00568
United jSjtates j I \
fnifiixjrjnSienta) Piiitectii
Ag*«NM :. i| 1 I
;r
•I
i * t*«
905R88100
-------
Cover: Upper Peninsula, Lake Huron.
Photo Credits:
Birute A. Bulota—p. 2 top, p. 4, p. 11, p. 12, p. 35, p. 36; MaryAnn Croce—p. 2 bottom,
p.19; Don de Blasio—p. 13; D. Seth D\bb\ee~frontcover,p.26; JohnT. GaLtskill—
p. 6 right; James F. Gerleve—p. 8; Lorna M. Jereza—p. -17; ..Gordon E^ Jones—p. 21.
Donald J. Roberts—p. 28; David Schulz—p. 9; DaVidStar—p. 24; Eugene F. Wojcik—f.'\
p.6left,p. 7left.p. 31. : • .- • - .. * ,
-------
United States Regions
Environmental Protection 230 South Dearborn Street
Agency Chicago, Illinois 60604
vFPA OUR AIR' OUR LAN0' OUR WATER
^^'** Environmental Quality in the Great Lakes Basin
WHERE WE STAND 3
EPA REGION 5—AMERICA'S HEARTLAND 4
OUR AIR
Traditional Pollutants 9
Air Toxicants 10
Mobile Sources 11
Radiation 12
OUR LAND
Hazardous Wastes 15
Toxic Substances 19
Asbestos 21
Dioxin 23
Pesticides 24
OUR WATER
NPDES Permits 26
Construction Grants 27
Watershed Management 28
Drinking-Water Quality 29
Underground Injection Control 30
OUR GREAT LAKES
Toxicants 31
Cooperation with Canada 33
Great Lakes National Program Office 33
Great Lakes Studies 33
Lake-by-Lake Survey 34
OUR SPECIAL CONCERNS
Indian Affairs 36
Federal Facilities 36
MAY WE HELP YOU? (EPA telephone numbers) inside back cover
STATE AGENCIES inside back cover
Valdas V. Adamkus—Regional Administrator
Frank M. Covington—Deputy Regional Administrator
Jon T. Grand—Director of Public Affairs
R. John Rapsys—Writer-Editor
Birute A. Bulota—Art Director
U.S. lf-rf-••i.fc.iiaf Protection Agency
GLNPO ve-jry Collection
-------
Top: Regional Administrator Valdas
V. Adamkus and Deputy Regional
Administrator Frank M. Covington tour
a mobile hazardous waste incinerator in
Lemont, IL
Center: Regional A dministrator A damkus
and Superintendent Berl Gier at the
award-winning Ypsilanti, Ml, wastewater
treatment plant.
Bottom: Public meetings and hearings
are part of EPA's decision-making
process.
-------
WHERE WE STAND
This is our first major, public report on environmental quality
in the Great Lakes Basin since 1 983 It allows us to share with you,
the citizens of our great Region, some of our accomplishments
as well as a number of mutual concerns In a spirit of openness and
candor, this report also invites you to evaluate our work
Besides our overall goals of clean air, clean land, and clean
water, we have focused on several environmental problems that defy
easy and quick solutions. The control of toxicants, the elimination of
hazardous waste, and the prevention of ground-water pollution
all have our top-priority attention And because EPA Region 5
embraces a unique geographical area—some 85 percent of
America's Great Lakes Basin—the sound health of these vast
inland seas is paramount
We have also placed a lot of emphasis on public participation,
a means of letting every concerned citizen have a voice in environ-
mental matters Before we issue a perm it to a hazardous waste facility,
before we turn the first shovelful of earth in cleaning up an old
dump, and before we design an alternatesupply of drinking waterto
replace a contaminated aquifer, we hold public hearings
These hearings, announced through public notices, press
releases, letters to residents, and our own Environmental Events
Calendar, allow citizens to comment, orally or in writing, on our
proposed actions And we do listen to what you have to say
With our indispensable partners, the six States of EPA
Region 5, we shall continue to rely heavily on the good common
sense and willing cooperation of all citizens The effective
resolution of problems concerning public health and the
environment calls for nothing less
Valdas Ml Adamkus
Chicago, Illinois Admmi/trator, EPATTegion 5
September 1988
-------
AMERICA'S
HEARTLAND
Rolling countryside of northwestern Illinois.
-------
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin—these
are the States synonymous with the Great Lakes Basin and the
productive Midwest. Indeed, synonymous with the heartland of
America itself. Administratively, they make up EPA Region 5.
People from all over the world and from many parts of this Nation
have chosen to put down their roots here. They came to roll steel in
Youngstown and Gary, run auto assembly lines in Detroit, brew beer
in Milwaukee, mill grain in Minneapolis, and slaughter livestock by the
millions in the now-defunct Chicago stockyards.
Today their descendants and later arrivals number almost
46 million, or 22 percent of the U. S. population—more people than
in any of the other nine EPA Regions.
Rich in the diversity of its people, EPA Region 5 is also rich
in natural resources. It holds 25 percent of the country's prime
farmland, which produces more corn and soybeans than any other area
in the Nation. There's iron ore in Minnesota, copper in Michigan,
taconite and lime in Wisconsin, sand and gravel in Indiana, and vast
coal reserves in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
There are nearly 65 million acres of forests dotted with aspen,
birch, walnut, hemlock, hickory, maple, oak, and evergreens.
There are also 94,000 square miles of blue water, better known
as the Great Lakes, where sport fishing (salmon, trout, walleye) is
booming, commercial fishing (whitefish, perch) is stable, and shipping
is holding its own, linking EPA Region 5 and areas beyond with some
40 countries throughout the world.
Long a leader in water, rail, and air transportation (Chicago's
O'Hare remains the busiest airport in the world), EPA Region 5 supports
25 percent of the U. S. industry. This includes more than 70,000
manufacturing facilities, which turn out everything from autos to x-ray
machines. Among those facilities you'll find some 7,400 chemical
plants— more than in any other EPA region. In addition, over 70 of
America's steel mills are still here, as are two-fifths of the country's
power plants run on fossil fuels.
Today, EPA Region 5 is a far cleaner—and a far more pleasant—
place to live in than it was 20 years ago. Clouds of black factory smoke
that used to block out sunshine for days are gone. Millions of alewives
that used to rot on Lake Michigan's shores have disappeared. Putrid raw
sewage, slaughterhouse offal, and oily, life-choking industrial wastes
used to be dumped into our Region's lakes and streams with abandon.
That, too, is now a thing of the past.
But problems remain: Auto pollution is still poisoning some
urban areas, hazardous waste sites mock the landscape, certain
aquifers are in danger, and every year millions of tons of soil, pesticides,
and fertilizer are washed down the waterways with rain and melting
snow. In fact, EPA Region 5 leads all other EPA regions in agricultural
pollution. Much of that pollution winds up in the Great Lakes, where
over 40 troublesome toxic hot spots have been pinpointed.
The six regional States have been vital partners in helping EPA
preserve, clean up, and restore our environment. Here are some of the
things they have been doing recently:
-------
MINNESOTA
WISCONSIN
ILLINOIS
The State's Pollution Control Agency
celebrated its 20th anniversary in
1987 and can take pride in the fact
that the Conservation Foundation
ranks the Land of 10,000 Lakes
number one environmentally among
our 50 States. Minnesota was first
in EPA Region 5 to receive authori-
zation for running the Federal
hazardous waste management
program and one of the first with
its own Superfund hazardous waste
cleanup program. New legislation
prohibits placing unprocessed garbage
in landfills after 1990 and comes to
grips with controlling pipelines and
underground storage tanks.
The State has begun a long-term
strategic planning process to help
meet future environmental needs
and problems and is working on new
codes to regulate dredging. This
promises to be a model piece of
legislation for the Badger State,
which is also keeping a close watch
on Great Lakes hot spots, or "areas
of concern," in its territory. The
focus is on Sheboygan, where fish
and sediment are heavily contami-
nated with PCB's, and on Green Bay,
for which a cleanup plan was
approved in February 1988.
The Prairie State has aggressively
tackled the problem of hazardous
waste destruction by establishing
a mobile incinerator program.
A mobile incineration unit is being
used to destroy wastes and
contaminated soils during cleanup
of hazardous waste sites under a
State program similar to EPA's
Superfund.
-------
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
OHIO
The Hoosier State legislature,
following recommendations by the
governor's Environmental Policy
Commission, has established the
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), which is
responsible for environmental
protection in the State. Other recent
actions include reaffirmation of the
Northwest Indiana Environmental
Initiative, which aims to coordinate
the control of all forms of pollution
in that environmentally troubled
corner of the State. Indiana has also
revised water quality standards to
include limits on toxicants.
The Wolverine State has shown
considerable leadership in regulating
toxic substances. As part of a program
to limit the discharge of toxicants
into surface waters, Michigan
developed water quality standards
that have become a model for
controlling this type of pollution.
The State has also shown concern
in setting limits for air toxicants
(heavy metals, organic compounds)
when issuing permits to new air
pollution sources. And the State's
design standards for new hazardous
waste landfills are among the
strictest in the country.
The Buckeye State has established
a revolving fund to help municipalities
upgrade wastewater treatment
facilities and has adopted an
innovative, basin approach to water
quality planning that it uses to control
toxicants. Ohio has also established
a State right-to-know program
and has officially announced the
completion of cleanup at the
ChemDyne hazardous waste
Superfund site in Hamilton.
-------
OUR AIR
As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Clean Air Act of 1 970,
the 46 million citizens of EPA Region 5 are breathing cleaner airthan they
have in decades. However, some old problems—such as sulfur dioxide
emissions from the Region's coal-fired power plants—continue And new
issues—including the toxic "urban soup" and indoor air pollutants—have
aroused legitimate health concerns
Thin veil of polluting summer smog hovers over Chicago.
8
-------
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Of the thousands of potential air pollutants, National Ambient Air Quality
Standards have been set for only six: ozone, particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. In addition, EPA
directly regulates the emission of certain hazardous air pollutants, which
include asbestos (see "Asbestos" section) and benzene.
High summertime levels of ozone
(smog), caused by factory and auto
emissions, remains the most persistent
air pollution problem in the Region.
The three-State Milwaukee-Chicago-
Northwest Indiana urban area typi-
fies the difficult political, legal, and
technical problems involved in
dealing with a pollutant whose many
emission sources are in different
political jurisdictions and whose
adverse health effects may be felt
many miles downwind.
The ambient air quality standard
for particulate matter (soot, ashes,
smoke, dust) was revised in 1987 to
deal with the fine particles that
penetrate deep into the lungs and
thus affect human health the most.
