THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT:
   A PRIMER ON EPA'S STATUTORY AUTHORITY
              December 1972
           WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
                 Administrator
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                           GARY H. BAISE
                      Director, Office of Legislation
ROBERT G. RYAN                  LANE G. GENTRY
Special Assistant to the Director       Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation                   Office of Legislation
                                STAFF
Wm. Lee Rawls, Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations,
  Office of Legislation
Randy M. Mott, Research Assistant
James G. Chandler, Research Assistant
Jeffrey D. Light, Research Assistant
Peter  J. McKenna,  Research Assistant
Ruth  L. Johnson, Staff Assistant
Janis Y. Collier, Clerk

-------
                 CONTENTS




                                                          PS-




Air	  4






Water 	12






Solid Waste 	      	          24






Pesticides  	         	       ....  27






Radiation       	   31






Noise 	     . .    34






International    ....       	      	           37






Bibliography              	     41

-------

-------
                    INTRODUCTION
  In  the  continuing and  often heated discussion  of pollution  and  envi-
ronmental issues, the United States Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)
is  frequently in  the public eye. This booklet is intended  to give  citizens
an idea of the scope of the agency's duties and responsibilities by providing
a brief summary of its legal authority.
   EPA was created because of  increasing public  and  governmental concern
about  the dangers  to the  health and welfare of  Americans caused by  pol-
lution. Clearly, immediate  and  positive  action was  necessary to  cope with
the deterioration of the natural environment.  Grounds for deep concern
were  not  difficult to find:  on all sides," noxious  air,  foul  water  and other
serious threats  to the  health  and" well-being of all Americans were abun-
dantly evident.
   EPA was given the main Federal responsibility for  coming to  grips with
these complex  problems and  at the same  time,  striking a  balance between
the protection of the natural environment and securing for our citizens the
benefits of economic and technological progress.
   On July  9,   1970,  President Nixon  sent  to  Congress  a reorganization
plan  removing   15  units  from existing  departments and agencies,  and
relocating them  in a new independent agency. When the reorganization plan
became effective on December 2,  1970, the  United   States Environmental
Protection Agency opened its doors for business with  William D. Ruckelshaus
as Administrator.
  EPA brings under one organizational roof Federal activities in  controlling
air and water pollution, drinking water  quality,  solid  wastes, pesticides, en-
vironmental radiation and  noise. It is an independent  regulatory agency that
has no obligation to promote  agriculture, commerce or industry.  It has only
one mission—to protect and enhance the environment.  In general,  the agency
is  responsibile  for  conducting research and  demonstrations, for establishing
and  enforcing standards, for monitoring pollution in  the  environment, and
perhaps most importantly,  for assisting State and  local governments in their
own  efforts.  The  purpose is  to mount  an  integrated  attack  on  pollu-
tion and at the same time, to make orderly progress  toward understanding
the environment as a  single  system of  independent,  but  interrelated parts.

                                    1

-------
  EPA  was organized with five  Assistant Administrators in  program  and
functional  areas, all  operating from the  Washington headquarters.  Con-
sistent with the President's goal of decentralizing Federal  government serv-
ices, ten EPA Regional Administrators, who report directly  to the Admin-
istrator,  exercise broad  operational  responsibility  in  the  field.  Compared
with  other Federal agencies, the  EPA is  not large, employing about 8,000
people.   The headquarters  staff consists  of  about 2,000  people,  with the
rest assigned to the regional offices and laboratories throughout the United
States. In all, there are now 31 laboratories located in  19 States.
  EPA's most recent budget was  about $2.5  billion, of which  about $2 bil-
lion, or four-fifths, was earmarked for the construction of sewage  treatment
facilities and for  assistance to  the  localities  and municipalies  in sewer de-
sign and construction.  The operating budget is currently about  $450 mil-
lion per year,  slightly  more  than  one-fourth  of which  is  devoted  to re-
search and monitoring activities.
   EPA, in fulfilling its assigned functions, cooperates closely  with the Coun-
cil on Environmental Quality  (CEQ). The Council, created by the  National
Environmental Policy Act of  1969, operates in the Executive  Office  of the
President to coordinate and assess Federal  environmental programs.
  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969  (NEPA)  is  landmark
legislation  in the  environmental field which requires a systematic considera-
tion of  the  environmental impact of all major  Federal  activities. Federal
agencies must now file a written analysis  of the environmental impact of  a
proposed action,  together with a discussion  of  any adverse  environmental
effects which  cannot be avoided  should the  proposal  be implemented.  The
impact  statement  must  also discuss the alternatives for the proposed  action,
and any irreversible or  irretrievable commitment of resources must  be speci-
fied. In the preparation of these statements, the  Federal agencies have been
directed by Congress to consult with  and  to  obtain relevant  comments from
other agencies having jurisdiction over or special expertise on the subject
matter  involved.  EPA  is  required  to  comment on draft  impact statements
which  fall within the  agency's special  expertise  before the final  statement
is filed with CEQ. Some observers have suggested that the true significance
of NEPA  is that it makes environmental  considerations an  integral part  of
the decision-making process of government.
   From the start, EPA has consciously sought to encourage citizen partici-
pation  in its work. Citizen challenges and court decisions under NEPA have
had the effect  of making all  Federal agencies more sensitive to  their  re-
sponsibilities  to  our shared   environment.  EPA  has a  policy  which  en-
courages the fullest possible public disclosure of  information  to any  person
or  group requesting it. Public participation in EPA  hearings has similarly
been sought since its  beginning. We know  that  all efforts   to  solve our
enormous  environmental  problems will be  ineffective  without the  under-

-------
standing,  cooperation  and help of the American citizen. With  this booklet,
EPA  hopes to provide  the  interested citizen an understanding  of  its legal
authority  and  responsibility  in  meeting  the  challenge  of the  environment
in the last quarter of this century.

-------
                                  AIR
                    ". .  . we cannot escape  the  fact that air
                    pollution  is one of the problems  which
                    presses us most urgently. Even now we can
                    clean the litter off a piece a land before we
                    use it, though  we may not know how best
                    to dispose of  the litter. And  we  purify  a
                    glass of water  before we put it to  our lips,
                    though we may leave untreated vast water
                    resources we shall  soon need.  But in  the
                    air we breathe, we must accept what comes
                    to us."
                                                        William D. Ruckelshaus

   The alarming  deterioration  of  the quality  of  the  air we  breathe  has
forced us to  take  a hard new look at air pollution,  its causes, its results, and
the means we  have at our disposal for stopping  it.  While it is difficult to
measure  with any  precision the  costs Americans are paying for polluted  air,
we know  the  dollar total is enormous.  Our  most careful estimate  is  that
about $6 billion  each  year  is lost because of  pollution-rated  sickness  and
premature death.  If  we add an estimated  $10 billion in  property losses each
year,  we  come  up with  a total of $16 billion a year for  polluted air—a  pol-
lution bill of about $80 per American per year.
   EPA  estimates  that  it  will cost  $15  billion spread  over  the  next  five
years to control air pollution from existing sources. Simply letting pollution
continue   will  be  far   more expensive  than  spending  what   it  takes  to
curb  it.
   Statistics do  not tell the entire story.  The  abatement of air pollution1
in many  cases will force industry  to  reduce obsolescence and inefficiency  in
  1 Pollution Abatement—ending pollution. Distinguished from pollution control—which may
only reduce pollution—and penalties—which principally punish violations.

-------
 its operations.  For in many  industries, the  older  and less efficient plant is
 also the biggest polluter.  Forced to clean-up, many plants will be compelled
 to be  more efficient.  Moreover,  the  recaptured  byproducts of  industrial
 activity may provide usable,  marketable products.  Taking all of these fac-
 tors into  account,  it makes  good  practical  sense to  end air pollution  in
 America.

 Legislative  Background
   The Federal government's concern with  air pollution officially  began with
 the  Air Pollution Act  of  1955,  authorizing the  first  Federally-funded  air
 pollution research.  Passage of the Motor Vehicle  Pollution Control  Act  of
 1965 expanded  Federal activity  to include setting emission1  standards  for
 automobiles.
   Current  Federal  activity in air pollution  abatement and  research stems
 from the Air Quality Act  of 1967 and the Clean Air Act  of 1970.  This
 undertaking is perhaps EPA's most controversial  and comprehensive pro-
 gram and  is certainly the  most sweeping Federal  pollution control scheme.
 The Clean Air Act  set up a new  system  of national air  quality  standards
 and called for a roll-back of auto pollution levels.

 Research
   Specifically, the Clean  Air Act, as amended, directs  EPA  to conduct  re-
 search  on  the causes, effects,  extent and ways  to control air  pollution. The
 agency is  charged with  the duty  of  providing  technical and financial  as-
 sistance to  State and  local air pollution control agencies and  special  investi-
 gations  by EPA may be  instituted at the  request  of State  governments.
 Federal  interagency coooperation is encouraged and  EPA's own  research  is
 directed into specific areas, including health  problems, fuel combusion, air-
 craft emissions, cost-benefit  studies, and control technology.

Ambient Air Quality
   The 1970 Act was the first law to  call  for national, uniform  air  quality
 standards based  on geographic regions.  Ambient  air  quality2 is  regulated
 by two sets of standards,  both determined by EPA.  Primary  standards con-
 cern the minimum level of  air quality that  is necessary to keep people  from
 becoming  ill.  These  levels  are based  on the proven harmful effects of  in-
 dividual pollutants.  Secondary  standards  are  aimed  at the   promotion  of
public  welfare, and  the  prevention of damage to  animals,  plant life  and
 property generally.  EPA has now set primary and  secondary  national stand-
   Emissions—what is  discharged into the air by  a pollution bource. Distinguished from
 "effluents" which are discharged into water.
  ' Ambient  Air  Quality—the average atmospheric  purity as distinguished from discharge
measurements taken at the source of pollution. The general amount of pollution present in a
broad area.

-------
ards for six pollutants:  sulfur oxide, paniculate matter, carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, photochemicals, and  nitrogen oxide.  Standards for these pol-
lutants establish the maximum  amount of each pollutant that  will  be per-
mitted in the atmosphere consistent with public health and welfare.

Interstate Regions

   Since pollution  does not follow State  boundaries,  the Administrator was
given expanded power to establish  interstate air quality regions;1 each State
however, retains authority for  implementing national standards within  its
portion of an interstate region.

