variety" pollurants as waste in rivers,
or auto emissions in the air. We may shrink back from a river because of its
peculiar color or odor, or be offended by noxious fumes from the antique
buses that still service many cities, but noise is less tangible and its effects are
less readily apparent.
Legislative Background
Congress addressed the problems of air and water pollurion long before
it turned to noise. Water legislation that was passed in the late nineteenth
century is still important today. But, the earliest Federal noise legislation was
passed in 1970, and it only dealt indirectly with the problem. The Airport and
Airway Development Act of 1970 and the Federal Aid Highway Act identify
noise as one factor among others to be considered in the planning, development
and construction of airports and highways. EPA is required to evaluate en-
vironmental factors involved in such projects and to report its findings to
the Secretary of Transportation. He, in turn, must take them into consideration
before making a final decision on the feasibility of a given project.
In 1971, EPA set up its own Office of Noise Abatement and Control to
study the effect of noise on public health and welfare. Congress, in the Clean
Air Act of 1970, directed that substantial research be carried out to study a
wide range of problems concerning the damage caused by noise.
26
-------
EPA's Role
EPA's authority goes only to studies, hearings, research, experiments and
demonstrations. The legislation is geared toward establishing a broad scientific
base upon which EPA can build if called upon by a future Congress to make
recommendations for tolerable noise levels for aircraft, motor vehicles,
construction equipment and machines or motors of all descriptions.
Noise degrades our environment in a different way than other pollutants,
but its long-range effects are as potentially harmful to our citizens. We know
now that noise will have to be controlled along with other pollution sources
and that the campaign against it has only begun.
27
-------
INTERNA TIONAL
"We are now growing accustomed to the
view of our planet as seen from space—a
blue and brown disk shrouded in white
patches of clouds. But we do not ponder
often enough the striking lesson it teaches
about the global reach of environmental
imperatives. No matter what else divides
man and nations, this perspective should
unite them. We must work harder to foster
such world environmental consciousness
and shared purpose."
President Nixon
It is now universally recognized that the world's environmental problems
cannot be solved by the efforts of any one nation. Pollution does not recognize
political boundaries. The air and streams of the world that have absorbed
discarded by-products of industrial and agricultural activity have dispersed their
cargoes much more efficiently than would have been thought possible a few
years ago. The dangers of environmental degradation are now world wide.
We know, for instance, that the fatty tissue of the penguins of Antarctica
show a concentration of DDT, although these animals are thousands of miles
removed from areas where DDT is used.
Conventions
Recognizing that a coordinated effort will be needed to combat the effects
of world-wide pollution, the United States has attempted for many years to
focus international attention in this area. The United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in June 1972, was the first
28
-------
comprehensive effort on the part of the nations of the world to come together
and discuss their common environmental problems. The Conference also
underscored the differing priorities placed upon economic development and
environmental quality by the industrialized and developing countries. Our
government is now preparing for the 1973 conference of the Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), which will attempt to write
an agreement barring discharges of oil and hazardous substances by ships in
international waters. Similarly, a Law of the Sea Conference is scheduled for
1973 which will examine ways to develop and safeguard undersea resources for
the benefit of mankind.
In addition to multilateral conventions, the United States has sought
to negotiate bilateral arrangements with individual countries focusing on
environmental problems. For example, in April 1972 the United States
signed an agreement with Canada on water pollution in the Great Lakes.
The United States also concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union in
May 1972 during President Nixon's visit dealing with research, and a host
of legal and administrative procedures for protecting environmental quality.
Projects
Many activities at the international level do not have the drama of treaties
or international agreements. Frequently, they involve the non-glamorous
and routine hard work which is a necessary first step toward coordinated
international action. The field of environmental research is a good example.
