United States
              Environmental Protection
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
August 1984
              WATER QUALITY

Cover photo: Sedges and water grasses,
Anderson Lake, Wisconsin.
S Bob Brudd CLICK/Chicago

                           United States
                           Environmental Protection
                                    Region 5
                                    230 South Dearborn Street
                                    Chicago, Illinois 60604
August 1984
                           Region  5
                           WATER  QUALITY
                           Region 5's Clean Water Program	2
                           America's Waters Improved After Clean Water Act	4
                           Dedicated Judge Presides over Detroit Sewage Cleanup	6
                           Clean Water Act	7
                           EPA Tells Sewage Plants to Comply with Law by 1988 	8
                           Region 5 Recognizes Best Wastewater Treatment Plants	9
                           Green Bay Success Story: City, Paper Mills Join in Sewage Solution  11
                           Agency Studies Fox River Toxicants	  13
                           Pretreatment Can Avert Many Sewage Plant Problems	  14
                           Water Quality Standards Protect Region 5 Waterways	  15
                           City-Country Runoff a Major Environmental Concern 	  16
                           Safe Drinking Water Act Protects Public Health	  18
                           EPA Sues Carefree Homes	  19
                           Threats of Ground Water Contamination Prompt EPA Action	  20
                           Region 5 Wells to be Sampled for Chemicals	  22
                           Underground Injection Wells Regulated by EPA 	  23
                           EPA and  Army Corps Work to Protect Wetlands	  24
                           EPA and  Indians Work Together for Safe Drinking Water 	  25
                           Roy Porteous: Retiree Builds New Career in Environmental Ed  	26
                           Spotlight Elgin: Illinois Town Innovates to Ensure
                                Safe Drinking Water Supplies	  27
                           Region 5 Enforces Environmental Laws	  28
                           How You Can Help	  28
                           For Further Information 	  29
                           Region 5 WATER QUALITY is a special publication prepared by the Office
                           of Public Affairs, EPA Region 5, 230 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL 60604.
                                Regional Administrator
                                Director, Office of Public Affairs
                                Graphic Designer
.... ,-,-o
                                            Valdas V. Adamkus
                                            Kathryn Brown
                                            Kathleen Osborne Clute
                                            Birute A. Bulota
                                            Robert Nagel
F;    • ;  ;. L'brary
? ..., :^i!tii Pca>-born  Street £
Chicago, Illinois  60604

                          Region  5's
                          Clean  Water  Program
                          By Charles H.  Sutfin
                          Director, Region 5 Water Division
                          As Director of the Water Division for
                          EPA Region 5, I am responsible for
                          overseeing several programs that
                          protect our midwestern rivers, lakes,
                          streams, and underground sources of
                          drinking water from pollution; I am
                          also responsible for ensuring safe
                          public drinking-water supplies.
                            Our authority and direction for this
                          work comes primarily from the Clean
                          Water Act, enacted in 1972 and since
                          amended, and the Safe Drinking Water
                          Act, passed by Congress in 1974. The
                          Clean Water Act's goal is to restore
                          the Nation's waters to what Congress
                          described as "fishable, swimmable"
                          conditions. The Safe Drinking Water
                          Act was designed to ensure that public
                          water systems provide safe drinking
                          water and to protect underground
                          sources of drinking water from
                          contamination by the injection of
                          wast^ into the ground.
                            The Clean Water Act is a
                          comprehensive statute that gives
                          EPA and the States authority to:
                          (1) establish standards for water
                          quality; (2) establish technology-based
                          waste treatment  guidelines for
                          industries and municipalities; (3)
                          conduct water quality management
                          planning; (4) control the discharge of
                          pollutants as required by the
                          standards and guidelines through a
                          permit system; (5) provide funding to
                          municipalities to build sewage
                          treatment plants that will comply with
                          permits, and (6) monitor and enforce
                          compliance with  permit limitations.
Monitoring water quality to determim
our progress in achieving the water
quality goals of the Act is also an
important responsibility.
  The Act provides for a strong
Federal-State partnership in carrying
out these responsibilities. We have
delegated much of the day-to-day
program management responsibility
to the States. However, ERA is
responsible for providing funds for
States to use in the planning and
management of their water quality
programs, establishing policies and
setting standards, providing technical
assistance, and monitoring and
evaluating State activities. We also
can enforce discharge permits if a
State fails to do so.
  Here in Region 5, we have
established several important goals fc
Clean Water Act programs during
Fiscal Years 1985 and 1986: to
eliminate the discharge of toxic
substances  into our waters; to ensure
that municipal sewage treatment
plants meet Federal permit
requirements; to coordinate the
management of water quality progran
activities to restore and maintain
priority water bodies identified by the
States and the Regional Office; and
finally, to ensure timely legal or
administrative action when there are
serious violations of wastewater
discharge permit requirements.
  In order to control the discharge of
toxicants in the Region, we are
reissuing all municipal and industrial
discharge permits during Fiscal Years
1984  and 1985. The new permits will
include provisions requiring the

 reduction or elimination of toxicants in
 wastewater. Concurrently, we are
 requiring pretreatment programs for
 municipal sewage treatment plants
 that accept industrial wastewater.
 Many toxicants enter our waterways
 after passing through  municipal plants
 that are not capable of removing them;
 pretreatment programs are designed
 to prevent this problem.
  We have identified more than 230
 industries in the Region that will
 potentially need toxicant controls and
 we intend to reissue all of their
 permits by the end of 1985. We have
 also identified about 450 municipal
 sewage treatment plants that will
 need to develop industrial
 pretreatment programs.
  The emphasis on pretreatment
 programs, however, is accompanied by
 a strong effort on our part to see that
 municipal sewage treatment plants
 comply with their discharge permits by
 July 1, 1988 — with or without
 Federal funding. The Agency has
 developed a national municipal policy
 to see that this is  done. Part of this
 strategy depends  on directing
 construction grants to the highest-
 priority projects. The Region currently
 has $814 million  in construction
 grants available for obligation through
 the end of Fiscal Year 1985. We expect
 to receive additional appropriations of
 approximately $530 million for that
 year. Municipalities that do not receive
 Federal money will still be expected to
 comply with their permits by 1 988, or
 as soon as practicable thereafter.
  Region 5 has recently adopted a
 new management approach to water
 pollution control that focuses our
 program activities on priority water
 bodies designated by the States and
 our regional office. This approach
 involves coordinating our activities so
that they result in measurable
 improvement on the designated
  Often it takes several years before
progress can be seen. The Grand
Calumet River in Indiana, for example,
it so severely polluted that it will take
several years to clean up. It is one of
our priority water bodies and will
remain so until it's vastly improved.
  Certain areas of the Great Lakes
have also been designated as
priorities, consistent with our
commitments to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement with
Canada. We have made tremendous
progress in the Great Lakes by
controlling phosphorus discharges
from municipal sewage treatment
plants on the lakes and their
tributaries. However, the lakes are still
affected by phosphorus runoff from
farmland and by in-place pollutants in
the harbors and estuaries.
  One  of the most important things
that we do in Region 5 is to make sure
that the States are enforcing the
requirements of the Clean Water Act
as established in discharge permits for
municipalities and industries. The Act
provides for dual enforcement
authority so that if a State fails to take
necessary legal action, the Federal
Government can step in. In most
cases. States are responsible for
taking enforcement actions. However,
if they can't or won't, we will. So far
this year we have referred 7 cases to
the U.S. Department of Justice for
prosecution and have issued 121
administrative orders to industries and
municipalities that have not complied
with the Clean Water Act.
  Under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
our highest priority is to protect
underground sources of drinking
water. This requires the coordination
of many different EPA programs
within the Region that have an impact
on ground-water quality. Our goal is to
see that we do not establish
conflicting requirements under each of
the different programs. In addition, we
provide money for the States to use in
establishing their own ground-water
protection programs. Five of our six
regional States are already actively
working to do this.
  In addition, we are also
implementing a plan to see that  every
underground source of drinking water
in the Region is sampled for the
presence of volatile  synthetic organic
chemicals (VOC's). VOC's include such
chemicals as benzene and
trichloroethylene, which get into the
ground water from leaking
underground storage tanks, septic
tanks, and other sources. When  these
chemicals are found in concentrations
that exceed acceptable health risks,
we assist communities in finding
alternative drinking  water supplies.
  In conclusion, I  would like to stress
that major progress  has been made in
our Region under  a strong and firm
Clean Water Act. There are examples
of this in every State and in the Great
Lakes. We have the  authority under
the law to set discharge standards for
toxicants and to set  public health
standards to ensure that the public is
protected when they swim in, or drink,
the water. The authority is there, and
standards are revised through the
years as we learn more about water
pollution and its effects on human
health and aquatic life.
  I hope you will find this publication
useful in your efforts to protect and
improve our midwestern environment.