Implementation Plans

   State governments  within  each air quality region determine  how  national
air pollution objectives are to be reached, subject to a  three-year deadline for
primary standards and a  more  flexible  timetable  for secondary  standards.

The States have submitted implementation plans showing in detail how and
when  they  will achieve  these standards within their  own  territory.
   Federal standards apply  to a list of identified  pollutants that constitute the
chief health  problems associated with air  pollution.  The States have  the
broad  responsibility of deciding which activities to regulate  or prohibit  in
order  to achieve   the  national  standard.   The  Administrator will then  re-
view the individual implementation plan  under prescribed criteria  set  out
in  the act itself:  whether it expeditiously  meets  primary  standards within
the three-year timetable;  whether it includes appropriate emission limitations,
schedules, and timetables for  compliance;  whether  it  provides  for sufficient
monitoring capabilities;  whether it provides for review of new sources  of
pollution; whether  it is  sufficient from  the point of  view;  of  inter-
governmental cooperation within the air quality region;  and whether it pro-
vides for sufficient personnel, money, review, and  inspection.  The  Admin-
istrator must substitute a plan of  his own  if the  State  fails  to submit one,
or if the State fails to revise its plan to meet the objections he has raised.
   Although States are required  to  meet  the national primary  standards  by
1975, the Clean Air Act provides  for waiver of that  deadline  for up to  an
additional two  years if compliance is technologically impossible and reason-
able alternatives are  inadequate.

National Emission Standards
   Although  Federal  legislation  has emphasized State participation, a few
areas were  singled out by Congress for  special treatment  because  of their
  1 Air Quality Control Regwns—the law requires the country to be divided into geographical
units, reflecting common air pollution problems, for  purposes of reaching national standards.

-------
essentially interstate nature or because of the severe threat to  health involved.
Special Federal authority exists  to control new stationary sources of pollution,
hazardous air pollutants, motor  vehicle  emissions,  fuel  and fuel additives,
aircraft emissions, and  low-emission  vehicle procurement.

New Stationary Sources
   All sources of air  pollution, other  than  vehicles,  are broadly described as
"stationary"  sources and they include such things as power plants, municipal
incinerators,  pulp plants, oil refineries, and  other fixed-point  sources.  EPA
directly  regulates new  stationary sources by  setting uniform national stand-
ards for new air polluters.
   One of the  Administrator's initial responsibilities under  the new  law
was to establish a  list  of the categories of stationary  sources.  As each  cate-
gory is established, EPA sets a standard for performance.1  The  Administrator
also decides  the procedure the States will follow in setting emission standards
for existing  stationary sources.
   EPA  has   devised  new  source performance  standards  for  five  major  sta-
tionary sources of air  pollution: fossil fuel-fired steam generators, incinerators,
cement plants, and sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing operations. These
standards  are designed to require  application  of  the best  available tech-
nology,  considering  the  cost  of new facilities. Other  industrial activities
will be added to this list: petroleum refineries,  asphalt batching  plants, iron
and steel mills, secondary  lead smelters, and brass  and  bronze  refining
operations.

Hazardous  Air Pollutants
   For hazardous air  pollutants,2 EPA was  also given authority  to  set  na-
tional standards. The  law directs  that proposed  standards  are to be aired
at a public  hearing,  where the burden of proving the safety of  a particular
polluants will be  on the polluter.  If the  polluter  fails  to  show the safety
of the pollutant "on  trial," a standard is set.  Hazardous  emission standards
are being set for  asbestos,  beryllium  and mercury. Mercury, for example,
was  popularly thought  of as a  water pollutant only, but  recent studies have
revealed that mercury is emitted by air polluters, such  as coal-burning power
plants, municipal incinerators and industrial  plants.

Automobile Emission Standards
   Like hazardous  pollutants, automobiles have been  singled out for direct
Federal  regulation.   Air  pollution  from  transportation  sources  outweighs
  1 Standard of Performance—the measure of pollution control required by law.  In  the Clean
Air Act of  1970, the term is used as the best technological control available  and economically
feasible. It  applies to new stationary sources
  - Hazardous  Air Pollutants—materials discharged into the atmosphere  that have  a proven
relationship to  increased human death  rates.

-------
pollution from all other activities  combined.  In 1965, recognizing that  pol-
lution from motor vehicles could only be handled by national standards, Con-
gress enacted the National Motor Vehicle Emissions  Standards  Act (Motor
Vehicle  Pollution Control Act).   Building on  this base, the 1970 Act set
up an accelerated schedule for abatement of auto pollution by adopting a
roll-back approach.  By 1975,  new automobiles will be required to show
a 90 percent reduction in hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions over
1970 models, and a 90 percent reduction,  by 1976, in nitrogen oxide emis-
sions from those allowed in 1971 models.  Standards  are now in  effect  that
will steadily move us toward this objective.
   The  1970  law prohibits  the sale of  a  new car unless  it  is certified by
EPA to  comply with emission  standards, after testing of prototype vehicles.
Averaging emissions from an assembly-line sample, the normal  quality  con-
trol technique of industry, will provide  EPA with the  testing results called
for  under the  act.   Such assembly-line testing, however,  is structured to
assure that individual cars with excessively high emissions are  not  sold. Rec-
ords of all testing done by EPA are available for public inspection.
   Standards  under the 1970 law are applicable to vehicles and engines for
their useful life, five years or 50,000 miles,  whichever occurs first.  The  manu-
facturer  is directed  to warrant  to the ultimate purchaser  and each  subse-
quent purchaser that  the vehicle  or  engine meets  the applicable standards
at the time  of sale and  that it is free  from defects  preventing conformity
during its useful life.
   In early 1972, auto manuacturers filed a request for a one-year  suspension
of  the effective  date for  application  of hydrocarbon and  carbon  monoxide
standards.  After public hearings,  the  Administrator  determined,  under  the
specific  criteria of the Clean  Air  Act, that such a  suspension  was  at  that
time inappropriate.
   If  the Administrator determines by  testing that  large  numbers  of  ve-
hicles do not meet the standards, he can order them  to  be recalled. In addi-
tion, tampering with or removal of control devices  is also prohibited.  The
agency may obtain court injunctions to restrain violators and may  seek  civil
penalties for  up to  $10,000 for each violation.

Low-Emission  Prototypes
   In  the  long run, however,  an  increased  number of cars  on  the  road
could  negate the effectiveness  of  these standards.  EPA therefore, has  en-
couraged the development of low-emission engine prototypes as alternatives
to  the reciprocating, internal  combustion  engine.1  The grant program  has
been used for this purpose, along with  special Federal  purchases  of  cleaner
  1 Reciprocating, Internal Combustion Engine—the standard American, piston-type gasoline-
powered motor  vehicle propulsion  system.  Distinguished  from wankel, turbines,  steam-
generators, and other unique systems.

-------
vehicles  and engines.  The 1970 Act expressly gives the Administrator the
power to set standards for and to certify any new type of engine.

fuel  and  fuel Additives
   The Clean Air Act  also included authority  for  EPA registration of fuels
for motor  vehicles.  The  Administrator may regulate fuel and fuel additives
which endanger public  health, or  which  interfere with the  performance
of anti-pollution devices.  Unless EPA has  specifically  ruled to the contrary,
States may also regulate any  fuel or  additive. If the State regulations are
different from those set by EPA, the State must submit its regulations through
the implementation plan process  described  earlier.
   Leaded  gasoline has been found to impede the effectiveness  of pollution
control devices and atmospheric lead is known to  be a danger  to  human
health.   EPA,  therefore,  is  currently writing  regulations which  will make
available to the motoring public one grade  of non-leaded gasoline by mid-
1974.

Aircraft Emissions
   Initial study of  the problems  and impact of  aircraft emissions  on  air
pollution was directed  by the  1970 Act.  EPA  was required  to issue a report
following  its study and  to propose  means  of controlling aircraft pollution.
Because  it obviously involves  a national  problem, State regulation  of  aircraft
emissions  is pre-empted by the law.1 A 1970 voluntary agreement,  signed
before EPA came into  existence, provided that  at each major engine overhaul
a  smokeless  combustor would be installed  on  commercial  jet engines.  All
commercial engines covered by the  agreement are expected to  have  smoke-
less  combustors by the end  of 1972.  EPA is continuing  its  study  of air-
craft  emissions  and is planning to publish a full report in 1972.

Grants
   The basic responsibility  for air  pollution  control  and  enforcement  re-
mains at the  State and local level with EPA  giving  assistance  to pollu-
tion  control agencies  through grant programs. The  portion  of a  specific
project's cost financed  by EPA will  vary in each grant area, but the agency
tries  to  avoid  simply substituting general funds for State appropriations  in
the hope  that  Federal assistance  will supplement State efforts, not  replace
them.
   In providing assistance to States for implementation plans, EPA may fund
100 percent of planning costs for two years.  The agency has  also used ten
private consulting firms  to  assist State  officials  in preparing these  detailed
plans to meet national air quality standards.
  1 Federal pre-emption—the assertion of Federal regulatory power to the exclusion of State
regulatory power. Used where uniformity and urgency require one system of regulation.

-------
   With the  completion of  State planning, the  grant  program will  soon
 shift emphasis and move toward greater support for actual pollution control
 activities, such  as  State  motor vehicle inspection and  emission detection.
 Specific grants have already been made for low  emission  engine development
 and for test vehicles.
   Grants may also be awarded to various  universities  and  private  institu-
 tions and occasionally to individuals  for specific research.
Special Powers and  Duties

   Congress gave EPA various special powers in  the Clean Air Act, includ-
ing  subpoena  power  (to gain  necessary information  for performance  of
other duties)  and emergency authority.  Another  sanction available  under
the Clean Air  Act is that wilful violators of EPA regulations may also find
themselves denied  Federal contract  awards.  Liberalized licensing of patents
necessary  for pollution abatement is also authorized, but a special provision
was  included to avoid the lessening of competition.
   The  Administrator  must also review  and comment  publicly on  the en-
vironmental  impact of legislation introduced  in Congress and  regulations  is-
sued by Federal agencies  or departments. When there are adverse effects  on
environmental quality,  the statement must be published and referred to CEQ.
Enforcement

   Most enforcement of standards  or  regulations under  the  Clean Air  Act
is not done  in court. Although a few court  cases have received the lion's
share of publicity, the bulk of the work remains administrative. The  De-
partment of Justice represents EPA in legal actions.  The Administrator may
notify a polluter that he is in violation of the law, issue an order to stop the
pollution, and then  seek an abatement action in court.  If a violation occurs
due to State inaction, EPA may notify the State and enforce abatement itself.
It may also  enforce State  implementation  plans.  EPA  may  delegate  any
other enforcement responsibility to any State that has  adequate  enforcement
procedures of its own.  Any polluter who knowingly violates  a regulation or
order issued by EPA or a State implementation plan may be  subject to  fines
or imprisonment on the Federal level.
   In  order to develop  and enforce standards,  the  Administrator may re-
quire persons or firms which  cause pollution  to keep records, make reports,
and  test emissions.  He may  also enter and  inspect  the premises  of  the
emission source  if necessary.  Consistent with the general agency policy, in-
formation obtained by EPA is available to the public for inspection, with the
single exception of trade secrets.