The highly industrialized urban areas
of Chicago-Northwest Indiana,
Detroit, and Cleveland are among
those that must further reduce
emissions to meet the revised
particulate standards.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from the
Region's many power plants that burn
high-sulfur coal are still a problem in
Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. In addition
to local effects, these emissions contri-
bute to acid rain in areas far from the
Midwest. Midwestern utilities, working
with the EPA and other Federal agen-
cies to economically reduce sulfur
emissions, have developed several
feasible technologies.
One of these is the Limestone
Injection Multistage Burner (LIMB)
project at Ohio Edison's Edgewater
Station in Lorain. The project has
shown that emissions from high-sulfur
coal can be reduced without the costly
retrofitting of stack scrubbers. This new
technology may mean job security for
tens of thousands of coal miners in
the Midwest.
Carbon monoxide pollution is almost
exclusively related to auto and truck
tailpipe emissions and remains a
problem in several large cities in the
Region, including Minneapolis-
St. Paul, where cold winter tempera-
tures interfere with engine warmups.
Aggressive enforcement continues
to be a hallmark of air pollution control
efforts in EPA Region 5, with an increa-
sing role being played by State and local
agencies. This greater emphasis on
clean air at all levels of government
suggests that our current air pollution
problems will be solved and the prog-
ress we have made since 1970 will
continue.
-------
AIR TOXICANTS
Public awareness, research, and improved detection methods— all have
underscored the importance of a new environmental problem in the
United States: air toxicants. Compared with traditional air pollutants, such
as sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide, air toxicants present a much more
difficult identification and control problem.
National strategy
In recognition of the problem and to
reduce public health risks that arise
from exposure to toxic air pollutants,
EPA in 1985 announced \\sNationalAir
Toxicants Strategy. The strategy was
based on an EPA study, which identified
the two broad origins of air toxicants:
point sources, such as large factories,
and area sources, which include
emissions from a multitude of motor
vehicles, home heaters, gasoline
stations, dry cleaners, solvent users,
and other small polluters within a
geographical area.
Individual emissions from area
sources, such as those from a single gas
station, may not be high, but when
combined with hundreds or thousands
of such sources, the amount of toxi-
cants in the air can increase dramati-
cally. The greatest impact of air
toxicants on the greatest number of
people is in urban areas, where a
mixture of various pollutants—from a
variety of sources—has produced a new
phenomenon known as toxic "urban
soup."
Objectives of the air toxicants stra-
tegy are being met through a variety of
Federal, State, and local programs.
Federal programs
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA screens
and ranks toxic air pollutants according
to their health effects, source, expo-
sure, and other characteristics. The
result is National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP's), established currently
for asbestos, benzene, beryllium,
mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl
chloride. Up to now, the NESHAP's
program has focused on carcinogenic
air pollutants, but in the future
increased attention will be given
to pollutants that do not cause cancer
but may be harmful to humans
nonetheless.
The Clean Air Act has also been used
by EPA to reduce the health risks from
Point-source air pollution
10
vehicle and wood-stove emissions. In
addition, EPA is developing regulations
to control toxic air emissions from
hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. The Federal
chemical emergency preparedness
program also addresses toxic air
pollutants.
State and local programs
In 1985, when EPA announced its
national strategy for dealing with toxic
air pollutants, it also committed itself
to establishing appropriate control
programs in every State. At the time
many States did not have formal prog-
rams for toxic air pollutants, but today
all EPA Region 5 States have such
programs in various stages of develop-
ment. It will take several years to make
these programs fully operational. EPA
will continue to provide technical
support and information transfers
throughout this process,from program
design to implementation.
EPA is encouraging States to develop
methods for controlling toxic air pollu-
tants from high-risk point sources, such
as chemical plants. Lifetime cancer
risks from such sources of 1 case per
10,000 population are not unusual.
States and local governments are
also being encouraged to reduce high-
risk urban areas, where studies have
shown that lifetime cancer risks as
high as 1 in 1,000 are common. This
is the toxic "urban soup" problem,
where cumulative health risks are as
high as any that EPA has ever
addressed.
Dealing with these major problems
is a long-term program. The main near
term goal is to identify the problem air
toxicants and suggest alternatives for
their control. The development of
control strategies to reduce these high
risks will take a concerted effort in
the years to come.
-------
MOBILE SOURCES
The air in some urban areas of EPA Region 5 has stubbornly refused to
"come clean," and the main reason is emissions from the 30-odd million
autosand light trucks in the Region. Their tailpipes emit carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbons, which contribute to one of the most persistent and
widespread air pollution problems in the country.
Carbon monoxide reduces oxygen in the human body by weakening
the heartbeat; it affects vision, mental function, and overall alertness;
in certain circumstances it can cause death. Hydrocarbons, in concert with
another pollutant—nitrogen oxide—create ozone, or smog, when exposed
to sunlight. Excessive ozone, in turn, irritates mucous membranes and
aggravates respiratory disorders.
Vehicle I&M programs
Cities that could not meet Federal
clean-air standards by end of 1982
were required by EPA to develop vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I&M)
programs. These programs were
designed to quickly check the effective-
ness of auto and light-truck emission
systems, to correct deficiencies, and to
retest the failed vehicles.
Vehicle I&M programs are now
operating in these EPA Region 5 areas:
Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, East
St. Louis (IL), Northwest Indiana (Lake
and Porter Counties), Southeast
Indiana (Clark and Floyd Counties),
Cincinnati, and Cleveland. A program
to control carbon monoxide emissions
from autos in Minneapolis-St. Paul
is also being developed.
Under the I&M programs, owners of
autos and light trucks are responsible
for getting their vehicle emission
systems in line with State regulations.
Sometimes all it takes is a carburetor
adjustment, new spark plugs, or a fresh
air filter. In some instances, the
emission systems don't work because
they have been tampered with. In any
case, States take into account the
difference between new and older cars;
no owner is required to bear the burden
of extensive—and expensive—repairs.
EPA has also reduced the amount of
lead in gasoline by 90 percent and is
studying the possibility of banning the
sale of leaded gasoline altogether. In
addition, EPA continues to encourage
States in their efforts to prevent tam-
pering with vehicle emission systems.
Areas of the country that failed to
meet the carbon monoxide and ozone
standards by December 1987 (as
required by the Clean Air Act), will have
to evaluate the need for stricter I&M
programs. This will likely mean closer
inspection of motor vehicles to see if
their emission-control devices have
been tampered with.
Diesel engine emissions
The major regulated pollutants
emitted by heavy-duty diesel engines,
such as those on buses and trucks, are
diesel paniculate matter, carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbons. How-
ever, compared to gasoline engines,
diesels emit relatively low amounts of
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
In March 1985 EPA established
emission standards for dieselparticu-
late matter because that pollutant is
also considered hazardous to human
health. EPA researchers are now trying
to identify toxic chemicals in diesel
exhausts so that the chemicals' health
risks could be properly assessed.
Because of these more stringent
standards, new diesel buses and
trucks sold in the 1990's will be much
cleaner than those on the road today.
Diesel paniculate matter, for example,
will be reduced sixfold by 1994.
Both EPA and heavy-duty diesel
engine manufacturers are working on
technology that will enable these
engines to meet the stricter 1991 and
1994 standards. Currently available
technology was deemed sufficient to
meet the 1988 standard.
Research now under way is focusing
on alternative fuels and trap oxidizers,
which would function in much the same
way as catalytic converters do on
gasoline engines.
The nitrogen oxides exhaust emis-
sion standard for all trucks 6,000 Ibs
or over has been delayed until the 1990
model year.
A uto testing facility in Racine, Wl
11
-------
RADIATION
EPA staffer changes filter on monitor that
traps airborne radiation.
We are constantly being exposed to natural radiation either from the sun
or from such earth sources as uranium. This so-called background radiation
is as old as the earth itself. And although most of us are exposed to it in
very small doses, this type of radiation can be harmful.
Much more serious, perhaps, is excessive exposure to the two types
of man-made radiation. Ionizing radiation—from medical x rays, nuclear
power plants, uranium mining wastes, and other sources—may cause
cancer and genetic problems many years later. Nonionizing radiation—
from radar, radio, and TV transmitters, for example—is not well understood,
but has been known to promote eye cataracts, cause skin burns, and
affect human behavior.
EPA, together with a number of other Federal agencies, is respon-
sible for protecting people and the environment from harmful radiation.
Monitoring network
As part of a nationwide network,
eight sampling stations monitor
airborne radioactivity in EPA Region 5.
These stations, established by EPA
and run by State or local agencies,
operate around the clock and measure
fallout in case of nuclear accidents
(Chernobyl 1986) or aboveground
nuclear weapons tests. Besides air,
EPA regularly checks precipitation,
surface water, drinking water, and
milk for radioiodine and radioisotopes.
Data are then used to establish
radiation trends and set background
radiation limits.
EPA also helps other Federal
agencies test State and county
radiological emergency response
plans, which would go into effect in
case of an accident at one of the 18
nuclear power plants in Region 5. In
fiscal 1987, EPA participated in five
such tests, including the national,
multiagency test at the nuclear power
plant in Zion, IL.
In support of EPA's hazardous
waste cleanup and control programs,
regional radiation experts automati-
cally survey sites suspected of
radioactive materials and then
recommend alternatives for cleanup.
In addition, selected industrial
facilities are being reviewed to
forestall radiation problems in the
future.
Federal facilities that produce
radioactive materials also come under
EPA scrutiny. However, EPA cannot
enforce Federal law in Federal
facilities except by means of a
compliance agreement. Such an
agreement was signed in fiscal 1987
with the Department of Energy to limit
radioactive emissions at its nuclear
Feed Materials Production Center in
Fernald, OH.
Radon response
In response to a national health
concern, EPA in 1987 launched a
Radon Action Program to deal with
elevated radon levels in many homes.
Radon, a colorless, odorless gas, seeps
into homes from soil and rocks. Every
year, it may be responsible for as many
12
-------
RADIATION
as 20,000 lung cancer deaths nation-
wide. Some 3 million—or 25 percent—
of all homes in EPA Region 5 are
estimated to exceed the officially
suggested "don't worry" radon level
of 4 picocuries per liter of air.
After EPA announced this level
nationwide, EPA Region 5 answered
about 1,600 written and phone
requests for radon information
within a couple of days. A citizen's
information packet (still available) was
immediately put together; it included
the popular layman's guide to radon
and a brochure on radon reduction
methods.
Radiation staff continues to survey
the extent of the radon problem in
EPA Region 5, with the help of State
and local public-health agencies.
Top Cutaway under bathtub, where foam
has been sprayed to keep out radon.
Middle Basement sump with radon
removal equipment.