                                 America's Waters  Improvec
                                 After  Clean  Water  Act

A recent report shows that 47,000 miles
of American streams improved in  quality during the
decade following passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act.
However, water quality in  11,000 stream miles
was degraded during that time.

                                   In a 1984 report entitled "America's
                                 Clean Water," the Association of State
                                 and Interstate Water Pollution Control
                                 Administrators (ASIWPCA) found that
                                 "tremendous investment " in pollution
                                 control by industry and government has
                                 paid off. "Even with substantial
                                 increases in the number of waste
                                 sources, pollution of the country's
                                 streams and lakes is being reduced,"
                                 the report said. "Most of our  water has
                                 maintained its quality despite the
                                 pressures of wastes from more people
                                 and more industry."
                                   The Association, in cooperation with
                                 EPA, gathered its data from 56 reports
                                 provided voluntarily by State, interstate,
                                 and territorial water pollution control
                                 agencies. The  report's findings reflect
                                 State evaluations of 42 percent of the
                                 Nation's streams (758,000 miles) and
                                 half (17.4 million acres) of the Nation's
                                 publicly owned lakes and reservoirs.

  In the 49 States that submitted
data to ASIWPCA, water quality in
296,000 miles of streams remained the
same between 1972 and 1982, 47,000
miles improved, and 11,000 miles
were degraded.
  With regard to lakes and reservoirs,
the States reported that 10.1 million
acres of water maintained the same
quality they had in 1972, 390,000
acres improved, and 1.7 million were
degraded. The condition of 4.2 million
acres was unknown or not reported.
  Water quality  in Region 5's streams,
lakes and reservoirs generally
improved between 1972 and 1982.
However, Michigan officials reported
that only 26.6 percent (348 miles) of
the State's stream miles were
supporting their designated uses in
1982, as compared to 40.9 percent
(535 miles) in 1972. This statistic
probably does not reflect an actual
decline in water quality, but instead is
the result of substantial cutbacks in
monitoring, said Richard Hobrla, an
environmental engineer for the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. "In 1982 we really knew
far less about Michigan waters than
we did in 1972," he said, naming
budget cuts as the main reason. The
State of Michigan did report
improvement in lakes and reservoirs,
though, from 75 percent of total
acreage supporting designated uses in
1972 to 84 percent in 1982.

Other findings:
Municipal Sewage Treatment

Treatment capabilities increased at
a higher rate than the Nation's
population grew. Nationwide, a
noticeable improvement in water
quality resulted from a $260 per capita
expenditure for municipal sewage
system capital costs. However, a 1982
survey showed that $118 billion is still
required to meet public wastewater
system needs.
Industrial Wastewater

Industrial dischargers "have
invested  heavily to reduce their water
pollution. .  . . One key measure of
industries' cleanup effort and progress
is the greatly increased  level of their
compliance with State or Federally
established discharge limitations,
especially for plants with the largest
wastewater flows."
Nonpoint Source Pollution

Agricultural pollution is generally
being addressed through voluntary
programs. Urban runoff control is
generally voluntary also. "Nonpoint
pollution from mining and
construction activities are the only
categories that are commonly subject to
State regulation. In the case of mining,
both active and abandoned mines;
must be addressed."
  More than a dozen States report
using erosion and sediment control
legislation to mandate reduction of
construction site runoff.
State Programs

"State water quality programs have
undergone a marked change in
emphasis in recent years." While
attention during the early years of the
Clean Water Act focused on pollutants
that had been commonly known to
harm water quality or public health,
the focus was later broadened "to
identify and control nonpoint-source
pollution, to measure and reduce toxic
pollutants from point and nonpoint
sources, and to protect ground-water
resources. During recent years,
attention in many States has also
expanded from streams and rivers to
increased emphasis on lake quality."
Current Pollution Problems

Municipal sewage treatment plants
were ranked first by 19 States as the
reason some of their streams were not
supporting the uses for which they
had been designated. Industrial point
sources were ranked first by only 3
States, while nonpoint sources were
ranked first by 26 other States.
  Municipal pollutants of concern are
those that "reduce the oxygen levels
of the waters to which they are
discharged, disease-related bacteria,
and nutrients that stimulate
undesirable growth of algae.
  "The nonpoint-source pollutants
most seriously affecting water quality
in most States are suspended particles
of solid materials, chemical nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) that
promote undesirable growth of algae,
waste-related bacteria, and pesticides
and heavy metals."
  The report also mentions challenges
that will face water quality experts in
the future. Municipal challenges will
include proper plant operation and
maintenance by qualified personnel,
effective pretreatment programs,
combined sewer overflow controls,
and developing a regulatory program
for managing sludge correctly.
  In other areas, 40 reports stressed
the need for effective nonpoint-source
controls and adequate protection for
ground-water quantity and quality.
Controlling toxic pollutants was also a
concern, with 41 States reporting that
this problem "is one of the major
problems they expect to be confronting
in the years ahead."