                                   10

-------
Citizen Suits
   It was clearly the  intention of Congress  to involve citizens in  the  en-
forcement of our Federal  standards.  When certain conditions are met, pri-
vate citizens may bring legal  action against  polluters under  the  Clean Air
Act, based on  violations of standards  and orders, provided notice  is given
to the polluter and  EPA.  Citizens  may also  bring an  action  against  the
Administrator  of EPA if he fails to perform an act  required of him under
the law.

Other  Legislation
   Several other legislative programs involve EPA in the struggle against dirty
air. The Airport and  Airway Development Act of 1970 assigns to EPA  the
responsibility of  evaluating the environmental impact of  major airport con-
struction.  Under a tax program designed to  encourage the use of pollution
abatement  equipment  by  business,  the  Administrator  must certify  anti-
pollution devices to make  them eligible for accelerated depreciation.
                                   11

-------
                               WATER
                     "Our water resources, more perhaps  than
                   any other, illustrate  the  interaction of all
                   parts of the environment and particularly,
                   the recycling process that  characterizes every
                   resource of the ecosystem. .  . . Everything
                   that man himself injects into the biosphere—
                   chemical,  biological or physical—can  ulti-
                   mately  find its way into  the  earth's water.
                   And  these contaminants  must be  removed,
                   by nature  or by man,  before that water is
                   again potable."
                                             Charles C.  Johnson,  Jr., Assistant
                                             Surgeon General of the United States

   Three  out of every four  people in the United  States get their drinking
water  from  public supply systems. In  1969, a Federal study found half  of
these  systems  substandard.  Health  specialists  are  increasingly  concerned
about  neutralizing toxic substances and viruses when natural water purifica-
tion fails. We are finally realizing that there are limits to natural purification
—that  our nation's  waters cannot  indefinitely  absorb  an endless  avalanche
of waste.

Legislative  Background
   Federal water  legislation  dates  back  to  the  nineteenth  century,  when
Congress enacted the River  and Harbor Act of 1886, recodified in the Rivers
and  Harbors Act  of 1899. It is only  within the  last seven years, however,
that major water pollution legislation has  been passed.
   Recognizing the  threat that dirty  water  posed  to the  public health  and
welfare,  Congress  enacted   the  Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act
(FWPCA), in order to "enhance the quality  and value of our water resources
and  to establish a national policy for the prevention, control and  abatement
of water  pollution." FWPCA and  its  several amendments set out  the basic
legal authority for Federal regulation of  water  quality.

                                     12

-------
   The original  Act was passed  in 1948.  Its amendments  broadened  the
Federal  government's  authority  in water  pollution control.  The  Water
Pollution Control Act  Amendments of 1956 strengthened enforcement pro-
visions by providing for an abatement suit at the request of a State pollution
control agency; where  health was  being endangered, the Federal government
no longer had to receive the consent of all States involved. The Federal role
was further expanded  under the Water Quality Act  of  1965. That act pro-
vided for the  setting of water quality standards which are State and Federally
enforceable; it became the basis for interstate  water quality  standards. The
Clean  Water  Restoration Act  of  1966 imposed  a $100 per day fine on a
polluter  who  failed  to submit  a  required report.  The  Water  Quality Im-
provement Act of 1970, again  expanded  Federal  authority, and  established
a State certification procedure to prevent degradation of water below applicable
standards.
   Despite the improvements achieved by  each amendment to the original
Act, the result of this  sporadic legislation  was a hodgepodge  of law.  Eleven
reorganizations  and  restructurings  of Federal  agency  responsibility com-
pounded  the  difficulty  of effectively implementing the law. To solve these
problems, the 1972 amendments to the FWPCA restructured the authority for
water  pollution control and  consolidated authority in the  Administrator  of
the Environmental Protection Agency.

Goals and Policy
   The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters. In order to achieve this ob-
jective, the Act sets  two goals.  The first national goal is the elimination  of
the discharge  of all pollutants into the  navigable waters of the United States
by  1985.  The  second  national goal is an interim  level of water quality
that provides  for  the protection of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation
by  July  1, 1983. In this framework, Congress gave the Administrator the
legal tools necessary to make inroads into the problems of water pollution
control, while continuing to recognize the  primary rights and responsibilities
of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.

Effluent  Limitations 1
   The  1972  amendments  changed the thrust  of enforcement from  water
quality standards, regulating  the amount of pollutants  in a given  body  of
water,  to  effluent limitations,  regulating  the amount  of  pollutants   being
discharged from particular point sources.2 Ambient water quality requirements
  1 The Act defines "effluent limitations"  as any restriction established by  a State  or the
Administrator on quantities, rates,  and concentrations of chemical, physical,  biological, and
other constituents which are discharged from point sources.
  aThe  Act defines "point sources"  as any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance from
which pollutants  are or may  be discharged

                                    13

-------
can  still dictate  the amount of  pollutants permitted  for  a discharger.  The
Administrator is directed  to  publish  regulations  by  October  18,  1973,
establishing guidelines for effluent limitations. These  regulations shall iden-
tify  the best  practicable control technology  available for  various  industrial
categories. Factors  for  consideration  are  the cost-benefit of applying such
technology, the  age of equipment and facilities  involved, and the process
employed. Industrial dischargers  must meet these standards by July 1, 1977.
Public  treatment works must  meet  effluent  limitations based  on  secondary
treatment1 by this same date.
   In addition, the  Administrator shall  identify the best  available tech-
nology  for preventing  and  reducing  pollution.  He  is  also responsible
for identifying technology which would achieve  the elimination of the  dis-
charge  of pollutants. In both  cases,  he must take  into account the factors
enumerated above. Industrial dischargers are obliged to meet  these  standards
by July 1, 1983, the same date given for  achieving  the second  national goal
designed  to protect fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreation.  They must meet
zero-discharge requirements  if the  Administrator  determines  that such  a
lequirement is economically and technologically  feasible.  By July 1, 1983,
public treatment works must use the best practicable waste  treatment tech-
nology  over the life  of the works. New  sources of  discharge are required
to use the best available technology as determined by  the Administrator  and
published  in  the regulations. Zero-discharge  by  1985 is  a goal,  not a re-
quirement under the  law.

Water  Quality  Standards and Implementation Plans
   Reflecting  basic State responsibility  for water  pollution  control, FWPCA
requires the States  to submit to EPA  water  quality standards  for  all inter-
state  and intrastate  navigable waters.
   These State standards spell out water use classifications, such  as recreation,
fish  and  wildlife propagation, public water supplies,  and  industrial  and
agricultural uses. States are  then required to set out the quality  of water
required  to  achieve  these  uses  and  detailed  plans  for  maintaining  the
desired levels of quality.  Under  this procedure, 90  percent of all  interstate
waters  have already been  classified for either recreational use or fish  and
wildlife propagation uses.
   Of the fifty-four  jurisdictions covered by the water pollution  control pro-
gram, virtually all  have fully  approved  interstate  standards;  EPA  has  the
power to  reject  State  standards that fail to meet  the legal requirements.
EPA's rejection of all or part of a State's proposal forces the State to draft an
acceptable alternative; failure to revise a proposal  will result in EPA setting a
standard.  In the initial  review standards will  be  weighed  against  their con-
  1 The second step in most waste treatment systems in which bacteria consume the  organic
parts of the wastes.

                                     14

-------
formity  to  the  old  Act. This review  and any  required  revision can include
implementation  schedules.  Future  revision  of  standards, after the  initial
review, will be limited to use classifications and criteria.
   If the Administrator determines that application of the technology required
by 1983 will not assure protection of public water supplies, agricultural and
industrial uses,  and the protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allow recreational activities, he may impose
such additional controls  as he finds  necessary to  meet such standards.
   In addition to setting water quality standards, where  effluent limitations
will not  be stringent enough to meet  water quality standards,  the States
are required to  establish maximum daily  loads  of pollutants permitted in the
waters that will allow the propagation of fish  and wildlife. A similar assess-
ment must  be  made for  thermal  discharges.  States  are also required  to
develop a continuing planning process which is  able to deal with the changing
patterns of water pollution within  the State.  Beginning in  1975, the States
must submit to Congress and  EPA annual  reports with an inventory of  all
point  sources  of discharge, an  assessment of  existing  water  quality  and
projected goals, and proposals of programs  for  nonpoint source control. EPA
must submit a similar report to Congress on January  1, 1974.

New Source Performance Standards

   In addition to setting effluent standards for existing point sources, EPA also
sets standards for new  industrial point sources. EPA  must  determine  the
best available  demonstrated  control  technology,  and  require  its installation
for at least twenty-seven named categories of  sources. If the Administrator
determines  that a zero-discharge  standard is   practicable, he  may  set such
a  standard.

Toxic and Pretreatment  Effluent Standards
   As part of the comprehensive authority vested in the Administrator, he is
directed to publish a list  of toxic  pollutants1  and  effluent limitations  for
these substances. Such  limitations  may  constitute  an  absolute prohibition
against discharging.  Additionally, the Administrator  must publish  pretreat-
ment standards  requiring any industry discharging into a municipal sewage
treatment plant to pretreat its  effluent so that  it does not interfere with  the
operation of the plant or pass through  the plant untreated or without  adequate
treatment.
  i Those pollutants which after discharge and upon contact with any organism, either directly
from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will cause death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer,  genetic  mutations,  physiological malfunctions or physical
deformities, in such organisms or their offspring.