EPA engages in direct contact and cooperation with organizations and
individuals in many foreign countries. In many disciplines, our knowl-
edge is sketchy and incomplete regarding the interaction between man and
his environment. EPA invests time and money to assist foreign efforts at
pollution abatement which show promise of being applicable in our coun-
try. One appproach is the exchange of technical information between EPA
and its counterparts in other countries. This helps us to keep abreast of
newly discovered techniques and protects against the wasteful duplication
of effort. Occasionally, EPA enters into contracts with foreign organiza-
tions and individuals for specific studies and services which may range
from basic research regarding a specific pollutant to experiments in re-
gional planning which may affect an entire river system. There have been
contracts with oil companies in England regarding methods to reduce
sulphur oxide emissions from gasoline engines, and contracts with foreign
universities to abstract and index foreign language scientific literature.
Many of these projects are financed through the Special Foreign Cur-
rency Program, which employs the so-called "counterpart funds" generated
under Public Law 480 of the 83rd Congress. When the United States
government sells surplus agricultural commodities, it is paid in the currency
of the receiving country, rather than in dollars. To the extent that these
29
-------
funds are not needed for normal United States government expenses there,
they are set aside and Congress can then earmark portions for specific proj-
ects. Counterpart funds made possible research in Yugoslavia regarding air
pollution caused by copper smelting; a recently completed study in Poland
concerned with the carcinogenic (cancer-causing) material in airborne particu-
late matter was carried out in the same fashion.
Standards
EPA has been given the responsibility for setting standards for imported
products with regard to their environmental impact. In general, these stand-
ards are the same as for products produced at home, although the law does
provide for exceptions when required for national security. For example,
imported automobiles must comply with United States standards regarding
air pollution abatement equipment. Also, pesticides which are produced
in a foreign country must be registered with EPA before they can be
sold in the United States. Food stuffs which are imported into the United
States can be restricted if they contain levels of pesticides which are dan-
gerous for human consumption.
Abatement Conferences
EPA also has authority to abate air and water pollution which originates
in the United States and affects a foreign country. When an international
organization or nation complains that some activity in the United States is
causing air pollution that endangers the health or welfare of persons in a
foreign country, the Administrator may call a conference of the air pollu-
tion control agencies having jurisdiction over the source of the pollution.
The Secretary of State, on his own initiative, may also request EPA to con-
vene a conference. At the conference, the foreign country affected is ac-
corded the same status that a State air pollution control agency would re-
ceive in domestic situations. The Administrator will undertake this type
of action on a reciprocal basis, that is, when the country involved stands
ready to take similar remedial action within its own borders about air
pollution affecting American citizens. The procedures for abating water
pollution originating in the United States with impact in a foreign country
are quite similar, but in this case the complaint must come from the
Secretary of State.
As a matter of policy, EPA pays particular attention to domestic efforts
to abate air and water pollution having an impact beyond our borders. The
main idea is still to protect the health and welfare of the American people.
This kind of reciprocal and good neighborly cooperation hopefully will
lead to the solution of common problems.
30
-------
For many nations, the economic imperatives of development coupled with
a rapidly growing population will conflict with efforts to control environ-
mental degradation. The recent Stockholm Conference illustrates the di-
mensions of this problem. Nevertheless, it is critical to the future of
mankind that we begin to plan a coordinated and cooperative international
effort that will allow man to live in harmony with nature. EPA recognizes
its responsibilities to help in this vital work.
31
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adulterated Food Act as amended, 21 U.S.C. §342 (a) (1968).
Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes Water
Quality, April 15, 1972, TIAS 7312
Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection Between the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, May 23,
1972, TIAS 7345
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended,
7 U.S.C. §§1704, 1795 (1968).
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c) (4),(e)
(1970).
Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C. §103 (1969).
Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended, 40 App. U.S.C. §§212,
214 (1970)
1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2013 (d), 2021, 2051, 2073 (b),
(e), 2092, 2093, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2153, 2201, 2210,
(1970).
Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, Report to Citizens' Advisory
Committee on Environmental Quality, Report to the President and the President
and the President's Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing
Office, April 1971.
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P. L. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322.