                                   Dedicated  Judge
                                   Presides   Over
                                   Detroit  Sewage  Cleanup
After 5 years of being in Federal receivership ordered by a
Detroit Federal District Judge, the Detroit sewage treatment
plant is about to revert to the control of the City and its Water
and Sewerage Department. Once responsible for much of the
pollution in the Detroit River and Lake Erie, the treatment plant
is now "in substantial compliance" with the Clean Water Act,
said Judge John Feikens, the man many credit with achieving
this remarkable result. The following story is an account of the
Judge's personal role in the cleanup process.
The 1982 Detroit News cartoon
showed a man seated in an armchair,
intently perusing a book entitled "How
to Haul Your Own Sludge, A-Z." On
the wall behind him was a picture
labeled "Effluent Czar." Water was
seeping in under the nearby door,
where a mop stood at the ready. A
briefcase identified the figure in the
cartoon as Judge John Feikens, the
man many people credit with bringing
the Detroit Sewage Treatment Plant
into the 20th Century.
  Feikens, senior judge for the Federal
District Court in Detroit, said he
wouldn't describe himself as a czar.
His own opinion of his role in the 7-
year process of cleaning up the badly
mismanaged Detroit sewage plant is
more along the lines of the "head of a
team." The success that resulted, he
said, "required team effort."
  Feikens first became involved in
the entire effort in 1977, when
the EPA filed a lawsuit against the
City of Detroit for violating the sewage
treatment plant's Federal wastewater
discharge permit. Lake Erie and the
Detroit River were horribly polluted
with sewage, industrial wastes, oils,
silts, sediments, and phosphorus — a
condition to which Detroit, with the
world's largest sewage treatment
plant, was a major contributor.
  After EPA and the City negotiated
a consent judgment in 1977, in which
Detroit promised to take  action needed
to bring the plant into compliance with
its permit, EPA took the City into Judge
Feikens' court for not complying with
the terms of the consent order. In
March 1979, the judge put the plant
into Federal receivership with Detroit
Mayor Coleman Young as the
  This action, a close observer
recalled, was "not to separate the City
from its responsibilities, but to enable
it to more effectively and efficiently
carry out its responsibilities."
  "All along, the judge stated that he
didn't want to impose fines because
they would be counterproductive,"
said Jonathan Bulkley, a civil
engineering and natural resources
professor at the University of
Michigan. Bulkley was involved in the
case first as one of three "special
masters" called in to evaluate a
dispute between the City and suburbs
over sewerage fees and then as the
court's "monitor" after the plant was
placed into receivership in 1979.
  "The watchword was productivity,"
Bulkley said. "I think he's  an
extraordinary person. He's taken a
very strong interest in  this case. He's
been out to the plant on numerous
occasions. He wants to understand
what's taking place and what are the
facts and he has demanded this from
all of the parties at all times."
  Dale Bryson, deputy director of
EPA's Region 5 Water Divison,
echoed that assessmet. As a
participant in many of the  legal
maneuverings, Bryson said, "His was
an iron hand in a velvet glove.
Judge John Feikens

Everybody knew they'd better tow the
mark." Surveying the last 7 years of
progress, Bryson remarked, "I don't
think the compliance would have beer
achieved without him."
  Bill Muno, a Region 5 engineer wh<
was EPA's technical representative
in the case, said he thinks Feikens
"realized that the traditional legal
process wasn't going to solve this
problem. He just literally interjected
himself into a  monumental problem."
  The judge himself said he thinks the
whole effort was "a good team
operation" and that he provided a
focal point for the cleanup effort. "I
don't think it's accurate to say I was a
czar here, but it was helpful to have a
focus where people could work
together to get this treatment plant
into compliance. Every substantial
order that was entered in this case
was the product of negotiation and
settlement — not unilateral
  Looking back on the case that he
frankly states was the biggest he's
ever  had, Feikens said he was

 specially intrigued by it because "it
 emonstrated ways in which lawyers
 ould work together to find solutions
 o problems." A trial lawyer before
 scorning a Federal judge 15 years
 go, Feikens said lawyers can't simply
 'resolve conflicts. We've got to find
 olutions—not simply to decide what's
 ight or wrong." The Detroit case, he
 •aid, "represented a real opportunity
 o do something, and the issues could
 te handled in a much more positive
 vay than they can in, say,
 lesegregation cases."
  In a  1979 interview, Feikens said, "I
 :ould have been the kind of judge who
 vaited for lawyers to come in with a
 :ase. And I could have told the (Detroit
 ^ity) council, 'Live  up to the consent
 lecree or pay $10,000 a day in fines.'
 Jut that's not the way to solve the
  One of the factors complicating the
 )etroit case was the attempt by the
 suburbs to gain control of the plant.
 The Mayor took the position that the
 ^ity owned the treatment plant, and
 iccording to property concepts it was
 heirs. 'I'll be for a  regional sewer
 jystem when you're ready to go for a
 egional school system,' " Feikens
 ecalls Young as saying.
  He said he remained committed to
keeping the plant under the
'urisdiction of the City of Detroit
because "I don't know under what
precept of law it could be taken away
from them" and "large cities had to
demonstrate that they could handle
problems like this.  It's a source of
pleasure to me that the City is able to
handle this kind of problem."
  Feikens, 66, then recounted the
following saying: "The first role of
government  is to support  and promote
education. The second role of
jovernment is to have good sewer
  He may just be right.
                       CLEAN WATER ACT

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) is one of the
foundations of Region 5's Water Division.  Passed in 1972 by Congress and
amended in 1977 and 1981, the Act's goal is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." In order
to achieve that result. Congress articulated two other national goals: to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into  navigable waters by 1985 and, in
the interim, to achieve water of a quality that provides for the propagation of
fish, shellfish and wildlife, and for recreation in  and on the water.
  The Act also declared a national policy of prohibiting  the discharge of toxjc
pollutants in toxic amounts; assisting the  States in the  financing of publicly
owned sewage treatment plants; developing areawide waste treatment
management to control pollution sources  in each State; and developing the
technology  necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable
  The Act is divided into several major parts, or  titles, and is implemented by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These titles provide the
Agency with the direction and authority to require discharge permits, new
facilities, pretreatment of  industrial wastes, and water quality standards.
  The titles of the Act, along with some of their  most significant provisions,
       This title articulates the national goals and  policies stated above. Among other
       provisions, it authorizes EPA to develop plans and demonstration projects to
       eliminate pollution in the Great Lakes or its watersheds

       The purpose of this title is to require  and to assist the development and implementation
       of waste treatment management plans and practices that will achieve the goals of the
        EPA  is authorized to award grants to States for 75 percent of a project's
       construction costs. Congress  has since modified the law so  that — effective Oct. 1,
       1984 — Federal construction  grants will pay only 55 percent of the total cost.
       This title also encourages development and implementation of areawide waste
       treatment management plans. Governors of the 50 States were to identify areas that
       had substantial water quality problems as a result of urban-industrial concentrations
       or other factors The governors were  then to designate organizations capable of
       developing waste treatment management plans for those areas.
       The title also directs the EPA administrator  to annually survey the performance of
       waste treatment plants built with EPA grants.
       This title directed point sources to comply with effluent  limitations by July  1, 1977
       using the best practicable control technology available.  Best practical technology is
       a level of treatment usually defined by EPA on an industry-by-industry or process-
       by-process basis.
       Publicly owned sewage treatment plants were to have achieved secondary treatment
       by July 1, 1977. This date, however, has been amended to July 1, 1988 for some
       plants. Secondary treatment, as defined in  the act, is a level of treatment that usually
       involves microbiological digestion of organic materials in wastewater.
       Industrial dischargers were to control toxic  discharges by Julyl, 1984. This goal
       was not met, since EPA hadn't completed writing its toxic standards
       This title outlaws the discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare
       agent or high-level radioactive waste into navigable waters.
       The use of water quality standards is encouraged  where necessary to protect the
       public health or welfare, or serve the purposes of the Act. Standards consist of
       designated uses of navigable waters and the water quality criteria necessary to attain
       or preserve those uses.
       EPA is to provide States and other Federal  agencies with information on how to
       control nonpomt-source pollution
       The EPA administrator is  to report to Congress biennially on the quality of  U.S.
       This title establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.  It gives
       the EPA administrator the authority to issue a permit for the discharge of any
       pollutant or combination  of pollutants