                                     15

-------
Marine Sanitation Devices

   To curb pollution of coastal and navigable waters, EPA in 1970 was given
authority  to set performance standards for marine  sanitation devices, which
were published in June 1972. The 1972 amendments to the FWPCA permit
the States to prohibit all discharges of sewage from marine vessels if they
determine that  such  limitation  is  necessary  for  greater  environmental
protection of the waters within the State. This may be done only where  the
Administrator has determined that  there are adequate facilities for the safe
and sanitary removal and treatment of that sewage.

Thermal Discharges
   Thermal discharges1 are subject  to the best practicable and best  avaikble
control technology requirements, as are other pollutants. However, if a thermal
discharger can demonstrate  to the Administrator that an  EPA standard is
more stringent than that necessary to protect the propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife, then the Administrator may set a less stringent standard.

State  Certification

   The FWPCA  was amended in 1970  to  insure  that the  activities of all
Federal agencies meet applicable State  standards.  The law  and its recent
amendment impose  a new  requirement on  all  applicants  for  a  Federal
license or permit. If a licensed or  permitted activity may result in a discharge
into navigable  waters, a certificate must be obtained from the affected  State,
which assures  that the  activity  will not  violate   the effluent limitations,
guidelines, and other requirements of the 1972  amendments. Through this
certification process, harmful pollution can be  stopped before it begins. This
is a significant milestone, a  departure from  the idea of abatement to one of
prevention.

State  Permit  Programs
   While  the  Rivers  and   Harbors  Act of  1899  had  provided   for  the
issuance of permits  by the Corps of Engineers, the  1972 amendments to  the
FWPCA  have instituted a  new permit  program under EPA guidance and
assistance that has shifted administration and enforcement  to State govern-
ments. Under the new law, no discharge  is permitted except as authorized by
a discharge  permit. This  new  amendment extends  to  previously  exempt
municipal discharges, so that all potential pollutants are now covered. While
EPA issues guidelines for State permit programs, it retains  a right to review
a State-issued permit affecting another State's water resources.
  1 Thermal discharges are  defined by  Congress  as  the introduction  of water  from  a
 point source at a temperature different  from the ambient temperature of the receiving waters.

                                    16

-------
   Discharge permits must be consistent with effluent limitations, guidelines,
and other requirements of  the statute.  They must be for periods no longer
than five years, and may be terminated  when there is a violation  of a condi'
tion of the  permit or when changed conditions dictate the need  for further
reduction of the permitted discharge. Similarly, EPA may withdraw approval
of a State permit program if the  agency determines the State  has failed to
fulfill the requirements of the Act.
   Permits  affecting discharges into oceans waters under this  section must
be  consistent with  criteria set by  EPA parallel  to  the  criteria  established
under  the  Marine Protection,  Research, and Sanctuaries Act  of 1972  for
ocean  dumping permits. By  this process, States  may not certify  discharges
which would be potential violations of Federal regulations under the  ocean
dumping law.
   The  Corps  of  Engineers,  the  administering  agency under   the  1899
Act, continues to issue dredge and fill permits under the  new law in accord-
ance with  criteria  comparable  to  EPA  ocean discharge criteria.  As  noted
later, an additional permit is required for disposal  of sewage sludge into
navigable waters.

Federal  Enforcement
   EPA has the authority to enforce the provisions of the law  through both
administrative and judicial channels. When the Administrator finds a person
to be in violation of a permit  condition or other provision of the law, he must
notify the polluter,  and shall  either issue an administrative order  prohibiting
further violation or pursue a judicial remedy  for  appropriate relief.
   If the Administrator finds  that violations within  a State are  widespread
due to State inaction, he may so notify the State, and the Federal Government
will assume  enforcement responsibilities until the State can satisfy the Ad-
ministrator  that it will enforce the law.
   In order to insure  compliance with  the law, EPA has been given  broad
inspection  and monitoring powers. The agency has  a right of entry  to  all
effluent  sources  and  authority  to inspect records,  data and  information,
monitoring equipment,  and effluents. If a  State develops similar  procedures,
the Administrator may transfer this authority to the State.
   The Administrator may also bring suit if he finds that a particular  pollu-
tion source presents an imminent and  substantial danger to human health
or danger to an individual's livelihood,  such as the inability to  market shell-
fish.

Citizen  Suits

   The law  specifically provides for citizen participation  in the enforcement
of  Federal  standards.  Aggrieved  private  citizens may  seek judicial  relief

                                    17

-------
against any polluter  for  violations  of an effluent standard or limitation, or
administrative  order  issued under the Act.  Citizens  may  also institute pro-
ceedings against the  Administrator if he fails  to perform  an act required
of him under the law.
   Evidencing  a firm commitment to  the  idea of  citizen  involvement in
enforcement of the FWPCA, the law prohibits the firing of,  or  discrimina-
tion against any person who instigates or  testifies in any proceeding  under
the FWPCA.

Research and  Related  Areas
   The 1972 amendments give the  Administrator  a broad mandate to  estab-
lish research  programs  for the  prevention, reduction,  and  elimination of
pollution in navigable waters of  the  United States. The agency  is directed
to  establish,  in cooperation with all pertinent Federal, State, and private
parties, comprehensive  local and  national  programs  for  water pollution
control. Specifically, the  agency  must render  technical advice, and conduct
research, investigations,  experiments,  training, demonstrations, surveys,  and
studies; establish advisory committees to evaluate  research progress and pro-
posals;  establish a water quality  surveillance system'* to  monitor  the quality
of  navigable waters  and initiate  and  promote  studies  measuring the  social
and economic costs and benefits of water pollution  control activities. The Ad-
ministrator  must  also investigate the harmful  effects of  pollutants on  the
health and  welfare of  persons.  He  must  establish field laboratories  and
research facilities, make a comprehensive study of  the pollution of the  Great
Lakes  and  finance pilot  treatment  works programs.  Furthermore,  he must
investigate  the problems of pollution  by eutrophication, oil spill, pesticides
in water, and thermal discharge.

Grants
   Since the basic responsibility for cleaning  up the nation's waters is retained
by  State  governments,  Congress  authorized  numerous  grants  to aid  the
States' pollution abatement efforts. These  provide assistance to  States  for
research and development, manpower  training, water quality  planning,  moni-
toring and  enforcement. Grants are also  available to institutions of  higher
education for  programs designed to bring students into professions that deal
with water pollution control.
   The major  thrust  of  the Federal grant effort is directed towards munici-
palities for the  construction of sewage treatment plants. More  than 1300
local  communities have  sewer systems that discharge  untreated  waste.  An
equal  number  of  communities  provide merely  primary  treatment,   which
removes only  30% of some pollutants. The Administrator  is authorized to
make grants of $18 billion to the States according to need  for construction

                                    18

-------
of  new  treatment works  during the  fiscal  years  1973-1975. The  Federal
share for these  projects is 75% with the remainder  to be divided between
State and local  governments and  industrial users. Municipalities  are further
eligible for grants for  demonstration  projects that  utilize  new methods for
treating  sewage, joint systems  for municipal  and industrial waste, and new
water purification  techniques.

Oil Spills & Hazardous Substances *
  Another area of national concern, the widely publicized  oil spill problem,
has produced Federal legislation to protect water quality. In  1970 the Fed-
eral Government was given  broad authority  to clean up oil spills, to make
the polluter pay the cost of clean-up, and  to  levy fines and penalties against
him. EPA cooperates with the Coast Guard and other  agencies in  administer-
ing the law  and in drafting the National Contingency Plan for  removal of
oil spills. The 1972 amendments extended these provisions to the discharge of
hazardous substances.

NEPA Exemption
  In order to facilitate  the implementation of the new law, the 1972 amend-
ments  specifically  exempt  EPA in most  instances  from the  environmental
impact  statement  requirement  of the National Environmental  Policy  Act
(NEPA)  of  1969. EPA is  still  required to file an  environmental  impact
statement when, (1) supplying financial  assistance for the construction of
public treatment works, and (2) issuing a permit for a new point source when
these activities have a major impact on the  environment. Congress,  recognizing
the enormous scope and complexity of the Administrator's task, has provided
detailed guidance within the  Act for the setting of guidelines, standards, and
limitations.  This guidance allows for  a balancing  of  many complex factors
while  removing the  administrative  burden of  filing  NEPA  statements for
numerous agency  actions whose  goals are to protect and  enhance the en-
vironment.

Interstate  Compacts
  An additional approach under the Act encourages cooperation between the
States by Congressional consent to interstate compacts, and the  encourage-
ment of  uniform  State  laws   relating  to the  prevention,  reduction,  and
elimination  of pollution. These agreements  for  solving regional  problems
have been approved by Congress for many years as a kind of middle ground
between  purely  State action on  the one hand, and exclusive Federal control
of regional problems on the other.
  1 The Act defines  "hazardous substances" as an element  or compound, designated by the
Administrator, which when discharged in any quantity presents an imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or welfare.

                                    19

-------
   The compacts are administered  by interstate commissions. While earlier
commissions were limited to studies of regional pollution problems, recently
formed  commissions have  been given authority  to  issue legally  binding
pollution abatement orders throughout a multi-State region.
  There have  been other innovations:  the Federal Government has entered
into several Federal-interstate compacts, reflecting the need to protect national
interests  in those regions. EPA  involves  itself in this  area by  encouraging
effective  river basin planning, providing expert technical  assistance,  and
supporting manpower training.


Drinking  Water  Quality

   EPA  also inherited responsibilities for drinking water  quality from the
Bureau of Water Hygiene of the Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, including authority to set interstate  quarantine regulations and duties
during emergencies and natural disasters.


Other 'Legislation

   Other legislation expands EPA's role in the fight  against water pollution.
The Water Resources Planning Act gives the  Administrator of EPA a seat
on the Water Resources Council. The Council  studies and assesses policies
and programs regarding regional or river basin plans.  By Executive Order,
EPA has  been  appointed a  member  of  various  river  basin  commissions.
Additionally,  under the Appalachian  Regional  Development Act,  the  Ad-
ministrator can  make grants  in  that region  for the construction  of sewage
treatment  plants  without considering FWPCA ceilings  or  allotments to
States. Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, the Agency consults
with the Secretary  of Transportation on the  setting of  rules and regulations
for vessels  to insure the protection of the marine environment.