Air Quality Act of 1967, November 21, 1967, P.L. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485.
Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, October 20, 1965, P.L. 89-272, 79
Stat. 992.
Composing of Municipal Solid Wastes in the United States, Andrew W. Briedenbach,
Director, Solid Waste Management Reseatch Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1971.
Cost of Clean Water - Vol. I, "Municipal Investment Needs;" Vol. Ill, "Cost Effective-
ness and Clean Water," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Febtuary 1972.
Council on Environmental Quality, First Annual Report, U.S. Government Printing
Office, August 1970.
Council on Environmental Quality, Second Annual Report, U.S. Government Printing
Office, August 1971.
32
-------
Deficiencies in Administration of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, Report to Congress by the President's Science Advisory Committee, H.R.
REP. No. 91-637, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
Development of Systems to Attain Established Motor Vehicle and Engine Emission
Standards, Report to Congress by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1971.
Economics of Clean Air, Report to Congress by the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1970.
An Estimate of Radiation Doses Received by Individuals Living in the Vicinity
of a Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant in 1968, Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, May 1970.
Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U.S.C. §109(h) ,(i),(j) (1970).
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, 21 U.S.C. §§346, 346a, 348
(1970).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§135—135k
(1970).
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §1151 et seq. (1970).
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, November 3, 1966, P.L. 89-753, 80 Stat.
1246.
Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, July 9, 1956, P.L. 84-660, 70 Stat. 498.
Water Quality Act of 1965, October 2, 1965, P.L. 89-234, 79 Stat. 953.
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, April 3, 1970, P.L. 91-224, 84 Stat. 91.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§661—666c (1965).
Health Effects on Environmental Pollution, Report of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, H.R.
Doc. No. 92-241, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C. §103 (1969).
Liquid Waste Effluents from a Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, November 1970.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§4332(2) (c), 4344(5)
(1970).
National Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Contingency Plan, Council on Environ-
mental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 20, 1971.
Noise, Report to the President and Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Government Printing Office, December 31, 1971.
The Noise Around Us, Department of Commerce, COM 71-100147 (1971).
"Ocean Damping: A National Policy," Report to the President by the Council on
Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1970.
"Our Waters and, Wetlands: How the Corps of Engineers Can Help Prevent Their
Destruction and Pollution," House Committee on Government Operations, H.R.
Rep. No. 91-917, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).
Pathological Effects of Thyroid Irradiation, Federal Radiation Council, Revised Report,
December 1966.
Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, Report to Congress by the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government
Printing Office, January 1971.
Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, Report to Congress by the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government
Printing Office, February 1972.
Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203, 215, 241, 242(b),(c),
(d),(f),(i),(j), 243, 244, 244a, 245, 246, 247, 264 (1970).
33
-------
Radiation Exposures of Uranium Miners, Report of Advisory Committee from the
Division of Medical Sciences: NationaJ. Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council, Federation Radiation Council, August 1968.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 5 U.S.C. Reorg. Plan of 1970 No. 3 (1970).
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411 (1899).
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §3251 et seq, (1970).
Resource Recovery Act of 1970, October 26, 1970, P.L. 91-512, 84 Stat. 1227.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, October 20, 1965, P.L. 89-272, 79 Stat. 997.
Special Packaging of Household Substances for Protection of Children, 15 U.S.C.
§1471 et seq. (1970).
Studies of Effects in Use of Chemicals, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §742d—1 (1968).
Toxic Substances, Report by the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government
Printing Office, April 1971.
Water Resources Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1962 et seq. (1970).
34
-------
More and more people \\ithin our society want to
participate in the development of a new environmental
ethic—a way of life which will allow us to retain and
improve the lire-enhancing features of technology with-
out repeating and intensifying the mistakes of the
past. A central role of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency is to support this national effort and
to help change those habits and those obsolete view-
points which have led to our current confrontation
with gross pollution and threats of irreversible en-
vironmental damage."
William D. Ruckelshaus
-------
% natfF
------- |