                                   EPA  Tells  Sewage  Plants
                                   To   Comply  With
                                   Law  by  1988
EPA has adopted a  national Municipal Policy that
reaffirms the Agency's commitment to clean water.
This policy is designed to ensure that publicly owned
sewage treatment plants comply with pollution control
requirements by July  1,  1988.
  EPA feels the policy is necessary
because many sewage treatment
plants have been lax about treating
their wastes to the level specified in
the Clean Water Act — despite almost
$37 billion in grants awarded to local
communities since 1972 for plant
  The Agency is now stressing
nationwide compliance with Clean
Water Act requirements by 1988 and
will take whatever administrative or
judicial action is necessary to achieve
it, said Charles H. Sutfin, director of
Region 5's Water Division.
  The National Municipal Policy
requires every publicly owned sewage
treatment plant to comply with the law
whether or not it receives Federal finan-
cing  in the form of EPA construction
grants. EPA has traditionally financed
75 percent of the cost of new treatment
plants, but will be cutting its share to 55
percent after Oct. 1, 1984.
  "Some publicly owned treatment
works assumed that compliance is
contingent on funding," said Ken
Fenner, chief of Region 5's Water
Quality Branch. "Compliance with the
law is not contingent on national grant
funds. This principle was established
many years ago and should be a
surprise to no one."
  Two hundred and  eighty publicly
owned treatment plants in Region 5
are currently not complying with the
law, despite the fact that Congress has
twice extended the deadline for doing
so. "Credibility suffers when you have
to continually revise compliance
dates," said Fenner.  Nationwide, as
many as 1,700 treatment plants are
not in compliance.
Region 5 Municipal* Compliance with
Clean Water Act Requirements 1983
         364 (57%)
    Comply with Clean
Water Act requirements
  Construction complete
                                              244 (38%)
                                              Not complying with
                                              Clean Water Act requirements.
                                              Need to construct additonal
                                              facilities to come into
                                          34 (5%)
                                          Not complying with
                                          Clean Water Act requirements.
                                          Construction complete
 'Municipal wastewater treatment plants discharging at least
 1 million gallons of effluent daily.
  The Clean Water Act originally set
July 1, 1977, as the deadline for bot
municipal and industrial facilities to
achieve certain levels of pollution
control. Because the municipal
compliance rate has been so dismal, tl
deadline was extended by Congress
July 1, 1983andthentoJuly 1,1988.
In contrast to the poor record of
municipalities is the performance of
industrial facilities, who have general
been complying with the terms of th<
Clean Water Act since 1977.
  The Clean Water Act requires
secondary treatment for municipal
treatment works or best practical
technology for industries. Secondary
treatment is a level of treatment that
usually involves microbiological
digestion of organic materials in was
water. Best practical technology is
usually defined on an industry-by-
industry, or process-by-process basis
  The new municipal policy requires
all States to assess their non-
complying publicly owned treatment
plants and put them into one of three
  1)  Fully constructed facilities not
     compliance with their NPDES
  2)  Municipalities expected to
     receive State or Federal grant
     assistance by Sept. 30, 1986.
  3)  Municipalities that still need to
     construct additional facilities ir
     order to meet the 1988
  Once the States determine this, sa
Fenner, they must work with local
sewerage districts and municipalities
to develop a plan that details exactly
how each plant is going to come into
compliance by 1988. These plans
must be completed by Sept. 30, 1985
and will be made legally binding on
municipalities to take the measures
needed to meet the requirements of
their Federal or State wastewater
discharge permits by  1988. Commur
ties that do not comply with their
permits by the 1988 deadline will be
subject to enforcement procedures wi
possible fines. Compliance will  be cl
sely  monitored by EPA and the State

  Fully constructed treatment plants
not in compliance with their permits
 nust develop composite correction
 >lans. These plans will detail how the
plant intends to come into compliance
is soon as possible. After a diagnostic
 evaluation of the problem, local
 jfficials should, in their composite
 correction plan, discuss the cause of
 he noncompliance, the corrective
 steps needed to achieve compliance,
 he cost of the corrective measures
and possible means of financing them,
and an expeditious schedule for
 completing the required steps and
 coming into compliance.
  If the plant in question was built
 with EPA  grants made after May
12, 1982, the sewerage district or
municipality must certify that plant's
 jerformance 1  year after it begins
 >peration. EPA  will place a high
 )riority on tracking these performance
certifications. Any deficiencies must
 >e corrected at other than EPA
  Sewerage districts or municipalities
 hat fall into category 2, those that are
 sxpected to receive some funding by
1985, are to complete their grants and
 construction phases as soon as
  Municipalities in category 3, those
 hat need to build new facilities in
 jrder to comply with the requirements
 )f the Clean Water Act, must develop
what EPA calls municipal compliance
  These plans should identify the
 reatment technology needed; the
 costs of building,  operating, and
maintaining the proposed facility;
 inancing  options; and the date by
 which the new plant will  be operating.
  EPA and the States will work
 closely with municipalities that are not
jxpected to receive grants. Every effort
will be made to provide them with
 echnical information about financing
and alternative, less costly, treatment
                                           Region 5 Recognizes  Best
                                           Wastewater Treatment Plants
Each year, EPA Region 5 presents awards to the best-
operated wastewater treatment plants in the Region. Six
plants  were selected to receive the awards this fiscal year.
They are:  Fairbury, III.; Kokomo,  Ind.; Houghton Lake Sewer
Authority, Mich.; New Dim, Minn.;  Lima, Ohio; and River
Falls, Wise.
   Proper plant operation  and  maintenance plays  a major role
in determining whether a sewage treatment plant will be
able to treat wastewater  to the degree required  by its
National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. EPA stresses the  importance of operation and
maintenance by selecting the best plants in the  Region for
recognition. A  summary of the plants and their achievements
 Fairbury, III.
 The City was selected for having the best-
 operated small wastewater treatment plant
 The plant treats a flow of 660,000 gallons
 per day, serving a population of about 3,500.
 The plant consistently produces an extremely
 high quality effluent.
 Employees participated in the actual layout
 and design of the plant's 1978 expansion.
 This collaboration with consulting engineers
 resulted in an outstanding laboratory and
 elimination of costly bearings in the

 Kokomo, Ind.
 Kokomo received its award  for having the
 best-operated large wastewater treatment
 plant in the Region. The plant treats a daily
 flow of about 21  million gallons, serving a
 population of about 70,000. About one-third
 of the wastewater comes from area
 The plant operates at effluent levels well
 above its permit  limits and is known for an
 outstanding operation and maintenance
 program. Half of the 34 employees are
 certified as wastewater treatment plant

 Houghton Lake Sewer Authority, Mich.
 The sewer authority and its wastewater
 treatment plant at Houghton Lake, Mich.,
 received an award for being the best-
 operated wastewater treatment plant in the
 State of Michigan.
 The facility treats residential wastewater
 only and discharges treated effluent to
 adjacent marshland, flood irrigation fields or
 seepage ponds. The use of marshland for
 additional sewage treatment has served as a
 model for the design of similar systems
 throughout the United States.
New Ulm, Minn.
The City of New Ulm had the best-operated
wastewater treatment plant in Minnesota
The plant treats about 2.7 million gallons of
wastewater daily, serving nearly 14,000
people. About 20 percent of the flow is
The training and certification program at the
plant is outstanding, with seven of eight
employees certified as wastewater treatment
plant operators.