Ocean Dumping
   We have known for a long time that  the oceans are vast; but it is  only
recently that we have realized that they are also fragile. The oceans are finite:
there are  limits  to the amount  of  sludge waste and  junk they  can  safely
absorb. The new ocean dumping legislation, the Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries  Act of 1972, passed by the 92nd Congress and signed  into
law by the President on October  27,  1972, declares  it to be  the  national
policy "to  regulate the  dumping of all types of materials  into ocean waters
and to prevent or strictly limit the dumping into ocean  waters of any material
which  would  adversely affect human  health,  welfare or  amenities, or the
marine  environment,  ecological systems  or economic  potentialities."  The

                                   20

-------
Congress found that the previous law was inadequate and imprecise, and
that strict new regulation was required.

Prohibited Acts

   The  new  law prohibits  the transportation from the  United  States for
the purpose  of dumping into territorial seas or the  contiguous  zone, any
radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or  any high-level radio-
active  waste  into  ocean  waters.  Additionally, no officer,  employee, agent,
department, agency  or  instrumentality  of  the  Federal Government  shall
transport these  materials from any location outside  the  United  States for
the purpose of dumping  into ocean waters.
   The  most  sweeping  prohibition is that no  person may  transport any
material for  the purpose of dumping into  ocean waters  without a permit.

Permits

   The new law provides for two types of permits for activities potentially
threatening the ocean environment.  One type of permit  is  issued by the
Secretary of the Army for dumping dredged material.  The dumping of this
material  is subject to the approval of the  Administrator  of EPA for com-
pliance with stated criteria, as well as compliance with  the designated critical
areas established by EPA.
   For  all other classes of materials—whether  it be sewage sludge, garbage,
chemical wastes or   construction  debris—a new permit  system  has  been
established  under the direct control  of  the Administrator of  the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Administrator shall issue a  permit only  after
he determines that dumping in a particular instance "will  not unreasonably
degrade or endanger human health,  welfare  or  amenities, or the  marine
environment, ecological systems, or economic potentialities."

Criteria

   In establishing the criteria for future ocean dumping, the  Congress  directed
the Administrator to consider several points:
   (A)  The need for the proposed dumping.
   (B)  The  effect   of such  dumping on human  health,  and welfare, in-
        cluding economic, esthetic, and recreational  values.
   (C)  The  effect  of such  dumping on fisheries  resources, plankton,  fish,
        shellfish, wildlife, shore lines, and beaches.
   (D)  The   effect  of  such  dumping on  marine  ecosystems, particularly
        with respect to—
        (i)  the transfer, concentration, and dispersion of such material and
        its byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical processes.

                                   21

-------
         (ii)  potential changes  in marine  ecosystem diversity, productivity,
         and stability,  and
         (iii)  species and community population dynamics.
   (E) The persistence and permanence of the effects of the dumping.
   (F) The effect  of dumping particular  volumes and  concentrations of
         such materials.
   (G)  Appropriate locations and methods of disposal or recycling, including
         land-based  alternatives  and  the  probable  impact of  requiring use
         of such alternate locations or methods  upon  considerations  affect-
         ing the public interest.
   (H)  The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as scientific study, fishing,
         and other living resource  exploitation,  and  non-living resource ex-
         ploitation.
   (I)  In  designating recommended sites, the  Administrator shall utilize
         wherever feasible locations beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf.

   The Administrator is  also required to consult  with other  Federal  officials,
 and before issuing permits he  must provide notice  to interested parties and
opportunity  for public hearing. No  permit  may  be  issued  which  would
violate applicable water quality  standards.
   While the States are prohibited  from regulating ocean dumping activities
covered  by the Federal legislation, they may  submit proposed criteria con-
sistent with  the system  established by the Administrator  to be applied to
waters within  their jurisdiction. Submission  of criteria  by  a State is subject
to a full  public hearing  and  final determination within  120 days.

Penalties  & Enforcement

   The new statute provides for civil penalties for  violation; up to $50,000
for each  violation to be assessed by  the  Administrator. In addition,  there
are specific criminal penalties: an individual convicted of violating the law or
regulations  issued pursuant to  it or violating  a permit may be fined up to
$50,000 or imprisoned for one year, or both. The penalties do not apply  when
material is dumped at sea during emergency conditions.  The overall responsi-
bility for the monitoring and surveillance of dumping  practices is given to
the U.S. Coast Guard.
   The Attorney General is authorized to seek relief against  any violation
of the statute in the appropriate United States District  Court. Where a vio-
lation  persists and no action has been  taken to  enjoin or penalize the violator,
citizens may bring civil suits to enjoin violation or prohibitions, limitations,
criteria, or permits established or issued under the statute.  However, no  suit
may commence until  the end  of  a 60-day period after notice to  the Ad-
ministrator or  Secretary and the violator. Citizens may also recover the costs
of litigation. The injunctive relief provided to private citizens by this provi-

                                    22

-------
sion does not affect  or  in  any way  preempt other legal  remedies otherwise
available to them.

Comprehensive  Research

   The  new  law  gives  significant  new  responsibilities  to  the  National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the  Department of Com-
merce. It  directs  NOAA to begin  a  comprehensive research  and monitoring
program on ocean  dumping within six months and to report to Congress at
least annually thereafter. Because  we really know so little  about the long-
term  consequences of ocean  pollution,  the law  directs NOAA to conduct
research  on pollution, overfishing  and man-induced  changes of  ocean eco-
systems, and ways in which the oceans may best be preserved for the  benefit
of succeeding generations.
   While  the Secretary  of  Commerce bears  the responsibility  of reporting
annually on  both short-term  and long-term research  to Congress, other de-
partments are expected to cooperate with  NOAA's efforts by sharing informa-
tion and  facilities where  necessary   through  interagency agreements.  This
provision will undoubtedly involve EPA in the ocean  research program.  In
addition to governmental  cooperation,  funds  are authorized to  encourage
public and private research and  experimentation  in this field.

Marine Sanctuaries

  The Act also directs that marine sanctuaries be established to preserve  or
restore parts of  the ocean for recreation, conservation, and ecological  needs.
The Secretary of  Commerce, after consultation with other agencies including
EPA,  may designate territorial  waters for this purpose.  Where  territorial
waters lie  within  State  boundaries,  the governor  may   after consultation
certify a designation as unacceptable. The Act authorizes the Secretary  of
State to enter into  negotiations with  other  governments with a view toward
making international agreements for the creation of marine sanctuaries  in
international waters.

Relationship  to Other Laws

   The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 supplements
laws already in effect for protection of  our  water resources.  Oil spill pre-
vention and basic water quality  standards are  dealt with in other legislation
and by treaty, and are not affected  by the Act. With the exception of  Rivers
and Harbors Act permits  (Refuse Act of 1899), all  permits and licenses
purporting to authorize  any activity  covered  by the  Marine  Protection Act
were rendered void by the new law.
                                    23

-------
                      SOLID  WASTE
                     "We can no longer afford the indiscrimi-
                   nate waste of our natural resources; neither
                   should we accept as inevitable the mounting
                   costs of waste removal. We must move in-
                   creasingly toward closed systems that recycle
                   what now are considered wastes back into
                   useful and productive purposes."
                                          Richard M. Nixon

  America's  high level  of technological developments combined with our
standard of living has produced a staggering accumulation of waste and refuse.
Our appetite for resources promises to continue to swell, but our methods of
dealing with the waste products of our way of life remain rather primitive. This
nation generates 360 million tons of solid waste each year—garbage, trash and
other solid materials, exclusive  of sewage  and dissolved material. That 360
million tons may double within ten years. In 1970, each American consumed
578 pounds  of packaging  material alone.  While the levels of  solid  waste
continue to grow,  the most common method of disposing of the by-products
of America's  consumption is the same as it was a century ago: open dumping.
  We have historically operated on the assumption that the earth, water and
air  around us will absorb all of our waste products indefinitely. We  now are
beginning to realize that the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere are  finite,
and that nature's capacity to assimilate more waste is coming to an end.

Legislative Background

  In  1965, Congress  enacted  the Solid Waste  Disposal Act, the first Federal
legislation to  attempt to deal with the effects  of solid waste disposal on the
environment. Up to that time, only five States had made any kind of organized
effort to address the problem. The Federal  program under  the 1965  Act was
largely a system of grants which stressed State and local responsibility.

                                    24

-------
  By 1970, the more far-reaching implications of disposing of used resources
and waste products were widely recognized. Congress amended the 1965 Act
with  the  Resource Recovery Act of 1970, which  officially recognized the
potential economic benefits of recovering a portion of the  "trash" we were
casually discarding. That legislation also directed new grant programs to urban
areas, where solid  waste problems were getting out of hand.

Nature of Federal Role

  Although the primary  responsibility  for the  management  of solid waste
materials  clearly  resides with  State  and local officials, Federal activity was
directed by Congress into several areas:
   (1) construction, demonstration, and application of waste management and
resource recovery systems for the preservation of air, water, and land resources;
   (2) technical and financial assistance to agencies in planning and developing
resource recovery and waste disposal programs;
   (3)  national research  and development programs  to  develop and test
methods of dealing with collection,  separation,  recovery, recycling, and safe
disposal of non-recoverable waste;
   (4) guidelines  for the  collection, transportation,  separation,  and recovery
and disposal of solid waste;
   (5)  training grants in occupations involving  design, operation, and main-
tenance of solid waste disposal systems.

Resource  Recovery

   Comprehensive  study of the recovery of useful  energy  or materials from
solid wastes involves  four broad  types  of recovery:  systems  of returnable,
reusable products  such as  beverage containers;  repulping  systems to  make
similar products as the original, including steel, glass, paper, and aluminum;
chemical  conversions of raw material that provide  a completely new type of
product such as  humus for composting or protein  developed through yeast
culture;  and the  use of energy  developed by waste disposal, such as  steam
generation from incineration.
   The ideal system of solid waste management  would recover the maximum
amount of resources for reuse or recycling, and deposit the residue or legitimate
waste material in an efficient and environmentally  sound  manner. This em-
phasis on recycling or reuse, while not a panacea, may well represent a return to
old-fashioned common sense, a necessity in the days  when resources were more
scarcely  distributed. In  1929, for example, almost twice as much  recycled
material was annually used in paper  pulp production as in  1970. The amount
of resources being systematically and uneconomically wasted by our current
practices is enormous. A Bureau of Mines study,  for instance, estimated that if
all refuse  were burned in properly designed incinerators, the  residue on an

                                     25

-------
annual basis might contain some 10 million tons of iron, almost one million
tons of nonferrous metals including aluminum, lead, zinc, copper, and  tin,
about 14 million tons of glass,  substantial amounts of nonmetallic minerals
and  even small quantities  of precious metals. Continued  experimentation
through model projects and systematic research will produce useful knowledge
about resource recovery and about more  efficient  disposal methods.