Bottom. Exhaust fan to remove radon
from house
COMMON RADON ENTRY POINTS
RADON RISK EVALUATION CHART
pCi/l
200
100
40
20
10
4
2
1
0.2
WL
1
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.001
Estimated number of
LUNG CANCER DEATHS
Due to radon exposure (Out of 100)
440-770
270-630
120-380
60-210
30-120
13-50
7-30
3-13
1-3
Comparable
Exposure Levels
1000 times average 4
outdoor level
100 times average
indoor level
100 times average
outdoor level ^
10 times average •<
indoor level
10 times average
outdoor level .,
Average indoor
level •*
Average outdoor
level ^
I
8
1
8
i
1
1
Comparable
| Risk
mSaiiL More than 60 times
fiSSwSg^ Non-smoker risk
QQOOJjpfflH
jlggrais smoker
SHxSSo!
fflXg&i
H&i&&i
XQQQOv 3
H
•1
X»;*X"Xv
•
Six^x?-:
•:•:
iji:
SiviSiii
•i'ivX'X'i
SSSix
r 20,000 chest x-rays
per year
*• 2 pack-a-day smoker
> 1 pack-a-day smoker
>• 5 times non-smoker
risk
>. 200 chest x-rays
per year
^ Non-smoker risk of
dying from lung cancer
* 20 chest x-rays
per year
iiiiiiil 1
13
-------
OUR LAND
Winter, summer—excavation at hazardous waste sites goes 01
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTES
The EPA Region 5 report on the environment in 1983 said that "protecting
America from the consequences of improper hazardous waste disposal"
is the Agency's greatest challenge. Although a great deal has been done to
improve the methods of hazardous waste disposal in the meantime, that
challenge remains. Thousands of abandoned hazardous waste dumps—
scattered from inner cities to country meadows— bear witness that the task
of cleaning up has only just begun.
Superfund amended
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 created the $1.6
billion Superfund—a 5-year program to
finance the cleanup of hazardous waste
sites throughout the country. In 1986,
the Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act (SARA) extended the
program for another 5 years, signifi-
cantly increased the fund to $8.5
billion, established more stringent
cleanup standards, and enhanced
EPA's power to enforce the law.
Over 5,300 sites
In 1983, there were an estimated
2,900 abandoned hazardous waste
sites in EPA Region 5; by 1988 the
Region had found over 5,300. These
sites are being evaluated for their
potential to threaten human health and
the environment. To date, EPA Region 5
has completed preliminary assess-
ments at 4,730 sites and inspections
at 1,310 sites.
(A preliminary assessment looks at
all available information on a site to
determine if further investigation or
specific action is needed. A site inspec-
tion is a physical investigation of the
site to determine if hazardous wastes
have leaked into the environment.)
There are 228 sites in EPA Region 5
on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL),
a nationwide inventory of 951 hazar-
dous waste sites eligible for cleanup
under Superfund. That represents a
400 percent regional increase over the
53 sites listed in 1983 and more sites on
the NPL (24 percent) than in any other
area of the country.
Emergency cleanups
To cope with hazardous waste more
effectively, EPA recognizes two basic
types of action: emergency situations
and long-term cleanups. Since no two
hazardous waste sites are alike, EPA
evaluates each site individually and
tailors its actions accordingly.
Emergency cleanups (removal
actions) are short-term activities
designed to clean up or stabilize a
hazardous waste site that poses an
immediate threat to human health and
the environment. (The site does not
have to be on the priorities list.) The
Superfund amendments increased the
time limit and funding for emergency
cleanups from 6 months and $1 million
per site to 1 year and $2 million per site.
In fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5 started
emergency cleanups at 8 sites on the
priorities list and at 29 sites not on the
list. Similarly, it completed emergency
cleanups at 8 sites on the priorities list
and at 24 sites not on the list. In addi-
tion, the Region supervised seven
emergency cleanups completed by
private companies at their own sites.
Innovative technology
Innovative technology, as
emphasized in Superfund amend-
ments, was applied at Commercial
Oil, a waste oil and solvent reclaimer
near Toledo, OH. In 1986, EPA
began pumping out PCB-contami-
nated water (9 million gallons thus
far) and treating it with a carbon
adsorption process, during which
PCB's cling to a carbon filter and
clean water is discharged at the other
end. The 20,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated sludges will be put
through a new process that will
reduce the sludge to dry powder
(suitable for landfilling), deconta-
minate the water, and turn the PCB-
contammated oil into a byproduct.
This process will decontaminate, by
volume, 85 percent of the water in a
series of lagoons.
Another major emergency cleanup,
completed in April 1987, took place at
the Main Street Well Field in Elkhart,
IN. Here EPA Region 5 had to deal
with widespread well-water conta-
mination by TCE's and other volatile
organic chemicals. Some 14,000 feet
of water mams were installed to
connect more than 300 homes and
businesses to the municipal water
system. In addition, EPA provided
whole-house or individual faucet
filters to 86 homes where water
mains were not available.
Long-term cleanups
Besides emergency cleanups, EPA
under Superfund also focuses on long-
term cleanups (remedial actions). They
involve four specific steps: investigation-
study, selection of cleanup method,
design of plans, and actual cleanup.
Such cleanups may last as long as
several years, and the site may require
upkeep far into the future.
15
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTES
In fiscal 1 987, EPA Region 5 made
the required preliminary assess-
ments at 805 sites and inspected 225
others. The Region started remedial
investigation-feasibility studies at
36 sites and continued such studies
at 102 other sites, in addition to
selecting cleanup plans for 14 sites.
Companies or individuals who are
at least partially responsible for
conditions at a hazardous waste site
(responsible parties) often volunteer
to clean up, or are forced to do so by
EPA and the States. In fiscal 1 987,
EPA Region 5 began negotiating with
these responsible parties to conduct
remedial investigation-feasibility
studies at 20 sites and to design
cleanup plans, or start actual clean-
up, at 10 sites. Another 10 cleanups
were started either by EPA or by
responsible parties.
The one long-term cleanup comple-
ted in fiscal 1987 was at the Chem-Dyne
site in Hamilton, OH—one of the worst
hazardous waste sites in EPA Region 5.
After 4 years, the ground-water treat-
ment system—which will have to be
operated for the next decade—was
finally in place. The total value of the
settlement, including over $4 million in
costs recovered by EPA, was $19.4 mil-
lion, paid by 112 responsible parties.
Federal facilities compliance
EPA Region 5 and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency have
recently signed the first Federal
Facilities Compliance Agreement
with the Department of Defense. The
precedent-setting agreement covers
all hazardous waste cleanup activi-
ties at the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant. It underscores
the intent of Congress to make
Federal facilities subject to all
Superfund regulations.
Emergency plans
The Superfund amendments also
launched the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to Know Act (Title III),
under which certain manufacturers
and handlers of 366 specific chemicals
must meet strict reporting require-
ments. As part of this program, EPA
must maintain a national toxic chemi-
cals release inventory and make it
available to the public. And States
and local governments must develop
emergency plans in case of a chemical
disaster, such as in Bhopal, India,
several years ago.
All regional States have appointed
their emergency response commissions
and have designated priority areas
for emergency planning: 10 areas in
Illinois, 8 in Indiana, 8 in Michigan,
8 in Minnesota, 22 in Ohio, and 4 in
Wisconsin.
(Apriority area is determined, in part,
by the type and number of industries in
the area, by size of population, and by
the record of prior chemical accidents,
or releases.)
RCR A and amendments
There are over 36,000 companies in
EPA Region 5 that handle hazardous
wastes and almost 1,000 facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of these wastes.
Regulating their activities are two key
laws: The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments (HSWA) of 1984. The
amendments, passed by Congress
largely because of citizen concerns
about hazardous waste disposal and
ground-water contamination, gave
new strength to RCRA and added under
its wing small-quantity generators
(less than 1,000 kilograms—or 2,200
Ibs—of hazardous waste per month).
While Superfund deals with cleanup
of abandoned hazardous waste sites,
RCRA and now HSWA are concerned
with active hazardous waste
facilities. The goals of EPA's waste
management program are to:
• protect human health and the
environment—the foremost
consideration;
• reduce waste while conserving
energy and natural resources; and
• reduce or eliminate hazardous
waste as quickly and as effi-
ciently as possible.
These goals are achieved mainly
through three major EPA programs:
the control of hazardous waste from
"the cradle to the grave," the regula-
tion of solid (mostly nonhazardous)
waste, and the regulation of toxic
substances and petroleum products
stored in underground tanks.
Tracking system, permits
EPA has developed a tracking
system, under which a document,
called a manifest, accompanies hazar-
dous wastes every step of the way—
from their creation to their ultimate
disposal. In addition, EPA has deve-
loped a RCRA permit system for all
hazardous waste facilities to ensure
their safe operation. EPA Region 5
plans to issue permits to all active land
disposal facilities by November 1988,
to incinerators by November 1989,
and to treatment and storage facilities
by November 1992. Priority will be
given to the largest facilities and to
those with the most potential of
causing environmental harm.
16
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTES
RCRA regulations also require that
owners prepare plans for the facilities'
eventual closure. More than 250 of the
317 land disposal facilities in EPA
Region 5 have closed or expressed their
intent to close during fiscal 1987; many
storage and treatment facilities are
also expected to close within the next
few years. In fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5
issued 24 RCRA permits and completed
closures at 1 53 facilities.
Over 550 facilities inspected
To prevent harm from the estimated
80 percent of hazardous waste
disposed of on land, EPA is developing
regulations to ban such practice. The
new RCRA amendments also require
waste generators (as well as treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities)
to report to EPA and the States on their
efforts to reduce the production of
hazardous waste through recycling,
separation, treatment, and other
methods.
In fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5 and the
States inspected more than 550
facilities and more than 1,700 waste
handlers to ensure compliance with
RCRA regulations. Over 1,000 enforce-
ment actions—from warning letters
to criminal proceedings—were taken
against RCRA violators in fiscal 1987.
These efforts helped to bring hundreds
of waste handlers back into
compliance.
Incineration
Issuing permits to incinerators is
one major way in which EPA
encourages alternatives to land
disposal of hazardous waste. Through
carefully controlled high-temperature
combustion, incinerators can almost
totally destroy a wide variety of toxic
organic wastes. Stack emissions
consist almost entirely of harmless
EPA investigator collects water, air, and
soil samples at a RCRA s/te
water vapor, and bottom ashes contain
only unburnable inorganics, such as
heavy metals.
EPA Region 5 has about 40 active
hazardous waste incinerators, but only
three operate commercially, meaning
that they accept waste from the industry
at large. The SCA incinerator in South
Chicago, the TWI incinerator in
Sauget, IL, and the Ross incinerator
in Grafton, OH, are in various stages
of receiving their EPA permits.