Lima, Ohio
The Lima, Ohio, wastewater plant received
the award for the best-operated advanced
treatment plant in the Region.

The plant treats about 12 million gallons a
day, including about 2 million gallons of
industrial wastes Toxic loads have been
substantially reduced through an effective
industrial monitoring and control program.
The plant's high quality effluent has had a
noticeable positive impact on the Ottawa

River Falls, Wise.
This city's plant received U.S.EPA's O&M
award for having the best-operated
secondary wastewater treatment plant in
Region 5 The plant treats a daily flow of
about 1 million gallons and operates at
effluent  levels significantly below permit

              City,  Paper  Mills  Join
               In  Sewage  Solution
The industry in Green Bay, Wise., is paper.  Green
Bay is where huge mills devour trees and spit out
toilet tissue, disposable diapers and  paper-sheet
fabric softener. Paper is Green  Bay's reason for
being, its lifeblood, and much of its economy. But
paper did not come without its  costs.
  Throughout much of this century,
acidic pulp-processing wastes
routinely flowed into the Fox River,
intermingling with domestic sewage to
create a filthy morass out of what was
once a natural treasure.
  The citizens of Green Bay realized
as early as 1931 that the Fox River
needed help. By 1935, the town had
built a $1.8 million sewage treatment
plant to handle domestic wastes. But
the problem of the paper mills lingered
until the 1960's, when, under
pressure from State and Federal
environmental agencies, the four
largest mills joined the Green Bay
Metropolitan Sewerage District in a
pilot pollution control project. The
object was to determine if paper mill
wastes could be successfully treated
with  municipal wastes. Using
 sewerage district funds, contributions
 from the mills, and a Federal grant, the
 district constructed a small prototype
 plant and concluded that the mill
 wastes could indeed be treated.
  In a relatively unusual move, two of
 the four mills joined the sewerage
 district in 1971 to construct a $65.5
 million facility at the mouth of the Fox
 River. This 52 million gallon a day
 plant opened in 1975. The two mills
 that became partners in the project
 were Proctor & Gamble and the James
 River Corp.
  The James River Corp. bought into
 the project because "it was becoming
 obvious" that the pulp mill  couldn't
 continue to dump wastes into the Fox
 River with only minimal or  no
 treatment, said Bruce Robertson,
 manager of environmental  affairs for
 the corporation. The company's
 economic analysis showed that it
would be cost-effective to make $5
million to $7 million in changes to the
mill and to help finance the new
municipal plant. "The only alternative
we seriously considered was shutting
down the mill," said Robertson.
  The other two major mills in the
Green Bay area decided to treat their
wastes on site rather than participate
in the municipal plant.
  The result of all this has been
improved water quality in the Fox
River. Water skiers and fishermen
have reappeared.  "I'm not saying you
can eat the fish,"  said Lynda Bentley,
quality control manager for the
sewerage district, "but they're there. I
know the water quality has improved.
Just getting the paper mills off the
river was a big improvement."
  The paper mill wastes and the metro
sewage enter the  treatment plant's
pump house through two separate
sets of underground pipes. There,
large objects are screened out and
hauled to a landfill. The domestic
sewage is sent to  several clarifying
basins for primary treatment, a step
which the mill wastes bypass because
of the small percentage of solids in
their waste streams. After solids have
   Primary    AERATION BASIN

                                                           REAERATION BASIN
           CONTACT BASIN
                                                                                          River Basin
                         Return Activated Sludge
                                                              COURTESY OF THE GREEN BAY METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT

Quality control technician Mary Simon checks process water for ammonia.
settled to the bottom of the clarifying
basins, the water is sent to secondary
treatment, where it comingles with
the mill wastes. The sludge from the
clarifying basins is sent through a
pipeline to sludge treatment.
  During the secondary phase of
treatment at Green Bay, the two waste
streams are digested by microbes in
four 2.8-million-gallon  aerating
basins. The process used at Green Bay
is called contact stabilization and was
determined to be the most appropriate
for handling the mill wastes, according
to Bill DeBauche, director of treatment
for the sewerage district.
  During the contact stabilization
process, the wastes are digested by
bacteria during a 21/2-hour period in
the aerating basins. About 95 percent
of the organics in the wastes are
broken down during this process,
DeBauche said. The treated water is
chlorinated and discharged into the
Fox River, while the sludge is recycled
so that the bacteria can be reused.
Excess bacteria created during the
contact stabilization process are
  The Green Bay plant dewaters and
dries its sludge before incinerating it.
The district uses a thermal
conditioning unit to pressurize and
heat the sludge to the point where the
cell walls are broken to release the
water within.
  After this process, a vacuum filter
dries the sludge to achieve about a 38
to 40 percent solids concentration.
The sludge is then sent to the
incinerator via a conveyor belt. The
incinerator evaporates all moisture
from the sludge and then burns it at a
temperature of about 1400. The inert
ash that remains after incineration is
taken to the county landfill for
disposal. Meanwhile, the hot gas from
the incinerator is used to heat water
that generates steam for the thermal
conditioning process. Extra steam is
used to heat the administrative
building and other areas of the plant
when the incinerator is operating.
During down times, natural gas is
  The sewerage district is currently
experimenting with an anaerobic
upflow sludge blanket reactor that will
digest the high-strength waste stream
from the thermal conditioning unit. In
addition, a sludge centrifuge facility is
being built to improve the solids
concentration in sludge before it
reaches the thermal process.
  The sewerage district's facility
consists of seven buildings clustered
near the  point where the  Fox River
empties into Green Bay. A network of
tunnels connects the facilities and
houses most of the pumps, pipes, and
other equipment. "If it doesn't have to
be outside, it's not  outside," explained
Mark Vanden Heuvel, training and
safety coordinator.
  Thirty-five maintenance men bicycle
or ride small electric-powered carts to
their work sites. Every piece of
equipment in the plant has a backup,
said Vanden Heuvel, so that
mechanical  problems don't interfere
with the treatment process. "We never
go into a  failure situation," he said. A
computer keeps track of the
equipment and schedules routine
  A combined municipal-industrial
waste treatment plant is unusual in
the United States, largely because
industrial wastes require different and
more specialized treatment than
domestic sewage.
  The cost of building the plant and
making associated  sewer  system
improvements was $85.8 million, said
Joseph A. Elson, director  of finance
and administration for the sewerage
district. EPA and the State of
Wisconsin paid 80  percent of that
total, leaving $17.2 million to be
financed  by the district and the mills.
The mills have agreed to pay  off $7.5
million in bonds before 1995 and pay
about half of the plant's annual
operating budget of $13 million,
according to Elson.  £L

0            5
                                                              DePere Sewage Treatment Plant
                                                                            Nicolet Paper
  Wisconsin Tissue

   George Whiting

                                                                                            Green Bay Packagin
                                                                                              Proctor & Gamble
                                                                                                 James River
                                                                                                        reen Bay Sewagi
                                                                                                        Treatment Plant
                                                    Wrightstown Sewage Treatment Plant
                                            Heart of the Valley
                                        Sewage Treatment Plant
                                                                    Thilmany Paper
                                                         Appleton Paper