Federal-State Activities

  The Administrator, besides being charged with research and development,
is empowered to award grants and enter into contracts for studies and demon-
stration projects. EPA makes annual reports on such progress to Congress  and
the President. A special report and a plan for disposal of hazardous waste are
required to be submitted to Congress by October 27, 1972.
  Federal law also encourages cooperation between States and  localities. EPA
makes grants to  eligible States,  municipal, interstate and  intermunicipal
agencies to survey solid waste disposal practices, to develop disposal plans, to
demonstrate resource recovery systems,  and to conssruct  test facilities. Money
is also  provided  for personnel  training,  involving  management supervision,
design,  operation,  and maintenance of pilot projects.
  Mission 5000 is one example of the  type of intergovernmental cooperation
made possible under Federal law. EPA is acting as coordinator in a joint effort
of all levels of government to eliminate  5000 open dumps in the country. Since
the program began two  years ago, many State governments have passed laws
outlawing open dumping.

Federal Disposal Efforts

   On the Federal level, the Administrator is required to publish guidelines
for solid waste recovery, collection, separation,  and disposal systems. Federal
agencies will attempt to  pioneer new techniques in accordance  with Executive
regulations. Additionally, methods of disposal that will capitalize more efficient
waste management will be tested and evaluated  by EPA.
                                    26

-------
                          PESTICIDES
                       "People no longer want benefits promised
                    without due regard to the detriments  they
                    may produce. They realize that the desire to
                    have the maximum amount of food at the
                    lowest  possible price must be tempered by
                    the amounts and kinds of agricultural chemi-
                    cals  they  are  willing  to  tolerate being
                    released into the environment."
                                                      William D. Ruckelshaus

   One of  the  crucial pillars of  the  agricultural revolution in America  is
 pesticides. These chemicals—with their capacity to kill those insects, weeds and
 pests that have  historically  competed with man—have, along with machinery,
 fertilizers, and new miracle strains of seed, made America's farmers the most
 productive  on earth and have provided man with a potent weapon  against
 disease.
   Over the past decade, evidence has pointed to the fact that pesticides are
 a mixed blessing. In the early 1960's, serious concern began to be expressed
 about their impact on birds and wildlife. Dead fish began lining the  shores
 of our lakes; shellfish were  shown  to be susceptible to these chemicals; DDT
 was found  in the  flesh of  deep-ocean whales. Around the world, man was
 annually introducing close to a billion pounds of chemicals into the environ-
 ment, with  little or no appreciation of the long-term consequences or  effects.

 Legislative  Background

   The  Federal  responsibility  for  regulating  these chemicals in the  public
 interest was transferred to  EPA in  1970.  The  major legal tools  available
 to EPA for this job  are  found in  the  Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)  of 1947, most recently amended by  the Federal
Environmental  Pesticide Control  Act of 1972  (FEPCA), and  portions of

                                    27

-------
the Federal Food, Drug,  and Cosmetic Act, first enacted in  1938. FIFRA
empowers EPA to register pesticides,  register and inspect pesticide-producing
establishments, and certify applicators where a pesticide has been designated
for restricted  use, while  the Food and  Drug Act  allows EPA  to specify
permissible  pesticide  residues on raw agricultural products.  An additional
EPA authority designed to protect small children is the Special Packaging Act
of  1970, which  deals with the  packaging  of  toxic substances.  Research
capabilities are provided by the Public Health Service  Act, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and the Pesticides Research Act of  1958.

Registration

   Under FEPCA, the  distribution, sale, offer or  holding  for  sale, shipment,
delivery, or receipt within any State of any pesticide, which is not registered,
is  prohibited. Registration entails a procedure whereby the applicant files  a
statement that includes a copy of the  labeling,  the claims to be made for the
pesticide, directions for its use,  and  the complete formula of the pesticide.
EPA can require  claims to be substantiated by a  full  description of the tests
made and results achieved upon which the  claims are based.
   Additionally,  FEPCA  calls  for the  registration  of  pesticide-producing
establishments. While this  registration  is essentially  an  automatic process,
the establishment is  required to  disclose  production, sale, and  distribution
information, and is subject to inspection by EPA.

Certification of  Applicators

  The  Administrator  is  authorized  to  prescribe   applicator  certification
standards, which  should provide  that  the  individual to be certified is  com-
petent to use  and handle  those pesticides covered  by his certification. A State
may submit for  the Administrator's approval its  own certification plan that
assures conformity with the Administrator's standards. Certification  is neces-
sary for the application  of  most  pesticides that  are  classified as being  for
restricted use, i.e., those  that generally cause, without additional regulatory
restrictions,  "unreasonable adverse effects on the  environment."
   These application controls become  effective  over a  four year period, con-
stituting the essence of EPA's authority to  regulate "use" as opposed to  prior
authority which merely controlled label directions. The vital element in the
new use controls is the prohibition against the use of a pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with  its labeling.

Tolerances

   Under the  Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, if  the pesticide  in normal use
leaves  residues on crops, that provide food for  man  or  animal, a  tolerance
must  be established.  A tolerance is  simply the  amount of residue, usually

                                    28

-------
stated in parts per million (ppm), that can  safely remain on the crop when
it moves to market after the pesticide has been applied in the proper manner.
In establishing  tolerances, once again the manufacturer  must submit infor-
mation to support his claims. Data on safety  (toxicity  to lab animals),  the
amount, frequency  and time of  application,  and  methods for  identifying
and removing excessive residues must accompany  the petition.  Where  the
supporting  data is inadequate  or  a health hazard may  be present,  the  Ad-
ministrator  must establish a "zero"  tolerance.

Cancellation
   Both laws provide  for various  sanctions, but  cancellation is the major
weapon in the Administrator's arsenal in implementing the decision that  the
benefits of  using a pesticide are outweighed by  its risks.  Cancellation does
not invariably result in removal from the market, although if  there is an
"imminent  hazard" or an "emergency," the  Administrator may  suspend  the
registration and seize  the product during cancellation proceedings.  Rather,
the cancellation process may encompass  a hearing  in which all interested
parties are  afforded the  opportunity to present  evidence relevant to   the
propriety of the proposed action.  Cancellation is  usually  a result of a deter-
mination that the technical labeling requirements for registration approval are
not being  met  or that the product will cause  "unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment,"  i.e.,  any unreasonable risk to man or the environment,
taking into  account the economic, social, and  environmental costs and benefits
of its use.
   Other enforcement sanctions include: a change in classification from general
to restricted use; stop sale, use, or removal  orders; seizures;  and  civil  and
criminal penalties.
   It  should be  emphasized that  decisions  as  to registration, tolerance setting,
and cancellation are not performed in an arbitrary  fashion or in a bureaucratic
vacuum. When  the manufacturer  receives  an  adverse decision,  he has an
elaborate appeal mechanism available to him including advisory committees,
public hearings, and court appeals.
   Decisions as  to risks and  benefits of pesticides, and their  desirability in
relation to  alternatives are not  easy  determinations. Prudence  in many  in-
stances requires that decisions be  made on the side of safety. For  example,
in the case  of DDT, a more  toxic but less persistent chemical was  found to
be a better alternative. While the risks of the alternative could be minimized
by properly training  the  applicators, the hazards  of DDT  could  not  be
mitigated.

Research
   The drawbacks of chemical  pest  control have  hastened research  by EPA
into non-chemical methods.  Introduction  of  predators  (biological  control),

                                    29

-------
strategic planting of a variety of crops within  an area  (cultural control),
using insect specific  viruses and diseases,  sterilization,  and developing  pest
resistant crop strains are  all possibilities that may eventually supplant much
of the present reliance on chemicals.

Monitoring
   EPA has established monitoring networks to provide the empirical  data
needed  for informed, sound policy making. These networks also provide the
locus for much of EPA's  assistance to State and local officials as they wrestle
with many of the same problems.
                                    30

-------
                         RADIATION
                      "But  the most immediate alternative  to
                   shrinking  supplies  of  fossil fuels in any
                   massive  satisfaction of the  world's futuie
                   power needs lies in the various  forms of
                   atomic energy. And here we confront, with
                   a  seriousness  which demands the utmost
                   integrity of judgement and depth of human
                   care, the profoundest implications of the
                   Promethean legend."

                                            Barbara  Ward and  Rene  Dubos,
                                            Only One Earth

   With  the  nation's  energy needs doubling  every decade, and its  reserves of
traditional fossil-fuel  energy sources—coal and oil—being inevitably depleted,
the task of fully harnessing the atom has taken  on a new urgency. The  full
extent of this urgency is reflected in some recent  studies  that conclude we will
have  to  construct at  least  1,000 one-million-killowatt  electric  generating
plants in the next twenty years to meet our burgeoning needs.
   Ironically,  the nuclear  power industry's attainment of the economic and
technological maturity needed to  supply atomic  power on  a large-scale  has
coincided with  the rise of  citizen concern  over the undesirable  side-effects
of that same technology. Most of this concern is  centered on several potential
hazards:  those associated with the release of radioactivity  into the environment
during the  normal operation  of nuclear reactors, accidents  through human
error  or mechanical failure,  and the disposal of radioactive wastes produced by
the reactors.  There is also  the widely  held concern that the  discharge  of
heated water used  to cool  the  reactors—"thermal pollution"—may  cause
irreversible damage to fish and plant life.

                                    31

-------
Legislative Background

  Although the problems of reactor safety are handled by the Atomic Energy
Commission  (AEC), the problems of thermal pollution  (under EPA's water
authority)  and  some  generally denned authority over  radioactivity in  the
environment and the disposal of wastes are now within the EPA's jurisdiction.
Under amendments  to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, EPA has been given
standard-setting powers, while authority for research  is lodged in the Public
Health Service Act.  This is  in contrast to other areas where EPA  was also
given an  enforcement role.  In radiation,  the AEC  remains responsible  for
enforcing EPA's standards through its existing licensing authority.