In addition to incineration, EPA is
encouraging companies to reduce the
creation of hazardous waste, to
develop chemical or biological treat-
ment methods, and to use waste
exchange programs, where one
company's waste becomes another
company's resource.
Solid waste disposal
In 1987, the United States generated
220 million tons of solid or municipal
waste, commonly known as garbage.
That's about 3.4 Ibs daily for every one
of us. Where to put this gigantic—and
growing—mountain of trash has
become a national problem. Landfill
space, especially in Metropolitan
Chicago, has become critical.
Yet, solid wastes did not surprise
anyone overnight. It is an old issue. As
far back as 1965 Congress passed the
Solid Waste Disposal Act to provide
funds for State solid waste manage-
ment programs. RCRA also deals with
solid waste, encouraging recovery of
reusable materials, promoting sound
solid waste disposal, and calling for
overall waste reduction.
EPA Region 5 and the States were
actively developing recycling and solid
17
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTES
waste programs through the early
1980's. However, as hazardous waste
took over the headlines, solid-waste
issues retreated. When Federal funds
were diverted to hazardous waste,
many States were forced to discontinue
their solid waste programs.
The goal: fewer landfills
The new RCRA amendments, how-
ever, have once again brought solid
waste to the fore. EPA is evaluating the
ability of existing regulations to
prevent damage to human health and
the environment. If necessary, new
regulations will be proposed.
Several States and local communi-
ties in EPA Region 5 have started
recycling programs and have begun
construction of waste-to-energy
facilities that recover the energy
produced by incineration. The long-
term goal is to reduce the need for
landfills as much as possible.
Location of municipal solid-waste incinerators in EPA Region 5
Underground storage tanks
The 1984 RCRA amendments also
established a new Underground
Storage Tank (UST) program to regulate
the storage primarily of gasoline, crude
oil, and other petroleum products. EPA
estimates there are several million such
underground tanks nationwide, some
450,000 in EPA Region 5 alone. About
334,000 of these tanks have been iden-
tified by the regional States through a
notification process; an estimated
110,000 additional tanks have yet to
be identified.
New EPA regulations for under-
ground tanks will cover performance
standards for new tanks, leak detection,
leak prevention, corrective action, and
financial responsibility.
200,000 tanks leak
In October 1986, Congress amended
RCRA to come to grips with leaking
tanks and established the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
program. It is similar to the Superfund
program, except that it limits cleanupsto
actual petroleum-product releases
from underground tanks. And these
releases are significant: EPA estimates
that about 200,000 of the 1.4 million
underground tanks regulated nation-
wide are leaking.
The LUST program is financed by a
0.1 -cent tax on motor fuels and will
raise $500 million between 1987 and
1991. These funds, unlike Superfund
moneys, will be used mainly by the
States under cooperative agreements
with EPA.
Once the UST program is fully under
way (from 1988 onward), cleanups
under LUST—where the responsible
owner or operator cannot be found—
should go down drastically
18
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
EPA's national inventory shows more than 63,000 chemical substances
in commercial use today. And hundreds more are being introduced every
year. While most of these chemicals are harmless and literally all around
us— in almost everything we touch—it is a relative handful of toxic
substances that EPA is concerned about.
Besides man-made chemical compounds, toxic substances include
naturally occurring heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, and lead.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 gives EPA
the authority to regulate the development, distribution, and marketing of
chemical substances. Importers, manufacturers, and processors must
notify EPA 90 days before introducing a new chemical into the market; they
may also be required to test chemicals for toxicity. To prevent unreasonable
risk to human health or the environment, EPA has a broad range of options
under TSCA—from mandatory warning labels to total bans for especially
dangerous chemicals.
PCB's banned; some remain
One such chemical group that
continues to haunt the industry and
EPA is polychlorinated biphenyls,
better known as PCB's The man-
made, colorless, oily substance was
once widely used as a lubricant, fire
retardant, and insulator in electrical
equipment. But PCB's, almost inde-
structible in the environment, were
shown to be harmful to fish, lab
animals, and people at even very low
levels. Their toxic and carcinogenic
properties were considered so serious
that PCB's were the only chemical
substance specifically named in TSCA,
EPA was charged with their control.
EPA banned PCB's in 1979, but they
were allowed to remain in electrical
transformers, capacitors, hydraulic
systems, and other totally enclosed
industrial equipment. An estimated
60 percent—or 380 million pounds—
of all PCB's remaining in the United
States are in EPA Region 5.
Compliance rate 50 percent
Since the 1979 ban, EPA Region 5
has inspected some 2,960 facilities for
compliance with regulations on PCB
use, storage, disposal, and so on. Only
about half passed inspection. To
increase the compliance rate, EPA
continues to work closely with Ohio
and Michigan. Under cooperative
agreements with EPA Region 5,
personnel of the two States have
completed 379 PCB inspections in
fiscal 1987. Since EPA Region 5 does
not have cooperative agreements with
the other four regional States, PCB
inspections are conducted by EPA in
those States.
EPA Region 5 also responds to
emergencies in case of PCB spills and
takes enforcement actions. In fiscal
1987, it initiated 194 such actions,
which included civil administrative
complaints as well as notices of non-
compliance with TSCA. Each year
enforcement actions are initiated for
new violations; pending actions are
resolved either through negotiation,
judicial decree, or the payment of
assessed penalties.
In fiscal 1987, EPA settled 67 cases.
This netted $400,000 in penalties and
—more important—$10 million in
environmental benefits: either by re-
moval of PCB equipment from service
or by decontamination of PCB spill sites.
New developments
During fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5
approved 11 new research and develop-
ment projects—or granted extensions
to previously authorized projects—that
dealt with the dire need for PCB treat-
ment and disposal. These included
chemical detoxification of PCB-conta-
mmated soils, catalytic hydrogenation
of PCB's to produce high-quality fuel oil,
19
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
disassembly and solvent-washing of
PCB transformers, and other innovative
methods. (EPA allows the disposal of
PCB transformers in TSCA landfills, but
only after draining and an 18-hour
rinse.)
To ensure compliance with its EPA
permit, the SCA incinerator in South
Chicago held its fifth annual trial burn
in 1987. It is the only EPA-approved PCB
incinerator in the Region. The trial burn
affirmed the incinerator's ability to
destroy PCB's at its customary 99.9999
percent efficiency. High-temperature
incineration (above 2,192 degrees
Fahrenheit) remains the most efficient
way to destroy PCB's.
Record settlement
In November 1987, EPA Head-
quarters reached a preliminary
agreement with the Texas Eastern
Pipeline Co. to clean up PCB's along
its 10,000-mile natural-gas line, part
of which runs through three EPA
Region 5 States. Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio. The agreement, which calls for
an estimated $400 million in cleanup
costs and $15 million in civil penalties,
is the largest in EPA history. EPA
Region 5 personnel had inspected a
number of the company's disposal pits
for PCB's earlier that year.
In another case, EPA Region 5 and
Commonwealth Edison Co. signed a
consent decree, which required the
company to remove all on-line PCB
capacitors by January 1, 1987, and to
survey and decontaminate more than
300 old spill sites in northern Illinois.
The cleanup of the old spill sites will
continue until 1991.
"10C|Jt ' ' |3PA requires registration of PCB
with fire-response
20
-------
ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a tough, heat-resistant natural mineral that was widely used
for fireproofing, insulation, and many other purposes in schools as well as
in commercial and residential buildings for several decades... until
totally banned by EPA in 1978.
The reason for the ban was that asbestos, when dry and damaged,
breaks up into millions of invisible fibers that get into the air and
frequently into the human body. And that's when the trouble starts,
because asbestos stays forever. It can cause asbestosis (a lung disease)
and cancers of the lung, esophagus, stomach, colon, and the
peritoneal cavity (mesothelioma).
Asbestos inspections
In 1979 EPA announced a voluntary
school asbestos inspection and control
program; it was but a limited success.
Then, in 1982, EPA issued its asbestos-
in-schools rule, which required all
school districts to inspect every area of
every school for friable (easily crumbled)
materials. If such materials were found,
districts were required to notify parents,
teachers, and employees. The districts
were given 13 months to comply.
Since the asbestos-in-schools rule
went into effect, EPA Region 5 made
1,778 compliance inspections, repre-
senting 6,000 schools from various
school districts in the Region. Some
school districts were in serious violation
of the rule. They were cited by EPA in
"••4
331 civil administrative actions, with
proposed penalties from $2,600 to
$432,100. School districts with minor
infractions were issued 663 notices of
noncompliance.
Region gets $46 million
To help schools that had serious
asbestos problems but no money to
correct them. Congress passed the
A sbestos School Hazard A batementAct
(ASHAA) in 1984. Under the act, more
than $157 million in no-interest loans
or in a combination of loans and grants
was provided to financially strapped
schools nationwide. Almost 30 percent,
or $46.1 million, went to schools in
EPA Region 5. (See graph next page)
These ASHAA funds made it possible
for school districts in EPA Region 5 to
start 202 abatement projects aimed at
eliminating asbestos hazards in 127
schools.
Final rule issued
EPA noted, however, that some
schools (or their contractors) were not
doing a thorough-enough job of identi-
fying, removing, or sealing-in asbestos
materials. The Asbestos Hazard Emer-
gency Response Act (AHERA) of 1986
was passed by Congress to correct
these deficiencies. Under the act, EPA
issued a final rule in October 1987,
which requires all local education
agencies to:
• inspect school buildings for all
asbestos materials;
• submit management plans to
State governors; and
• reduce or eliminate asbestos
hazards.
EPA's final rule also spells out
requirements for warning labels,
Left to right Workers use a Blast Trax
machine to remove asbestos material from
floo'. demonstrate glove-bagging
technique to gather asbestos lagging on
pipt", chf:ck asbestos material before
it enter <• i:iniltill
-------
ASBESTOS
record-keeping, and making school
management plans available to
the public.
Congress appropriated $20 million
to help schools conduct inspections and
develop management plans by the
October 12, 1988, deadline* so that
schools could begin to carry out all
provisions of the rule by July 9, 1989.
EPA Region 5, together with State
agencies, has held 61 seminars for local
educational agencies on the require-
ments of AHERA and the final rule.
Technical assistance, as well as
guidance and reference materials, is
also being made available to any school
district.
Demolition-renovation
While asbestos in schools conti-
nues to command EPA's attention, the
enforcement of asbestos demolition
and renovation regulations is also part
of the job. These regulations are
designed to protect workers and
passers-by from asbestos fibers
during the process of demolishing or
renovating institutional hospitals,
schools), commercial (offices, stores),
or industrial (factories, warehouses)
buildings, as well as private homes with
more than four dwelling units. Today
these sources of asbestos emissions far
outnumber all others.