                                         Q7*"*Appleton Sewage Treatment Plant

              ME NASH A
      Badger Globe
       Neenah-Menasha Sewage Treament Plant

   Bergstrom Paper


                                                                                                  DE  PERE

Agency  Studies  Fox  River  Toxicants
A decade ago, Wisconsin's Fox River
was one of the worst polluted in the
Nation. It was so filthy that the
U.S.- Canada International Joint
Commission singled it out as one of 25
pollution  hot spots in the U.S. portion
of the Great Lakes Basin.
  The River's condition has
dramatically improved since then
through Federal, State and local
efforts. But although many
conventional pollutants have been
effectively controlled, toxicants are
still a cause for concern. More than
100 chemicals have been identified in
the effluent of pulp and paper mills,
publicly owned sewage treatment
plants, and in the sediment and fish of
the Lower Fox River. As a
consequence, the State of Wisconsin
has issued advisories warning people
to restrict or discontinue their
consumption of certain kinds of fish
caught in the area.
  Certain bird species in the Green
Bay area  are suffering from physical
deformaties and stillbirths. The
incidence of these deformaties is
substantially higher in the Green Bay
Basin, where these birds feed almost
solely on  fish, than in other parts of
the State, according to Lee
Liebenstein, a toxic substances
specialist for the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
  Because of concern about this toxic
pollution and its potential effects
on Lake Michigan, EPA has
undertaken several research projects.
Working out of the Agency's
Environmental Research Laboratory in
Duluth, Minn., researchers are
studying the toxicity of Fox River water
and its effects on aquatic life. In
addition, the Agency is financing a
study by researchers at the University
of Michigan and Michigan
Technological University of dissolved
oxgen levels in Green Bay.
  The reproduction pattern of a
popular sportsfish, the walleye, has
shown that industrial toxicants may be
interfering with the ability of these
fish to reproduce, according to Ken
Biesinger, a research biologist at
EPA's Duluth lab. Biesinger said
the lab will also study walleye livers
for elevated levels of certain enzymes
— a telltale sign that something is
  In order to measure the toxicity of
wastewater discharges to the Lower
Fox, staffers at the Duluth lab
subjected water fleas and fathead
minnows to varying concentrations of
effluent from the industries along the
  To do this, scientists gathered
effluent samples from each of the
plants, diluted tiiem with river water
collected upstream from the industry
in question, and then added the
minnows and water fleas. Nelson
Thomas, chief of the lab's Water
Quality Branch, said the experiments
have shown that the toxicity of the
wastes varies widely.
  The Fox River experiments were part
of a pilot testing program in seven
highly polluted areas around the
Nation. The results, along with other
technical information, will be used to
help rewrite discharge permits to
prevent industries from discharging
toxic wastes in toxic amounts.
  Similar testing was done at
Baltimore Harbor, Md.; Ottawa River,
Ohio; Scippo Creek, Ohio; Skeleton
Creek, Ok.; Five Mile Creek, Ala.; and
the Naugatuck River, Conn. Q
Above: Common tern with crossed beak.
Below: Double-crested cormorant.

                                  Pretreatment  Can
                                  Avert  Many
                                  Sewage  Plant  Problems
Officials at more than 400 publicly owned sewage
treatment plants in Region 5 are developing industrial
pretreatment programs to protect sewerage systems
and the environment from extra-strength  or toxic
industrial  wastes.
                                    These programs, mandated by the
                                  Clean Water Act, apply to plants with a
                                  flow greater than 5 million gallons a
                                  day, or those that have experienced
                                  operating upsets due to industrial
                                    In order to develop pretreatment
                                  programs, officials at these sewage
                                  treatment plants must first identify
                                  and evaluate the industries that
                                  discharge into their system and the
                                  types of wastes that are discharged.
                                  Once this is done, the municipality
                                  must set industrial effluent limits that
                                  will protect the integrity of the
                                  treatment plant, the sludge (a by-
                                  product of treatment), and the waters
                                  into which the plant discharges its
                                  treated wastewater. EPA must
                                  approve all pretreatment plans.
                                    Municipalities are guided in their
                                  development of industrial effluent
                                  limits by EPA regulations covering 19
                                  categories of industrial dischargers.
                                  Eventually, 25 categories of industries
                                  will be regulated. These regulations
                                  require specific industries to treat their
                                  wastes to a certain quality before dis-
                                  charging them into a publicly owned
                                  sewer system. Standards are in place
                                  for pulp and paper mills, ore mining
                                  pharmaceutical timber products, and
                                  iron and steel industries, among others.
                                  Five thousand electroplating and metal
                                  finishing companies in the Region will
                                  have to meet pretreatment standards
                                  beginning this year.
                                    Toxic pollutants that can be elimi-
                                  nated or reduced through pretreatment
                                  include benzene, phenol, chloroform,
                                  cyanide, lead, and asbestos.
                                    Certain substances have always been
                                  prohibited from any sewer system. They
                                  are substances that create a fire or
explosion hazard in the sewers or
treatment works, are corrosive,
obstruct flow in the sewer system,
interfere with operation, upset the
treatment processes or cause a viola-
tion of the plant's NPDES permit, anc
increase the temperature of the
wastewater to above 104°.
  Pretreatment of toxic industrial
wastes can prevent four serious
problems at sewage treatment plants
damage to sewers and plant
structures;  interference with plant
operations; the pass-through of
pollutants through plants and into
streams, lakes and rivers; the
contamination of sludge; and the
exposure of workers to chemical
  Industrial wastes can interfere with
proper sewage treatment plant
operation by inhibiting the bacteria
used in activated sludge systems, a
condition that could then result in the
inadequate treatment of all wastes
entering the plant. Even pollutants
that don't interfere with the treatmen
system may pass through the plant
untreated because the systems are n<
designed to remove them.
  Successful removal of toxicants
during waste treatment results in
contaminated sludge. Later, these
chemicals may be released into the ai
if the sludge is incinerated or they ma
seep through the ground into
underground or surface waters if the
sludge is put in landfills. The presenci
of industrial pollutants in sludge
sharply limits the disposal options
available to municipalities.
  Finally, toxic or hazardous
contaminants in sewage may expose
workers to  chemical hazards such as
the poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas.
  "The bottom line is that pretreatmer
means there will be fewer operting
upsets and an improvement in effluer
and sludge  quality," said Valerie Jones
regional pretreatment coordinator.
  "There are several elements inheren
in any pretreatment program," said