Research

  Implicit in any standard-setting endeavor is the need for accurate  estimates
on levels of radiation in the environment, their pathways to man, and the health
risks  from these doses. The Administrator,  under the Public  Health Service
Act, has broad research powers. The paraphenalia of fellowships, grants-in-aid,
consultants, and contracts are all available and are widely used.
  Much of the  current discussion on radiation has centered around science's
lack of information  on the long-term genetic and health consequences of  low
levels of radiation. In studying this issue, EPA has meshed its research  and
monitoring efforts  with those of the  AEC. Both agencies are studying  the
health effects of radiation along with monitoring the environment  (particu-
larly  around nuclear power plants) to calculate the population's total exposure
to various forms of radiation. EPA is  also  conducting a complete review of
present radiation standards, along with an assessment of the entire nuclear  fuel
cycle. Plans are also underway for developing the needed information for future
standards for the coming of the liquid metal fast breeder  reactor.

Breeders

  These breeder reactors, now in  the development stage, are  designed to
capture neutrons lost during the fission process by today's reactors and use them
to create more nuclear fuel. When perfected, breeders will create more fission-
able  materials than they consume, giving us, according to the  AEC,  abundant
economical fuel for the future. This could be the much awaited  solution to the
present shortage of nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, there are several known safety
problems with a liquid metal fast breeder reactor. First, its core  is to  be cooled
by a liquid metal—sodium—which can  react  violently when  it comes in
contact with water or  steam. Secondly,  the nuclear fuel produced by  the
captured neutrons is plutonium, which retains its radioactivity for thousands
of years, posing exceptional  disposal problems.

                                    32

-------
Wastes

  The problem  of  disposing of radioactive wastes is currently being studied
by  the agency  under  its  solid waste  authority. Given  the extraordinary
persistence of some of these wastes, finding a safe place to store them is both
a technically and politically intriguing problem.

Tritium

  Two other  areas of concern to EPA  relate to  the hazards  of  tritium and
non-ionizing radiation. Tritium  is a radioactive gas  that will  be  a major
by-product of fusion  (combining atoms, rather than splitting them), a source
of energy man is hoping to tap in the  next century. Non-ionizing radiation
refers to the microwaves  produced by the communications industry—such as
radio transmitters—that each of us is bombarded by daily; until EPA, no one
had  attempted a systematic study of its effects on man.

Technical Assistance

   The Public Health Service Act has also directed EPA to dispense techni-
cal assistance to the States. The emphasis here is placed on developing compre-
hensive plans for State response to nuclear incidents,  and for training local
personnel.  Hopefully, the results of  these and other ambitious research and
monitoring programs will serve as a  basis for informed decision making that
will  protect the American pubic as we move further into the nuclear age.
                                   33

-------
                               NOISE
                    "America  is  the  noisiest country  that
                  ever existed.  One is wakened  up in  the
                  morning not by the singing of  the night-
                  ingale, but by the steel worker."
                                                     Oscar Wilde, Impressions
                                                     of America (1882)

   Our  experts define  noise  as "unwanted  sound." The  national  recognition
of noise as a pollutant  is relatively recent, probably because it is generally
confined to a specific  geographic locality and temporal  period, and because
its deleterious effects are less patent than those  of other forms of pollutants.
Each of us has noticed  such  "garden-variety" pollutants as  waste in rivers,
or auto emissions in the air. We may shrink back from a river because of its
peculiar color or  odor, or be offended by  noxious fumes from the antique
buses that still service many cities, but noise, being less  tangible and enduring,
tends to be less sensually and  aesthetically offensive.

Legislative Background
   The  Airport  and Airway Development Act of 1970  and  the Federal  Aid
Highway Act identify noise as one factor among others to be considered in
the planning, development, and construction of  airports  and highways. EPA
is required to evaluate environmental factors involved in such projects  and
to report its findings  to the Secretary of Transportation. He,  in  turn, must
take them into consideration before making a final decision on the feasibility
of a given project.
   The  Noise Pollution and Abatement Act  of 1970, directed that substantial
research be undertaken  to  study  a  wide range  of problems concerning  the
harmful effects of noise. In 1971, EPA set up its own Office  of Noise Abate-
ment and Control to study the effect of noise on public health and welfare.
   With enactment of the Noise Control Act of  1972 came the first major
piece of Congressional legislation in this  area. The stated  purpose  of  the

                                     34

-------
 Act is to establish a vehicle for the effective coordination of Federal research
 and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise
 emission standards for products distributed in  interstate  commerce, and  to
 provide  information  to the  public respecting the  noise  emission and noise
 reduction characteristics of such products.
    In  addition,  the Act amends  the Federal  Aviation Act of 1958 to provide
 for interdepartmental action between FAA and EPA  in the prescription  of
 standards and regulations  relating  to the control  and abatement of aircraft
 noise  and sonic boom. It further provides for similar cooperation between the
 Department of  Transportation  and  EPA in the promulgation  of  standards
 and regulations relating to the noise emission of  interstate railroad and  motor
 carriers.

 Noise Emission  Standards
    Under the Noise Control Act, the Administrator is given the authority to
 prescribe regulations  for products  designated as major noise sources,  where
 noise  emission  standards are  feasible and where  the product falls into one of
 the following categories:  construction equipment,  transportation equipment,
 any motor or engine,  electrical or electronic equipment. Each regulation must
 include a noise emission standard which sets the limits on  emissions from a
 given  product, and which, based on published criteria, is a requisite for the
 protection of the public health and welfare. Factors for consideration are the
 magnitude  and conditions for use, the  degree of noise reduction achievable
 through the application of the best available technology, and the cost of com-
 pliance. The Administrator is also  authorized to devise regulations for other
 noise  sources where standards are feasible and when it is determined that the
 source poses a threat to the public health and welfare. The Administrator must
 give labeling instructions for  designated products, which will put  the prospec-
 tive user on notice of either the product's exceptionally high noise  emission
 level or its effectiveness in reducing noise.

 Enforcement
   Under the Noise Control Act, the Administrator may issue an order,  after
 notice and a hearing,  specifying such relief as he deems  necessary to protect
 the public health and welfare, and may request judicial action to restrain
 violations of the Act. There  are criminal penalties for the  following willful
 and knowing acts: the distribution in  commerce  of any  new  product not
 conforming to the emission  standards  specified  or the  designated  labeling
 requirements; the noncompliance with an order of the Administrator; or the
 failure to maintain certain records, make certain reports and tests, or provide
certain  information. Private citizens also  can  bring civil actions for violations
of  the Act.

                                    35

-------
Low-Noise-Emission  Products

   The Administrator, with the assistance of a Low-Noise-Emission Product
Advisory Committee, is empowered to certify  for government use, a product
that emits noise in amounts significantly below  the levels specified in the
noise emission standards and that is a suitable substitute for a product in use.
This certification necessitates the acquisition of the designated product by a
procuring agency  in lieu  of other available products, provided certain  cost
criteria are satisfied.

Research Program
   This new law  enables the  Administrator  to  establish a  comprehensive
research program  in the area of noise. Such a program will enable EPA to
undertake the necessary investigations into the health effects of noise under
varying conditions of magnitude, duration, background, etc. Such information
is currently lacking in most areas.  This program  will examine those  techno-
logical aspects of noise control and abatement not currently being treated.

-------
                   INTERN A TIONAL
                     "We are now growing accustomed to the
                   view of our planet as seen from space—a
                   blue and  brown disk  shrouded  in white
                   patches of  clouds. But we do not ponder
                   often enough the striking lesson it teaches
                   about  the global reach of environmental
                   imperatives.  No matter what else divides
                   man and  nations, this perspective should
                   unite them. We must work harder to foster
                   such world  environmental  consciousness
                   and shared purpose."
                                                           President Nixon

  It is now universally recognized that  the world's environmental  problems
cannot be solved by the efforts of any one nation. Pollution does not  recognize
political  boundaries. The air  and streams of the world that have  absorbed
discarded by-products of industrial and agricultural activity have dispersed their
cargoes much more efficiently than would have been thought possible a few
years ago. The dangers of environmental degradation  are  now world wide.
We know, for instance, that  the  fatty  tissue of the penguins  of Antarctica
show a concentration  of DDT, although  these animals are thousands of miles
removed from areas where DDT is used.

Conventions

  Recognizing that a coordinated effort will be needed to combat the effects
of world-wide pollution, the United  States  has  attempted for many years to
focus international attention in this area. The United Nations Conference on
the Human Environment, held in Stockholm  in June  1972,  was the  first

                                    37

-------
comprehensive effort on the part of the nations of the world to come together
and discuss  their common  environmental problems.  The Conference  also
underscored  the differing priorities  placed  upon economic development and
environmental quality  by  the industrialized  and developing countries.  Our
government is now preparing for the 1973 conference of the Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative  Organization  (IMCO),  which  will attempt  to write
an  agreement barring discharges of  oil and hazardous substances by ships in
international waters. Similarly, a Law of the Sea Conference is  scheduled for
1973 which will examine ways to develop and  safeguard undersea resources for
the benefit of mankind.
  In addition to multilateral  conventions, the United  States  has sought
to  negotiate  bilateral  arrangements with  individual  countries  focusing on
environmental problems.  For example, in  April  1972  the United  States
signed an agreement with Canada on water pollution in the  Great Lakes.
The United  States also concluded an  agreement with the Soviet Union in
May  1972  during President Nixon's visit dealing with research, and a  host
of legal and administrative procedures for protecting environmental quality.