One important provision of these
regulations is the advance reporting
requirement, which gives EPA, State,
and local personnel enough time to
inspect the proposed demolition-reno-
vation site and to make sure that
asbestos emissions are kept to a
minimum.
The rules also specify requirements
for wetting and removing asbestos-
*'Local education agencies may request deferral
of this deadline to May 9, 1989, according to
latest change in law
bearing materials and for their safe
disposal in approved landfills.
Information center
In June 1986, the Midwest
Asbestos Information Center (MAIC)
was opened at the University of Illinois
in Chicago, in the School of Public
Health. The center, established and
run with the help of EPA grants, offers
courses and other information to the
public and to asbestos removal con-
tractors on asbestos control and
abatement techniques. MAIC has
been presenting two to three courses
per month. (For course information
and scheduling at MAIC, call
312-996-5762.)
22
-------
DIOXIN
Dioxin has been called the most toxic chemical made by man. An unwanted
byproduct of certain manufacturing and combustion processes, dioxin is
known to cause cancer and other maladies in lab animals. Based on animal
data and some studies of humans, dioxin is considered a probable human
carcinogen. Dioxin can also cause a persistent form of acne and liver
dysfunction; it also may affect the immunological system.
Accurately used, "dioxin" is a generic term that pertains to a family
of 75 related chemical compounds, of which 2,3,7,8,-TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetra-
chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) is the most toxic and the best known.
EPA Region 5 has been working on the dioxin problem since the late
1970's, when that toxicant was first discovered in fish of the Great Lakes
Basin. In 1983 EPA developed its Dioxin Strategy.whose key part was the
National Dioxin Study, a survey of dioxin contamination throughout the
country.
Let's take a brief look at results of that study in EPA Region 5 and
at follow-up activities:
Midland
EPA first focused on Midland, Ml,
where dioxin was found in fish of the
Tittabawassee River, in soil at the Dow
Chemical plant, and in the company's
wastewater. The State issued a
warning on eating fish downstream
from the plant and ordered Dow to
reduce its dioxin discharges. The
company installed a filtration system for
its wastewater and, as a result of an
EPA order, removed demolition debris
and capped contaminated soil areas.
Pesticide formulators
A nationwide sampling of 64
manufacturing sites included 20 in
EPA Region 5. Dioxin was found at
three of those sites. Contaminated soil
at the sites has been covered, and other
measures to deal with the problem are
being considered. Additional regional
sites are being checked.
Incinerators
Since incineration of certain munici-
pal and industrial wastes can be a
source of dioxin, EPA's sampling
emphasized air emissions and ash from
incinerators. There was considerable
variation in the amount of dioxin found.
Incinerator ash was sampled at 72 sites
nationwide, including 23 sites in EPA
Region 5. Because ash from three of
those regional sites was found contami-
nated with dioxin, the three sites are
being further investigated under the
Superfund hazardous waste program.
EPA is drafting stronger regulations
for municipal incinerators. And while
it continues to evaluate dioxin emis-
sions, EPA has not yet declared dioxin
a hazardous air pollutant.
Paper mills
After dioxin was discovered in fish,
EPA and Wisconsin launched a joint
study, which showed that sludges from
several bleached kraft pulp and paper
mills contained dioxin, apparently a by-
product of the pulp bleaching process.
Similar results were obtained in
Minnesota and Maine. Fish consump-
tion advisories have been issued for
areas below the mills. Afollow-up study
of five such mills nationwide found
dioxin in effluents of three of the mills
and in sludges of all five mills. EPA and
the States are working on ways to
reduce dioxin levels in these effluents.
Fish
In the national study, fish were
collected from 395 sites, 80 of which
were in EPA Region 5 and 29 in the
Great Lakes, some outside the Region.
Fish from 112 of the national sites and
from 23 of the Great Lakes sites were
found to be contaminated with dioxin.
In areas where fish contamination has
been the greatest, States have issued
consumption advisories and are conti-
nuing the sampling. In addition, fish
collected by the national study are
being further analyzed by EPA.
* * *
EPA presented a detailed report on
the National Dioxin Study to Congress
in October 1987.
23
-------
PESTICIDES
Some pesticides (rotenone, pyrethrum, nicotine) are derived from plants
and go back to ancient times. The first wide use of a pesticide to protect
crops took place in 1868, when an arsenic-based insecticide—Paris
green—was developed. But the era of massive chemical pest control
began in 1939 with the formulation of DDT, which EPA banned in this
country in 1972.
Today, over 1 billion pounds of pesticides—embracing some 1,500
chemical compounds—are used in the United States every year. About
20 percent of that total is manufactured and used in EPA Region 5.
Pesticides have been able to promote fantastic crop yields (corn,
potatoes) and check such mosquito-borne diseases as malaria and yellow
fever. However, there was a price. Pesticides have been linked with
acute poisoning, birth defects, sterility, and other maladies in humans.
Improper use and disposal have also harmed the environment.
All pesticides registered
Congress passed the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide, andRodenticide Act
(FIFRA) in 1947, last amended in 1978.
It is the main law under which EPA
controls the manufacture, distribution,
and use of pesticides. The main respon-
sibility of EPA under FIFRA is the
registration of all pesticides sold or used
in the United States, including those
regularly used in homes. Every pesticide
product must have an EPA-approved
label and an EPA registration number.
Such a product must not be used for any
other purpose than that stated on the
label.
17 criminal cases
As authorized by law, EPA has
turned over to the six regional States
the primary responsibility of enforcing
FIFRA regulations. Under the enforce-
ment program, which to date totals
Top State inspectois being trained
on proper use of phosphine in gram
fumigation Bottom Crop-dusting
aircraft at mixing-loading site
11.6 million in EPA grants, these States
prepared 17 criminal cases, held 15
administrative hearings, dispatched
481 warning letters, and issued 236
stop-sale orders during the latest 12-
month reporting period.
EPA Region 5 dispatched an addi-
tional 239 warning letters during fiscal
1987 and issued 37 civil complaints
for serious violations of FIFRA, with
penalties totalling $107,970.
(Warning letters went to pesticide
users and manufacturers primarily for
label violations and product deficien-
cies. The stop-sale orders were issued
for unregistered pesticide products or
those with serious violations.)
Over 1,800 inspections
The regional States have also been
busy with other aspects of FIFRA
enforcement. By the end of the latest
12-month reporting period, they have
inspected 424 pesticide producers and
1,384 retailers and have completed 535
agricultural-use and 919 other-use
pesticide investigations. Inspectors
look for unregistered pesticides, mis-
labeled containers, altered labels,
adulterated contents, and illegal uses.
Along with enforcement, the States
have assumed the responsibility for the
certification and training of private and
commercial pesticide applicators.
During the latest 12-month reporting
period, the regional States either
revoked, suspended, or modified 70
applicator licenses for various violations
of Federal and State law. By the end of
fiscal 1987, there were 148,941 private
and 32,301 commercial certified pesti-
cide applicators in EPA Region 5.
Besides overseeing State pesticide
enforcement and applicator certifica-
tion programs—and taking direct
enforcement actions—duties of EPA
Region 5 pesticides personnel include:
24
-------
PESTICIDES
• monitoring pesticide use by profes-
sional pest-control operators, aerial
sprayers, farmers, pesticide impor-
ters, and homeowners;
• supervising State inspections of the
4,113 registered pesticide produ-
cers in the Region;
• conducting laboratory audits to
ensure accuracy of data submitted
by pesticide producers; and
• providing annual training for State
pesticide inspectors.
Testing water wells
A major pesticide project under way
by end of fiscal 1987 was the national
survey of contamination in drinking-
water wells. It will test about 1,500
community and private wells through-
out the 50 States for the presence
of some 120 pesticides. The pilot pro-
gram for this survey, which involved
Minnesota (one of our regional States),
was completed by end of fiscal 1987;
the full survey is scheduled for com-
pletion by mid-1989.
EPA ACTS ON 4 PESTICIDES
Dinoseb: On October 7, 1986, EPA took emergency action and
immediately suspended all uses of this pesticide because of risks
associated with field applications. Exposure to Dinoseb during or
shortly after application poses very serious risk of birth defects.
2,4,5-T/Silvex: On April 8, 1987, EPA announced procedures for
requesting compensation and for disposing of products affected by
the 1979 and 1983 suspension and cancellation orders. The
announcement was aimed at those not previously compensated for
their stocks of Silvex (2,4,5-T). EPA's orders were based, in part, on
evidence that one component of Silvex (2,3,7,8-TCCD)—also
known as dioxin—poses risks of miscarriage, birth defects, and
cancer.
Chlordane/heptachlor: EPA reached an agreement with Velsicol
Chemical Corp. on the continued distribution, sale, and useof exist-
ing stocks of chlordane/heptachlor products. As of August 11,
1987, Velsicol voluntarily stopped distributing and selling chlor-
dane in this country while it looked at newapplication techniques for
reducing indoor air exposure. Use of existing stocks was allowed
until April 15,1988. EPA's concern stems from evidence that these
substances cause tumors in laboratory animals.
TBT: On October 1, 1987, EPA proposed to restrict the use of anti-
fouling paints containing TBT (tributyltin). EPA hasdetermined that
these products may present unreasonable risks to mussels, clams,
oysters, and fish—all aquatic "good guys." TBT compounds have
been registered since early 1960's to keep boat hulls, buoys, crab
pots, fishnets, and docks clear of certain marine organisms.
Although both pleasure and commercial craft on the Great Lakes
are sometimes painted with TBT paints, there have been no major
trouble spots identified. (TBT was banned by Michigan in May 1987.)
STATE PESTICIDE AGENCIES
Illinois
Bureau of Plant and Apiary Protection
Illinois Department of Agriculture
State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 4906
Springfield, IL 62708-4906
(217)782-3817
Pesticides & Vector Control
(Structured Pest Control Only)
Division of Engineering & Sanitation
Illinois Department of Public Health
535 W. Jefferson St.
Springfield, IL 62761
(217)782-4674
Indiana
Indiana State Chemist Office
Department of Biochemistry
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317)494-1587
Michigan
Plant Industry Division
Michigan Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 30017
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)373-1087
Minnesota
Agronomy Services Division
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
90 W. Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55107
(612)296-8547
Ohio
Division of Plant Industry
Ohio Department of Agriculture
8995 E. Main St.
Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399
(614)866-6361
Wisconsin
Assistant Administrator
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture
801 W. Badger Rd
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, Wl 53708
(608)266-7135
25
-------
OUR WATER
The Water Quality Act of 1 987, recognizing more than
three decades of achievement under earlier clean-water
laws, picks up the fight against two stubborn foes:
toxic pollutants and nonpomt-source pollution. The latter
is pollution from large areas that are highly dispersed,
such as runoff from farmland, city streets (winter salt,
especially), construction sites, and mines.