Jones, "but most important are local
support, a good attitude, and adequate
staff, funds, and equipment."
  Depending on the size of the sewer-
age district, a local pretreatment
program can cost between $1 5,000 and
$2 million to develop and between
$20,000 and $1 million each  year to
operate, according to Jones. EPA
awards grants to help localities develop
programs and operating costs are re-
covered from the users of the system.
  The Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District, which has one of
the 25 approved local pretreatment
programs in the Region, has estimated
the fiscal 1984 cost of its pretreatment
and associated programs at $360,000.
Milwaukee industries are billed
according to the volume of their
wastes, said John Schultz, manager of
industrial waste for the district. The
industries also pay costs incurred in
the collection and analysis of waste
samples. EPA paid for 75 percent
of the approximately $350,000 it cost
to develop the program.
  Although the Clean Water Act
required pretreatment programs to be
in place by July 1, 1983, all of the
more than 400 treatment plants in
Region 5 have failed to meet that
deadline. Region 5 water quality
officials hope to approve 200 of the
programs by Sept. 30.
  Four Region 5 States have been
delegated the authority to run the
pretreatment program on behalf of
EPA. This means that they have
regulations or laws equivalent to those
of the Federal Government. The States
of Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin  have all received delegated
authority. However, EPA retains its
oversight function and can take
enforcement action to ensure
compliance if a State fails to do so.
  So far, EPA has ordered 122
municipalities in the Region to submit
pretreatment plans for the Agency's
approval by Sept. 30.  £
                                     Water  Quality  Standards
                                     Protect  Region  5
Pollution control requirements based
on specified technology have been
widely used to reduce the amount of
waste discharged into streams, lakes,
and rivers. These controls specify the
technology to be used in different
industries to provide a certain quality
of wastewater treatment.
  Where technology-based controls
are not enough to achieve the Clean
Water Act's goal of "fishable,
swimmable" waters throughout the
country, water quality-based
requirements are established. These
requirements rely on the use of water
quality standards—rules or laws that
define the use or uses to be made of a
water body and the water quality
criteria necessary to protect those
uses. Uses include: swimming and
recreation; protection and propagation
offish, shellfish, and wildlife; public,
industrial, or agricultural water supply;
and navigation. Waste transport is not
considered a legitimate  use.
  Water quality standards are
established by the States with the
approval of the appropriate EPA
regional office. These standards serve
as the regulatory basis for establishing
treatment controls and strategies
beyond the best practical technology
requirement of the Clean Water Act.
  Water quality criteria may be based
on physical, chemical, or biological
parameters. This means that States
may specify the temperature or other
physical factors that a water body is to
meet, the in-stream chemistry
necessary to protect the desired uses,
and the biological conditions
necessary to support the desired use.
  When permits were first issued in
the 1970's under  EPA's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program, about 25
percent of the permits in the Great
Lakes region contained permit
restrictions based on water quality
considerations. In the course of
reissuing  NPDES permits, the States
are revising many industrial and
municipal permits so that the
combined total discharges on any
given water body are low enough to
meet water quality standards. This
process is called wasteload allocation.
  States are required to review, and if
necessary revise, their water quality
standards every three years. EPA's
job is to do the research necessary to
support water quality programs, to
oversee State  programs for
consistency and compliance with
national laws and regulations, and to
mediate interstate disagreements. &
   Region 5 Industrial* Compliance with NPDES Permits 1977-1983
       "BStevv    \  VSSSff   t VS&.<:  ~ MSk      ~^3B  f  "TSSSSW K  ',&SOB*  t   v.5St8»W
                                         'For majoi
                                                           lajor dischargers are defined on a point rating
                                         system that considers the facility's manufacturing operation, the nature of the
                                         discharge and the water quality in the receiving stream There are 689 major
                                         dischargers in Region 5
                                                                                         "Using 4th quarter data

               City-Country  Runoff
               A  Major  Environmental  Concern
Although the Nation's waterways are generally much
cleaner than they were before the Clean Water Act was
passed in 1972, agricultural  and urban runoff are still
causing water  quality  problems in the Midwest and
other areas.
  This runoff, called nonpoint-source
pollution, is responsible for the most
serious water quality problems in 11
States and is considered a significant
cause of water quality problems in 25
others. The Midwest, with its fertile
and extensive agricultural lands, is
especially affected.
  EPA Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus has told Congress that
nonpoint-source pollution is "of major
importance . . .  because it dilutes and
dissipates the environmental return on
time, resources, and effort we have
already expended" on clean water.
  Consequently, EPA has targeted
nonpoint-source control as a
significant environmental concern for
the 1 980's and  is working with local
soil conservation districts, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the
States to help control agricultural
  EPA also is asking each State to
identify specific bodies of water that
are most harmed by nonpoint-source
pollution and to develop control
methods tailored to each one. EPA
will provide technical expertise and
will share its knowledge with
communities throughout the Nation.
  Agricultural runoff is of special
concern because soil eroding from
cropland can clog lakes, reservoirs,
ponds, and estuaries. The soil often
carries with it nitrates and phosphorus
which stimulate algal growth. The
algae can rob the water of dissolved
oxygen and speed eutrophication, the
natural aging process of a lake.
  Because nonpoint-source pollution
has been an especially serious
problem in Region 5, EPA helps
promote conservation tillage in 31
counties in Ohio, Indiana, and
Michigan. These counties were
selected after studies by EPA and
other Federal agencies showed them
to be major contributors to the
phosphorus problem in Lake Erie.
  EPA provides money to local soil
conservation districts so that they can
educate farmers about the benefits of
conservation tillage and purchase
equipment to rent or loan to farmers at
planting time.
  Conservation tillage can refer to any
number of tillage practices, but
generally  it is any system that reduces
soil and water loss. This is usually
accomplished by protecting the
surface of the field with crop residues.
No-till, for example, uses a disk or
other device to cut through the residue
of the previous crop so that seeds can
be planted. It leaves a maximum
protective residue and requires no
seedbed preparation prior to tilling, but
may require an increased use of
  Another form  of conservation tillage,
called ridge plant, involves planting on
ridges of plowed soil. This method
allows a warmer soil temperature for
planting and entraps rainwater in the
furrows between the ridges.
  The conservation farming program
has been well received in the Lake
Erie Basin, according to Bruce Julian,
a field specialist with the Conservation
Tillage Information Center in  Ft.
Wayne, Ind. At planting time, he said,
"the demand exceeds the ability to get
(loaned) equipment to them."
  Farmers are interested in
conservation tillage because it is
"labor-saving, energy-saving, and
timely," Julian said. "Farmers usually
spend 2 or 3 years watching the guy
across the fence before they make a
commitment to switch to the new
method. The basic intent is to let thes
guys try it on their own farms so they
can begin to feel comfortable with it.
It's a lot more difficult than just drivin
a new piece of equipment around the
  "The Lake Erie project has shown
that conservation farming can cut soil
losses 75 to 90 percent," said Julian,
noting that 80 percent of the land in
the western part of the basin is
agricultural. The crop yields are about
the same with either farming method,
but no-till proved especially valuable
during the 1983 drought, when fields
covered with crop residues from
conservation farming held in the
moisture and helped keep evaporatior
loss down, said Julian.
  Conservation tillage is only one
method of controlling nonpoint-source
pollution, although it is by far the mos
common. In rural areas, other
measures include controlling barnyan
runoff, building animal waste storage
structures,  and stablizing eroding
  Nonpoint-source pollution also
comes from cities. Urban runoff is
rainwater that drains from the
surfaces of streets, lawns, and
buildings into local waterways. This
runoff typically contains heavy metals
and certain organics (mostly of
petroleum origin).
  Two decades ago, the U.S. Public
Health Service first identified
pollutants in urban runoff. A study
done in the late 1960's showed that
most of the pollutants were washed b\
rainwater off impervious city surfaces