Projects
  Many activities at the international level do not have the drama of treaties
or  international  agreements.   Frequently,  they  involve  the non-glamorous
and routine  hard  work which  is a  necessary first  step  toward  coordinated
international action.  The field of environmental  research is a good example.
EPA  engages  in  direct contact  and  cooperation  with  organizations  and
individuals  in many foreign  countries.  In  many  disciplines,  our knowl-
edge  is sketchy and  incomplete regarding the interaction between  man  and
his  environment.  EPA  invests  time and money to assist  foreign efforts at
pollution abatement  which show promise  of  being applicable  in our  coun-
try.  One appproach  is  the exchange of technical information between EPA
and  its counterparts in other  countries.  This helps us  to keep abreast of
newly discovered  techniques  and protects  against  the  wasteful  duplication
of  effort. Occasionally, EPA  enters into contracts with  foreign  organiza-
tions and individuals  for  specific studies  and  services  which  may  range
from basic  research regarding  a specific  pollutant to  experiments in re-
gional planning which  may affect an  entire river system.  There have been
contracts with  oil  companies  in  England  regarding  methods to  reduce
sulphur oxide  emissions from gasoline engines,  and contracts  with foreign
universities  to abstract and index foreign language scientific literature.
  Many of  these projects are  financed through the  Special Foreign Cur-
rency Program, which  employs the  so-called  "counterpart funds" generated
under Public Law 480 of  the 83rd  Congress.  When  the United  States
government  sells surplus agricultural commodities, it is paid in the currency
of the receiving country, rather than  in dollars.  To the  extent that these

                                   38

-------
funds are not needed  for normal United  States government expenses there,
they are set aside 2nd Congress can then  earmark portions  for specific proj-
ects.  Counterpart funds made possible research in Yugoslavia regarding air
pollution caused  by copper smelting;  a recently  completed study in Poland
concerned with the carcinogenic (cancer-causing) material in airborne particu-
late matter was carried out in the same fashion.

Standards
   EPA has been given the responsibility  for  setting standards for imported
products with regard to their environmental impact. In general, these stand-
ards are the same as for products produced at home, although the law  does
provide  for exceptions when  required  for national  security.  For  example,
imported automobiles must  comply with  United  States standards  regarding
air pollution  abatement  equipment.  Also, pesticides  which  are  produced
in a  foreign  country must  be  registered with  EPA  before they can be
sold in the United  States. Food stuffs which  are imported into the United
States can be restricted if they contain levels of pesticides which  are  dan-
gerous for human consumption.

Abatement Conferences

   EPA also has  authority  to abate air and water pollution which  originates
in the  United States  and  affects  a foreign country.  When an international
organization  or nation complains that  some activity in the United States is
causing air pollution  that endangers the  health  or welfare of persons  in  a
foreign country,  the Administrator may  call a conference of the  air pollu-
tion  control  agencies  having jurisdiction  over the source  of  the  pollution.
The Secretary of State, on his own initiative,  may also request EPA to  con-
vene  a conference.  At the  conference, the foreign  country  affected is ac-
corded  the same status that a State  air pollution control  agency would re-
ceive in  domestic  situations.  The  Administrator will undertake  this  type
of action on  a reciprocal basis, that  is,  when  the  country involved stands
ready to take similar remedial  action within its  own borders  about air
pollution affecting  American  citizens.  The  procedures  for  abating water
pollution originating in the  United States with impact in a foreign country
are quite  similar, but in  this  case  the  complaint must come  from the
Secretary of State.

   As a matter  of policy,  EPA pays particular attention to domestic efforts
to abate air and  water pollution having an impact beyond our borders.  The
main idea is still to protect  the health and welfare of the American people.
This  kind of reciprocal and good  neighborly  cooperation  hopefully  will
lead to the solution of common problems.

                                   39

-------
  For many nations, the economic imperatives of development coupled with
a rapidly growing  population will conflict with efforts to control  environ-
mental  degradation.  The  recent Stockholm  Conference illustrates  the  di-
mensions of  this  problem.  Nevertheless, it  is critical  to  the future  of
mankind that we begin to plan a coordinated and cooperative international
effort that will allow man to live in harmony with nature.  EPA recognizes
its responsibilities to help in this vital work.
                                     40

-------
                              BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adulterated Food Act as amended, 21  U.S.C. §342(a) (1968).
Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America on  Great  Lakes Water
      Quality, April 15,  1972,  TIAS 7312
Agreement on  Cooperation  in  the  Field  of  Environmental Protection  Between the
      United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist  Republics,  May 23,
      1972, TIAS 7345
      Agricultural Trade Development and  Assistance  Act  of  1954,  as  amended,
       7 U.S.C.  §§1704,  1795  (1968).
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c) (4),(e)
       (1970).
Amortization  of  Pollution Control Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C. §103 (1969).
Appalachian Regional Development  Act  of 1965, as amended, 40 App. U.S.C. §§212,
      214 (1970)
1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended,  42 U.S.C. §§2013(d), 2021, 2051, 2073(b),
       (e), 2092, 2093,  2099, 2111, 2112,  2133, 2134,  2139,  2153,  2201, 2210,
       (1970).
Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality,  Report to Citizens' Advisory
       Committee on Environmental Quality, Report to the  President and  the President
       and the President's Council  on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government Printing
       Office, April 1971.
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1857 et seq. (1970).
      Air Pollution Act of July 14, 1955, P.  L. 84-159, 69 Stat. 322.
      Air Quality Act of  1967,  November 21, 1967, P.L. 90-148, 81 Stat. 485.
      Motor  Vehicle Air Pollution  Control Act, October 20, 1965, P.L. 89-272,  79
      Stat. 992.
Composing of Municipal  Solid Wastes in the  United  States, Andrew W.  Briedenbach,
       Director, Solid Waste Management Research Staff, U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, 1971.
Cost of Clean Water -  Vol. I, "Municipal Investment Needs;" Vol.  Ill, "Cost Effective-
      ness and Clean Water," U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, February 1972.
Council  on Environmental Quality,  First Annual  Report,  U.S. Government  Printing
     Office, August 1970.
Council on Environmental Quality, Second Annual  Report, U.S. Government Printing
      Office,  August 1971.

                                       41

-------
Deficiencies in Administration  by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act,
       Report to Congress by  the President's Science Advisory Committee, H.R. REP.
       No. 91-637, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.  (1969).
"Development of  Systems  to Attain  Established  Motor Vehicle and  Engine Emission
       Standards,"  Report  to Congress by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
       Protection  Agency,  U.S. Government Printing  Office,  September 1971.
"Economics of Clean Air," Report to Congress by the Administrator  of the U.S.  En-
       vironmental Protection  Agency,  U.S.  Government Printing  Office, December
       1970.
An Estimate  of  Radiation  Doses Received  by  Individuals  Living  in the  Vicinity
       of a Nuclear Fuel  Reprocessing Plant in 1968, Department  of Health, Educa-
       tion, and Welfare, May 1970.
Federal Aid Highway Act, as  amended, 23  U.S.C. § 109(h),(i),(j)  (1970).
Federal Food, Drug, and  Cosmetic  Act, as amended, 21  U.S.C. §§ 346,  346a,  348
       (1970).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act,  as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 135—
       135k  (1972).
       Federal  Environmental   Pesticide  Control  Act  of 1972,  October   21,  1972,
       P.L 92-516, 86 Stat. 973.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33  U.S.C. §1151  et seq.  (1972).
       Clean  Water Restoration Act of  1966, November  3,  1966, P.L.  89-753,  80
       Stat.  1246.
       Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, July 9, 1956, P.L. 84-660, 70 Stat. 498.
       Water Quality Act  of 1965, October  2, 1965, P.L. 89-234, 79 Stat. 953.
       Water Quality Improvement Act of 1965,  April 3, 1970, P.L. 91-224, 84 Stat.
       91.
       Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of  1972, October 18, 1972,
       P.L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816.
Fish and  Wildlife  Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 661—666c  (1965).
Health  Effects  on  Environmental  Pollution, Report  of  the Department   of  Health,
       Education,  and  Welfare and  the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  H.R.
       DOC. No. 92-241, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.  (1972).
Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.  §103  (1969).
Liquid  Waste  Effluents from  a  Nuclear  Fuel  Reprocessing Plant, Department of
       Health,  Education,  and Welfare, November  1970.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, October 23, 1972,  P.L. 92-532,
       86 Stat. 1052.
National  Environmental  Policy  Act of  1969,  42 U.S.C.  §§ 4332(2) (c),  4344(5)
       (1970).
National  Oil and Hazardous  Material  Pollution Contingency Plan,  Council  on  En-
       vironmental Quality,  U.S. Government Printing Office, August 20,  1971.
Noise, Report to the President and  Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       U.S. Government Printing Office, December 31, 1971.
"The  Noise Around Us," Department of Commerce, COM  71-100147  (1971).
Noise Control Act of 1972, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-574,  86 Stat.  1234.
The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 1858  et seq. (1970).
Ocean Dumping:  A  National Policy, Report  to the President  by  the  Council  on
       Environmental Quality,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office, October  1970.
"Our  Waters and  Wetlands: How  the Corps of Engineers Can  Help Prevent Their
       Destruction  and Pollution,"  House  Committee on   Government  Operations,
       H.R. REP.  No. 91-917, 91st  Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).

                                       42

-------
Pathological Effects  of Thyroid Irradiation,  Federal Radiation Council, Revised Report,
       December 1966.
Progress in the Prevention and  Control of Air Pollution, Report to Congress by the
       Administrator of the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, U.S. Government
       Printing Office,  January  1971.
Progress in the  Prevention and Control  of  Air Pollution,  Report to  Congress  by
       the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  U.S.  Govern-
       ment Printing Office, February 1972.
Public Health  Service Act,  as  amended,  42 U.S.C. §§203,  215,  241, 242(b),(c),
       (d),(f),(i),(j), 243, 244, 244a, 246, 247, 264 (1970).
Radiation Exposures of Uranium  Miners,  Report of  Advisory  Committee from  the
       Division of Medical Sciences: National Academy of Sciences, National Research
       Council, Federation Radiation Council, August 1968.
Reorganization  Plan No. 3 of 1970, 5 U.S.C. Reorg. Plan of 1970 No.  3 (1970).
Rivers and Harbors  Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411  (1899).
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3251 et seq. (1970).
       Resource Recovery Act of 1970, October 26, 1970,'P.L. 91-512,  84 Stat.  1227.
       Solid Waste  Disposal Act, October 20, 1965, P.L. 89-272, 79  Stat. 997.
Special  Packaging of Household Substances for Protection of Children,  15 U.S.C.
       §1471   et seq.  (1970).
Studies  of Effects in Use of Chemicals, as  amended, 16 U.S.C. § 742d—1 (1968).
Toxic Substances, Report by the Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Government
       Printing Office, April  1971.
Water Resources Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1962 et seq. (1970).

-------