To reach the goals of our clean-water legislation,
EPA Region 5 and the States will focus on discharge
permits for all point sources—readily identifiable, single
outlets such as pipes and ditches. These permits will aim
to control toxic pollutants still being poured into the
Nation's waters
NPDES permits
The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits
set the standards for controlling most
point sources of pollution. In EPA
Region 5, all such permits are adminis-
tered by the States, subject to EPA
overview. There are about 1,200 major
and 14,000 minor wastewater
dischargers in the Region. Of the
major dischargers, 95 percent are
today in full compliance with their
current 5-year NPDES permits, which
specify the kinds and amounts of
pollutants to be discharged. As these
permits are renewed, they will be
modified to reflect more stringent
control of toxicants.
Violators prosecuted
When industries or cities violate
these permits, often killing fish or
contaminating water supplies in the
process, EPA does not stand idle. For
example, in 1986 and 1987, EPA
Region 5 referred over 40 cases to the
Department of Justice for prosecution.
And the States took many more to
their attorneys general.
In 1987 alone, EPA Region 5 resolved
13 earlier lawsuits, with penalties of
more than $1.5 million...not counting
any costs for equipment and construc-
tion that were required by the court.
The new 1987 clean-water act
considerably strengthened EPA's
authority. It increased civil fines up to
$25,000 per day for violators and now
allows EPA itself to assess adminis-
trative fines for NPDES permit
violations, up to $1 25,000.
Sparkling waters lap a pebbly shore
26
-------
Pretreatment standards
Besides complying with their NPDES
permits, industries who discharge
wastewater into municipal sewage
systems must also comply with
National Pretreatment Standards.
These standards ensure that industrial
discharges don't interfere with the
treatment of sanitary (domestic)
wastes, or pass through the sewage
plant untreated, or contaminate the
sludge with toxic pollutants.
EPA Region 5 and the States now
oversee 332 such pretreatment pro-
grams administered by municipalities.
Construction grants
Perhaps nothing has had more
impact on clean lakes and streams
than EPA's construction grants
program, started back in 1956 under
the early clean-water laws.
During fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5
awarded $431.3 million in construction
grants to help local governments build
or upgrade sewage treatment plants
and other facilities designed to improve
water quality. A total of 141 treatment
plants and other projects began
operating that year, and 180 more were
scheduled for start-up in fiscal 1988,
when $637.8 million in grant funds
were projected.
One of the largest municipal waste-
water construction projects is now
under way in Milwaukee, where EPA
Region 5 has contributed $414 million
toward a $1.7 billion water pollution
abatement program. When completed
in the mid-1990's, it will provide a
highly reliable form of secondary (bio-
chemical) wastewater treatment at the
city's Jones Island and South Shore
plants. What's more, the discharge of
combined sewer overflows to Milwau-
kee-area waterways and Lake
Michigan will be virtually eliminated.
!slnin! wastewater treatment plant in Milwaukee
The new 1987 clean-water act
phases out the construction grants
program by 1990. But local govern-
ments will not be left high and dry.
EPA will continue to help finance
municipal sewage treatment plants
through a new State revolving-fund
system. Regional States are slated to
receive over $ 1.8 billion through
fiscal 1994 under this State-managed
system.
One stipulation: States must first
use these funds for projects that will
put individual plants in compliance with
certain requirements of the new clean-
water act. Remaining funds may then
be used for other projects related to
treatment of wastewater or control of
pollution from nonpomt sources.
Further clean-water efforts
• In August 1987, to control the
discharge of toxic pollutants more
effectively, EPA Region 5 distributed to
the States and other interested parties
a Toxicity Control Strategy. Its aim is
to gather all available information, such
as chemical analyses and toxicity test
results, for the development of strong,
enforceable NPDES permits.
• In a pilot program to control toxicants
in watersheds, the Lake Michigan Toxic
Pollutant Control-Reduction Strategy
is being put into effect. It contains a
master plan, signed by EPA and the four
Lake Michigan States, for ending the
toxic substances problem in the lake.
• EPA Region 5 has also prepared an
Ant/degradation Policy, which is being
incorporated into State water quality
standards This will ensure that streams
are not degraded by new pollutants
without compelling reasons.
• EPA Region 5 has continued to
support State efforts for cleaner waters
by setting up a Regional Water Quality
Standards Workgroup. Among other
activities, workshops on water moni-
toring, permit writing, and water quality
standards are being held throughout
the Region.
• Four of the six regional States have
submitted, and received approvals
for, their updates on water quality
standards. And Indiana submitted
a standards package that includes a
comprehensive update on toxicants.
• The new 1987 clean-water act
requires States to develop lists of
specific (point) sources and amounts of
toxic pollutants being discharged from
them, as well as individual control
strategies for such sources. The
deadline for these lists was set for
February 4, 1989.
27
-------
WATERSHED MAIM AGE ME NT
EPA Region 5 has developed a management team responsible for the
protection of our watersheds—land areas that drain into the Region's
lakes and streams. The team's goal is to combine the Wetlands Protection
and the Clean Lakes Programs with effective control of pollution from
nonpoint (mostly agricultural) sources. Our waters directly reflect the status
of surrounding land: If the land is polluted, the lakes and streams cannot
help but be polluted, too.
Clean Lakes Program
This program is designed to help
clean up the most polluted and the most
heavily used of the 29,235 fresh-water,
publicly owned lakes in EPA Region 5.
It has funded 99 projects since 1976.
The concept of sound watershed
management under the Clean Lakes
Program was amply demonstrated at
Lake L-Aqua-Na, IL, and Big Stone
Lake, MIM, recently. These two projects
were enormously successful not only
because all the right things were done
(erosion and animal waste control,
stream-bank stabilization) but also
because all citizens were 100 percent
behind them.
Nonpoint pollution control
EPA Region 5 is working with other
Federal agencies and the States to
reduce the pervasive nonpoint-source
pollution that is primarily responsible
for fouling so many of our lakes and
streams. Under the new clean-water
act of 1987, a NationalNonpoint-
Source Program has been created. All
six regional States have adopted this
program, modeled in large part on
Wisconsin's own pioneering efforts.
EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office has also developed and put into
practice the U.S. Phosphorus Reduction
Plan under a new agreement with
Canada. (See "Our Great Lakes"
section of this report)
Wetlands protection
Often thought of as useless,
mosquito-laden swamps, wetlands
are a fragile but vital natural resource
that includes marshes, bogs, potholes,
rnud flats, natural ponds, and similar
areas. Teeming with plant and animal
life and valuable to our economy,
wetlands are natural flood control
and water purification agents. But they
are being destroyed at a fast clip. An
estimated 300,000 acres are lost
nationwide every year.
To stop or at least slow down these
losses, EPA works closely with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
a dredge-and-fillpermits system,
where EPA recommendations in fiscal
1987 saved 689 acres of wetlands from
destruction. Even when the demise of
wetlands is unavoidable, EPA insists
that offsets be made. In 1987, for
example, the Illinois Tollway Authority
agreed to replace destroyed wetland
acreage with other land of approximate
ecological value. In addition, it bought
and donated a 20-acre prairie to the
Du Page Couty Forest Preserve and
relocated certain rare Illinois plant
species that would have otherwise
been lost.
So far, Michigan is the only State in
the country approved by EPA to run the
wetlands program, but talks are under
way with Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Minnesota took a major environmental
step forward by officially placing under
protection all 22 of its calcareous (lime-
stone) fens, which are low lands
partially underwater.
A stream bank stabilized with rocks helps
prevent erosion and sedimentation on
an Indiana farm
28
-------
DRINKING-WATER QUALITY
Water covers 80 percent of the earth's surface, but only 1 percent of it
is fresh and accessible for human use. The Nation's public water supplies
provide every customer with about 160 gallons of clean water every day.
Since safe drinking water is essential to good public health, more
and more effort is being devoted to making sure that:
• pollutants don't get into our sources of drinking water; and
• pollutants are removed before water gets to the consumer.
The Safe Drinking Water Act, amended in 1986, requires EPA to
set standards for drinking water purity and monitoring. These standards
apply to community (city, town) water systems as well as to small, public
water systems that include rural trailer parks, factories, schools, motels,
and restaurants. In response to the new amendments, EPA in 1987
established maximum contaminant levels for eight volatile organic
chemicals (VOC's) and for an additional 51 manmade chemicals.
Standards for many more chemicals will be set in the next few years, as
soon as the chemicals' toxicity and prevalence in drinking water are
established.
Extent of contamination
VOC's are mostly solvents, widely
used by industry and homeowners. EPA
sampling over the past several years
has shown that about 10 percent of
community water supplies in EPA
Region 5 contain minute amounts of
VOC's. Public water systems have
quickly responded with treatment to
clean up their water and thus protect
the communities' health.
While such measures can remove
manmade chemicals from water, it
is even better to avoid contamination in
the first place. Public education efforts
will help keep our water safe by making
people aware that leaks, spills, careless
use, and haphazard disposal of VOC's
can contaminate underground sources
of drinking water—our precious
aquifers.
Although majority of the estimated
8,300 community water systems in EPA
Region 5 are in compliance with Federal
drinking-water standards, there are
exceptions. Tests have shown that
about 154 of these systems in northern
Illinois, central Wisconsin, and Upper
Michigan have excessive levels of
naturally occurring radium in their
wells. Plans are being made to tap other
water sources or to remove the radium.
All systems are expected to be in
compliance within 5 years.
To help States with their drinking-
water programs, EPA Region 5 during
fiscal 1987 has awarded $4.8 million
to Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin. (In Indiana, the drink-
ing-water program is administered
directly by EPA Region 5.)
Ground-water protection
More than half of all Americans
depend on ground water for drinking
and other domestic needs. Yet, ground
water is very easily contaminated. And
once contaminants get into ground
water, it's very difficult—if not
impossible—to get them out.
Ground-water protection falls under
several environmental laws, but to
further safeguard this vital resource,
in 1984 EPA announced its National
Ground- Water Protection Strategy.
It divides ground water into three
classes, based upon its use, value to
society, and degree of vulnerability to
contamination. This way, EPA's efforts
can be concentrated where they are
needed most.
As part of this strategy, EPA Region 5
has established an Office of Ground
Water, which coordinates all regional
and national ground-water protection
programs. One of these is the Wellhead
Protection Program, under which
States must develop plans to protect
from contamination the areas sur-
rounding public water-supply wells.
Once these areas are jointly designated
29
-------
DRINKING-WATER QUALITY
by EPA Region 5 and the States, sources
of contamination within these areas
will be inventoried for appropriate
protection measures.
(Since Congress did not provide any
funds for fiscal 1988, State activities
under this program are expected to be
limited.)
A requirement of the Safe Drinking
Water Act is the Sole-Source Aquifer
Program, which singles out for
protection valuable or irreplaceable
ground-water supplies. In 1987, EPA
Region 5 designated its first two sole-
source aquifers in Pleasant City and
Catawba Island, OH. This means
that EPA may veto any federally
funded project that threatens to conta-
minate these aquifers. In fiscal 1988,
three more aquifers were being
considered for sole-source
designation.
The Office of Ground Water also
provides technical and financial
support to the States, to develop or
enhance their ground-water protec-
tion programs. In 1986 and 1987, EPA
developed technical guidance to help
the States determine wellhead
protection areas.
In fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5 provided
almost $ 1 million to the six regional
States for their ground-water protec-
tion programs. By the end of fiscal 1988,
all six States will have ground-water
protection strategies in place.
Underground injection control
To protect underground sources of
drinking water from various wastes
injected into wells, EPA administers
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program. The States run this
program in Illinois, Ohio, and
Wisconsin, while EPA Region 5 is
directly responsible for it in Indiana,
Michigan, and Minnesota. All wells
are divided into five categories:
Class I wells are used for
hazardous, industrial, or municipal
wastes and are found below under-
ground sources of drinking water.
Class II wells are associated with oil
and gas production and make up the
majority of all injection wells
nationwide.
Class III wells are used in solution
mining, and in EPA Region 5 are found
only in Ohio and Michigan.
Class IV wells are used for
disposing of hazardous or radioactive
wastes into or above drinking-water
supplies. These wells are usually
banned, unless connected with a
Superfund cleanup.
Class V is a catch-all category that
includes storm-water runoff wells,
agricultural drainage wells, and
domestic wastewater disposal wells.
In EPA Region 5, they are found in
significant numbers in all States.
In fiscal 1987, EPA Region 5 tested
nearly 700 UIC wells for mechanical
integrity, made 11 permit decisions
for Class I wells, and 206 permit
decisions for other classes of wells.
Furthermore, EPA Region 5 took
enforcement action in 19 instances
and was the first Region nationwide to
win a criminal case, which put a
company president behind bars for 3
months after he admitted tampering
with a Class II well.
And in 1987 EPA started proceedings
to revoke Illinois' authority to run its
own UIC Program for Class II wells after
routine audits revealed serious
deficiencies that the State was not
willing to correct. Since then, however,
Illinois has made substantial progress
in this area; as a result, EPA Region 5
is considering stopping the revocation
process.
In 1988 EPA Region 5 started
reviewing operations of all Class I
hazardous waste wells, which—under
the latest hazardous waste amend-
ments—must stop accepting such
wastes...unless it can be shown that
there is no threat to human health or
the environment.
EPA Region 5 has also been working
with Indiana to help it take lead
responsibility for Class II (oil and gas)
wells by late 1988.
30
-------
OUR GREAT LAKES
The five Great Lakes—Superior, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario—
form the largest body of fresh water on earth. These inland seas, shared
by the United States and Canada, provide drinking water to some
42 million Americans and Canadians and support a vast industrial and
agricultural empire that represents the heartland of America.
View of upper Lake Michigan from Mackmac Island, Ml
Fragile ecosystem
Despite their immense size and
immeasurable value as a natural and
economic resource, the Great Lakes
form a very fragile ecosystem,
sensitive to all types of pollution. They
are a basically closed system: Less
than 1 percent of their water flows out
via the St. Lawrence River into the
Atlantic every year. Therefore, when
pollutants reach the Great Lakes, they
tend to stay for a long time. They settle
into sediments and enter the food
chain, passing from one organism to
another and accumulating in top
predators, such as lake trout,
eagles ..and people.
Although exploited and degraded
during the development of industry,
agriculture, and cities within their
basin, the Great Lakes—especially
Lake Erie—have shown remarkable
recovery in response to pollution
control efforts. The major factor is the
nearly $8 billion spent by Federal and
State governments for the construc-
tion and upgrading of more than 1,000
sewage treatment plants in the Great
Lakes Basin. This brought under
control the discharge of raw sewage
and phosphorus—the main causes of
excessive algae growth and eutrophica-
tion, or premature aging, of lakes.
Control of accelerated eutrophication
is nearly complete. To eliminate
remaining eutrophication problems
in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and Lake
Huron's Saginaw Bay, the United
States and Canada have prepared a
phosphorus-load reduction plan, which
is now being carried out by EPA, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the
States.
Toxicants remain
The cleanup of gross pollution in the
Great Lakes is recognized throughout
the world as a great success. However,
toxic pollutants in sediment and fish
remain a serious threat to human
health and the environment. Toxic
pollutants include such organic
chemicals as PCB's, DDT, dieldrin, and
chlordane as well as heavy metals such
as mercury, lead, cadmium, and zinc.
To set the initial stage for cleanup
of these toxicants, 42 geographic
"areas of concern" have been identified
by the United States and Canada; 25 of
these highly contaminated areas are
entirely within the U.S. portion of the
Great Lakes Basin, while 5 are on the
binational channels connecting the
Lakes. Cleanup plans are being
31
-------
AREAS OF CONCERN AND TROPHIC STATUS
SCALE 1:5,000,000
50 100 150 200 250 kiloi
75 100 125 150 175
AREAS OF CONCERN
TROPHIC STATUS
Biological Productivity,
From Low (Good) to High (Bad)
Oligotrophic
I Oligotrophic/Mesotrophic
J Mesotrophic
] Mesotrophic/Eutrophic
Eutrophic
Data available for Great Lakes
coastal areas only Coastal bands
not drawn to scale
32
-------
OUR GREAT LAKES
prepared by the States, and strong
local community participation has
been stimulated in the process.
Cooperation with Canada
The basis of U.S.-Canadian
cooperation on Great Lakes problems
is the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty,
which affirmed the right of both
countries to use these international
waterways and decreed that neither
country has the right to pollute
the other's waters. The treaty also
established the InternationalJoint
Commission (IJC) to help the two
governments deal with transboundary
pollution and water problems.
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, signed in 1972 and
updated in 1987, is based on the treaty
and describes how the two nations will
restore and maintain the environmental
quality of the Lakes. The agreement
also called for creation of a Water Quality
Boardlo advise the commission on
Great Lakes matters.
The agreement today reflects a
commitment to designate major toxic
pollutants and prepare plans for their
cleanup or containment, so that water
quality objectives specified in the
agreement can be attained.
GLNPO—leading agency
To monitor conditions in the Great
Lakes and to ensure that the United
States meets its obligations under
agreements with Canada, EPA
maintains the Great Lakes National
Program Off ice (GLNPO) in Chicago.
The office was established in 1977—
the first organization within EPA to be
solely devoted to a distinct ecosystem
or geographical area, the Great
Lakes Basin.
In 1987 the Clean Water Act was
amended to make many of GLNPO's
activities mandatory. The act also calls
for an annual report to Congress on
progress in fulfilling U.S. commit-
ments under the agreements with
Canada.
GLNPO has an extensive surveil-
lance and monitoring program, which
measures conditions in the Lakes and
traces the sources of pollutants.
GLNPO operates its own 122-foot,
342-ton research vessel, the Roger R.
Simons, which cruises each year to
collect water, biological, microbiolo-
gical, and sediment samples. The
modern, computerized lab on board
allows scientists to analyze many of
the samples on the spot. In the winter,
sampling is done by helicopter.
Based on fiscal 1988 Congressional
appropriations, GLNPO is in the process
of obtaining a second research vessel.
It should be operating by 1990.
GLNPO also participates in a
project with other Federal and State
agencies to sample contaminants in
tissues of fish.
To keep track of pollutants entering
the Lakes, GLNPO operates the Great
Lakes Atmospheric Deposition Network
and works with the States to measure
pollutants from tributaries.
In addition, GLNPO works closely
with various Federal agencies, with
eight Great Lakes States (the six
Region 5 States plus Pennsylvania
and New York), and with comparable
Canadian agencies. It also provides
staff support to the EPA Region 5
administrator in his role as EPA's
Great Lakes National Program
manager and U.S. cochairman of
the American-Canadian Water
Quality Board.
Great Lakes studies
The Upper Great Lakes Connecting
Channels Study—which took a close
look at the total aquatic environment
in the heavily polluted St. Marys,
St. Clair, and Detroit Rivers, as well
as in Lake St. Clair —neared comple-
tion in fiscal 1987. A final report to the
EPA administrator is being prepared.
The study, launched in 1984, completed
some 150 separate projects and was a
massive effort that included dozens of
U.S. and Canadian agencies and
universities.
In 1988, two new GLNPO projects
were under way. One is a survey and
a demonstration program for the control
and removal of toxic pollutants in the
Great Lakes, focusing on toxic
pollutants in bottom sediments.
Congress has authorized $22 millionfor
the 5-year study. This, like many similar
studies, is a cooperative effort of
Federal, State, and local agencies.
The other project is a 3-year study, in
partnership with Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, which will
examine several toxic chemicals in
Green Bay. A key element of the study
is to determine the mass balance of
pollutants: the amounts entering,
accumulating in, and leaving the bay.
Using mathematical computer models,
the study will then aim to predict how
these chemicals respond to various
pollution control efforts.
Development of the mass-balance
approach is essential to the completion
of Lake management plans called for in
the agreements with Canada. Much of
what is learned in Green Bay will be
useful in developing these Lake plans.
33
-------
LAKE SUPERIOR LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE HURON
Although it is the largest, deepest, and
cleanest of the Great Lakes, Lake
Superior has its problems. RGB's, DDT,
and other pollutants associated with
human activity were found in the
lake's fish. These pollutants were also
found in Siskiwit Lake on Lake
Superior's Isle Royale, even though
Siskiwit is a pristine lake whose only
source of water is rain. This finding
is a major piece of evidence that
underscores the important role played
by airborne pollutants.
Because direct sources are few and
the lake surface is so large, airborne
pollution is believed to be the major
source of PCB's and other toxicants in
Lake Superior.
PCB levels in lake trout still exceed
standards, although toxicants in her-
ring-gull eggs seem to be decreasing.
The lake suffers very little from
eutrophication.
The St. Louis River, Torch Lake,
and Deer Lake-Carp River have been
designated "areas of concern"
because of toxic contamination. State
agencies are preparing cleanup
measures for each of these areas.
Lake Michigan is the only Great Lake
entirely within the United States.
It has serious pollution problems, partly
because it has a very long hydrological
retention cycle, which means it takes
a long time to flush out pollutants.
Although concentrations of these
toxicants have declined over the past
decade, Lake Michigan trout and
salmon—along with those in Lake
Ontario—still contain the highest levels
of PCB's and DDT in the Great Lakes.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has
banned the commercial sale of these
fish. Consumption advisories for sport
fishermen are in effect in many parts
of the lake.
Serious water pollution persists near
urban and industrial areas, most notably
in these "areas of concern:"
Fox River-Green Bay, the
Milwaukee Estuary, and Sheboygan
Harbor, Wl; Waukegan Harbor, IL;
the Grand Calumet-Indiana Harbor,
IN; the Manistique River, Kalamazoo
River, Muskegon Lake, and White
Lake, Ml; and the Menominee River,
WI-MI.
Next to Lake Superior, Lake Huron
remains the least polluted of the
Great Lakes. However, nutrients and
toxicants discharged into the Saginaw
River and Saginaw Bay have made
the latter an "area of concern."
Fish consumption bans continue for
parts of the Saginaw River because of
PCB's and dioxin. The public is advi sed
to restrict consumption of certain fish
caught in Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron.
Pollution in the bay has been greatly
reduced, mainly because of effective
municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment. Solutions to remaining
problems caused by eutrophication and
toxicants in the bay are complicated
by the many sources of pollutants,
including industrial and municipal
discharges, combined sewer overflows,
contaminated sediments, and urban
and agricultural runoff, along with
waste disposal sites.
Michigan is preparing a cleanup
plan to correct the situation.
34
A satellite portrait of the Great Lakes Basin.
-------
LAKE ERIE
LAKE ONTARIO
Lake Erie, with an average depth of
only 58 feet, holds less water than any
other Great Lake. Because its basin
has the largest population, the most
intensive agriculture, and the heaviest
industry in the Great Lakes region,
Lake Erie has faced the most severe
and the most widely recognized
pollution problems. Its small volume
and a relatively rapid flushing rate, on
the other hand, have allowed dramatic
improvements in response to vigorous
pollution control measures.
In the mid-1960's, massive algae
blooms had choked off oxygen in 65
percent of the lake's bottom water.
Heavy pollution, overfishing, and other
problems almost destroyed the lake's
most desirable fish. Many beaches
were closed because of untreated
sewage and masses of algae. In fact, the
lake was considered dead.
But "death" was premature.
Considerable progress has been made
since then, especially in reducing
municipal and industrial discharges.
Consequently, beaches have been
reopened, and sport fishing has
rebounded.
The amount of phosphorus
discharged by cities is now within the
required limits. However, runoff from
farms and other nonpoint sources is
still a problem. Farmers are urged to
use alternative tillage methods that
reduce soil losses, improve water
quality, and cut farming costs.
Despite progress in cleaning up
gross pollution (including eutrophica-
tion), toxicants remain a major
concern, especially in near-shore
areas. "Areas of concern" are on the
Rouge, Detroit, and Raisin Rivers in
Michigan; on the Maumee, Black,
Ashtabula, and Cuyahoga Rivers in
Ohio; and on the Buffalo River in
New York.
Downstream in the Great Lakes
system, Lake Ontario receives
nutrients and toxicants from the other
Lakes as well as from its own basin.
Because of nutrient control in
the United States and Canada and
improvements in Lake Erie, amounts of
phosphorus entering Lake Ontario are
now almost low enough to eliminate
nuisance algae.
Toxicants in sediments and in aquatic
life continue to be a major problem.
U.S. sources, chiefly along the
Niagara River, and Canada's indus-
trial complex along the western
shore have dischared PCB's, Mirex,
and numerous other toxicants into the
lake. Some compounds have been
traced to leaking waste disposal sites
along the Niagara River.
As in other Lakes, toxicants in
herring-gull eggs have declined.
However, levels of toxicants in the
system still endanger human health.
Consumption advisories are in effect
for various fish caught in both U.S. and
Canadian waters.
Some improvement has been made,
but pollution control efforts must con-
tinue. High priority is given to reducing
point and nonpoint sources of toxicants
along the Niagara River, where a four-
party accord has been signed by EPA,
New York State, Environment Canada,
and Ontario Province.
In addition to the Niagara River,
Lake Ontario "areas of concern" in the
United States are the Eighteen Mile
Creek, the Rochester Embayment,
and the Oswego River. Downstream
on the St. Lawrence River are two more:
in Massena, NY, and Cornwall, ON.
Ducks appreciate clean water, too.
35
-------
OUR SPECIAL CONCERNS
Indian Environmental Liaison Steve Dodge presents a peace pipe
to EPA Deputy A dministrator A James Barnes
Indian Affairs
In 1984, EPA was the first Federal
agency to announce a policy for
addressing the special concerns of
Indian reservations. To date, EPA
remains the only Federal agency with
such a policy.
The aim of EPA's Indian policy is to
pay particular attention to tribal
interests and to ensure that tribal
governments have a strong voice in
deciding on—and managing—environ-
mental programs affecting their
reservations.
EPA Region 5 realizes that there are
pollution problems on reservations
and that the tribal control of
environmental protection differs
drastically from State control.
However, EPA still has every intention
of establishing environmental
programs on Indian lands so that they
will enjoy the-same environmental
EPA Region 5 has an officially
designated Indian Affairs Coordinator,
who has met with tribal representatives
in 1985,1986, and 1987 to discuss
environmental protection on their
reservations. Several common
concerns (water quality, sewage
treatment, and solid waste manage-
ment) were identified and included
as part of "Indian Activities" in work-
plans of each major EPA Region 5
program: air, water, and hazardous
waste.
To help tribes carry out environ-
mental programs and to alert EPA to
environmental problems on Indian
lands, EPA Region 5 has also
designated Indian Environmental
Liaisons. One such liaison is already
working in Wisconsin; two others,
one in Minnesota and one in
Michigan, are expected to be in the
field before the end of 1988.
protection that States do ____. .
twonmental Protection Agency
36
library Cottectfon (PL42J)
Jackson Boulevard
, $1 60604-3590
Federal Facilities
Federal facilities—from post office
buildings to military bases—are
subject to all environmental laws and
regulations, just like private facilities
are. In fact, the EPA administrator has
said that in complying with pollution
control regulations. Federal facilities
should set an example for others.
EPA's Federal Facilities Compliance
Program sees to it that such facilities
obey all environmental laws. The
program accomplishes this through
monitoring, providing technical advice
on compliance with environmental
laws, reviewing pollution control plans
of Federal agencies, and resolving
disputes regarding violations of
environmental laws.
To identify the most pollution-prone
Federal facilities in the Region, EPA's
National Enforcement Investigations
Center m Denver has ranked 80 of
them. These Federal facilities were
selected because they were a potential
major source of at least one type of
pollution: air, land (hazardous waste),
or water.
To ensure compliance and to make
Federal facilities a model for the rest of
the regulated community, EPA Region
5 in 1987 began what is known as a
Multimedia Inspection Program,
targeting the highest-ranked facilities
to be inspected first. This program
examines Federal facilities in 17 areas
for compliance with environmental
laws and singles-out offenders for
whatever action is necessary to bring
them into compliance.
EPA is also in the process of establish-
ing a Federal Facilities Docket, which
will list Federal facilities with the worst
hazardous waste problems. EPA will
approve and oversee the cleanup
method selected, but the actual clean-
up of hazardous wastes will be done by
the Federal facilities themselves.
-------
MAY WE HELPYOU?
This report has given you some idea of U. S. EPA Region 5 responsibilities,
accomplishments, and concerns. If you would like additional or more detailed
information, please contact the Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA Region 5,
230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604; (312) 353-2072. This office has
a number of EPA publications, including the Environmental Events Calendar,
operates an informal speakers' bureau, and coordinates regional distribution
of environmental films. (These services are free.)
All States have environmental agencies to help residents with their
environmental questions and problems. If you have an environmental problem,
report it first to your local, and then to your State, pollution control agency.
STATE AGENCIES
Illinois
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Rd., P. 0. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-5562
24-hour emergency number:
(217)782-3637
For;
..... . .. _ _.». .. Indiana
specific information on U.S. EPA programs, call: ... _. . ,
r r 9 Indiana Department of
Administrator's Office, U. S. EPA Region 5 (312) 353-2000 Environmental Management
Air Pollution (312) 353-2211 105 South Meridian St.
Asbestos Indianapolis, IN 46225
Schools (312) 886-6879 (317) 232-8603
Building Renovation and Demolition (312) 353-2088 24-hour emergency number:
Automobile Emissions (202)382-4378 (317)633-0144
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
General Information (800) 535-0202 Michigan
Dioxin (312) 886-1491 Michigan Department of
Federal Facilities Program (312) 886-7500 Natural Resources
Great Lakes National Program Office (312) 353-2117 BOX 30028
Fish Advisories (312) 353-1375 Lansing, Ml 48909
Hazardous Wastes (517)373-1220
Superfund (312) 353-9773 24-hour emergency number (within
RCRA (312) 886-1480 Michigan only): 1 -800-292-4706
Indian Affairs (312) 353-1394
Oil and Chemical Spills Minnesota
National Emergency Response Center (800) 424-8802 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Region 5 Emergency Response Center (312) 353-2318 520 Lafayette Rd North
Pesticides (312)353-2192 St Pau|( MN 55^5
Radiation-Radon (312)886-6175 /g-| 2\ 296 6300
Toxic Substances (312)886-6006 24-hour emergency number:
Underground Storage Tanks /LUST Program (312)886-6159 (612)296-8100
Water Quality
Ground Water (312)886-1490 Ohio
Drinking Water (312)353-2151 ^ " .
Underground Injection Control (312) 353-4148 Ohl° Environmental Protection Agency
Wastewater Treatment (312) 353-2121 180° Watermark Dr.
Wetlands (312) 353-2307 Columbus, OH 43215
(614)644-3020
Other U. S. EPA facilities in Region 5 24-hour emergency number (within
Center for Environmental Research Information (513) 569-7562
Cincinnati, OH ....
Central District Office (IL, IN, MN, Wl) Chicago, IL (312) 886-5500 Wisconsin
Central Regional Laboratory, Chicago, IL (312) 353-8370 Wisconsin Department of
Eastern District Office (OH, Ml) Westlake, OH (216) 835-5200 Natural Resources
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN (218)720-5500 p-°- Box7921
Large Lakes Research Station, Grosse Me, Ml (313) 675-2245 Madison, Wl 53707
Motor Vehicle Emission Test Laboratory (313)668-4200 (608)266-2621
Ann Arbor, Ml After hour emergencies:
(608) 266-3232
,, -..- .' - • ,">.•, ••* •- -
• * i^ .'• 4j/ '"* * V-*'
» /i*
...o;-*;^f,
-------
------- |