detach soil
                                                                               Crop residue dissipates
                                                                               raindrop energy
        Surface water
        transports soil
                                                                           / \     \  —WS.K.'J.'J
                                                                          /  \ ...~.-.;v^...^r.s.
        Conventional  Tillage
                                                        Conservation Tillage
(such as sidewalks, streets, and
buildings), or resulted from the erosion
of drainage channels as the runoff
flowed to nearby waterways.
   Effective nonpoint control measures
in cities include leaf collection and
street cleaning at critical times, such as
after snowmelt; controlling runoff from
construction sites; and construction of
detention-retention ponds, where rain-
water can be collected and fed into
runoff channels at an even rate.
   However, there is uncertainty
surrounding the effectiveness of urban
runoff controls, and a 1983 EPA
study found that "engineers, planners,
public works personnel, and other
decision makers are understandably
reluctant to invest large amounts of
time and money in controls which may
not perform as hoped."
  With the exception of the Lake Erie
conservation tillage program, the
States have been largely responsible
for setting up and administering their
own runoff control programs. Farming
States typically have had various types
of soil conservation programs in place
or years in order to preserve valuable
                               The State of Wisconsin, though, has
                             the most comprehensive nonpoint-
                             source control program in Region 5.
                             The State obligated $1 7 million in
                             State funds through Fiscal 1983 to
                             implement controls in 11 watersheds
                             and has budgeted additional money for
                             Fiscal 1984. Efforts in four additional
                             watersheds were scheduled to begin
                             this spring.
                               John Konrad, chief of the nonpoint-
                             source section in the Wisconsin
                             Department of Natural Resources, said
                             the watershed project approach is
                             "the only way that allows a
                             comprehensive approach to
                             management." The program is
                             implemented by individual counties in
                             the watersheds and targets key
                             landowners. "What you really are
                             after is participation by those
                             landowners who control the most
                             critical problem areas," said Konrad. If
                             a landowner chooses to participate in
                             the program, he gets two things:
                             technical assistance and cost-sharing
                             money to help defray the cost of
                             implementing nonpoint-source control
                               In return, said Konrad, the
                             landowner must agree to install all
                             needed water quality management
                             items, not just the  ones he wants. For
instance, farmers usually prefer to
install manure storage structures
rather than to control the runoff from
their barnyards. If necessary,
Wisconsin makes them do both.
  Each watershed project typically
takes 8 years. Landowners are given
as many as 3 years to decide to
participate and then as many as 5
years to implement management
  Wisconsin cost-sharing money will
pay for up to 70 percent of the cost of
building terraces on cropland and
stabilizing stream banks and will
provide up to $6,000 for the
construction of manure storage pits or
  Experience so far has shown that
water quality can be measurably
improved by targeting, and then
managing, critical land areas and
activities that  are responsible for
nonpoint-source pollution.
   EPA feel that State management of
non-point source programs is critical
because it is at the State level that
comprehensive control strategies can
be adopted and implemented.

               Safe  Drinking  Water  Act
               Protects  Public  Health
The 1974 Federal  Safe Drinking Water Act was the
first legislation to  provide for nationally enforceable
drinking water standards to protect the health of
all Americans.
  Regulations issued in 1975 set
limits on bacteriological, chemical, and
physical contaminants in drinking
water. Schedules were established for
routinely detecting and treating those
contaminants in all water systems
regularly serving 25 or more people.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act
established two types of regulations:
primary and secondary. Primary
regulations apply to contaminants
that the EPA feels may have any
adverse effect on public health. These
regulations specify the maximum
allowable contaminant levels in
drinking water.
  Secondary regulations are designed
to protect public welfare and deal with
the taste, odor, and appearance of
drinking water.
  EPA has established standards,
or maximum contaminant levels, for
10 inorganic chemicals, six
pesticides, bacteria, radioactivity and
turbidity (cloudiness).
  The law requires the Agency to
review these regulations at least once
every 3 years and to change them
when necessary. As part of that
process, EPA has proposed new
standards to more adequately
safeguard public health from the
threat of toxic compounds. If the
proposed changes are adopted, public
water systems will have to expand
their detection and treatment
programs to include volatile organic
chemicals and other hazardous
substances, such as asbestos and
  The Safe Drinking Water Act allows
EPA to delegate responsibility for
supervising public water systems to
States with regulations as stringent as
the Agency's. All states in Region 5,
except Indiana, have been delegated
authority for safe drinking water
programs. These delegated States are
responsible for ensuring that the
public is provided with safe drinking
water that meets all Federal standards.
If a State fails to do this, the EPA
can step in and take whatever
emergency action is necessary to
protect public health.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act
specifically requires owners and
operators  of public water systems to
notify their customers anytime the
water does not meet applicable
drinking water standards. The law also
specifies that the news media should
be informed of any violations of the
standards "as soon as practicable
after the discovery of the violation."
  Other significant parts of the Act
provide for:
  • Protection of underground
    sources of drinking water.
  • Research into the causes,
    diagnosis, treatment, control, ai
    prevention of physical and ment
    diseases and other impairment!
    resulting from contaminants in
  • Research into the development
    new methods to identify and
    measure contaminants, to treat
    raw water for drinking, and to
    protect underground water
    sources from contamination.
  • A survey of waste disposal
    practices that may endanger
    underground water supplies, ar
    the means of controlling those
  • Grants for research specified in
    the Act.
  • A report on the availability of ar
    adequate and dependable suppl
    of safe drinking water to meet
    present and future need.
  • Grants to States to carry out
    public water system supervisior
  • Appropriate recordkeeping and
  • A National Drinking Water
    Advisory Council consisting of 1
    members to advise, consult, anc
    make recommendations on
    matters relating to the Safe
    Drinking Water Act.
  • Adequate supplies of treatment
    chemicals for public water
  • Regulation of bottled water so
    that it conforms to the primary
    standards specified by EPA.  SL

Occurs naturally in the environment, but also an ingredient in pesticides.
Highly toxic in large doses
A naturally-occurring element that can also enter water supplies through industrial waste
discharges. Dangerous when consumed in large quantities. Can induce increased blood
pressure, nerve damage and even death.
Can be highly toxic Typically enters drinking water through galvanized pipes and fixtures,
although it can be found in discharges from the electroplating, photography, insecticide
and metallurgy industries.
A metal used in the metal plating industry and a potential carcinogen.
                                Comes from lead and galvanized pipes, auto exhaust and other sources. Excessive amounts
                                can cause nervous system disorders or brain or kidney damage.
Also known as quicksilver. Highly toxic, but the greatest health risk from mercury comes from
eating fish, where the metal concentrates in tissues.
This nitrogen and oxygen compound is dangerous to infants less than 3 months old because
it can prevent their blood from carrying oxygen. Water with excessive amounts of nitrates should
not be given to infants. Boiling only increases the nitrate concentration.
A mineral found in soil and plants of the western United States Excessive a mounts may be toxic.
 Sometimes used to disinfect water, this metal should not be consumed in amounts greater than
 05 milligrams per liter of water
Endrin, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-TP/Silvex are all covered under
drinking water regulations Pesticides drain into surface water or seep into groundwater
supplies and can pose both short- and long-term health problems if ingested in amounts
greater than allowed.
These compounds form when organic material in water is chlorinated. Many water treatment
plants have switched to alternate substances for disinfection in order to reduce the amount
of trihalomethanes in finished drinking water. Trihalomethanes are thought to cause cancer.
 Radium 226 and 228, Gross Alpha and Gross Beta activity are monitored. Alpha particles and
 radium occur naturally in groundwater in parts of the West, Midwest and Northeast.
 Possible sources of radiation in drinking water include nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel
 processing plants and uranium mines.
The cloudiness of water caused by the suspension of minute particles. These particles can
interfere with disinfection and bacteria testing.
These bacteria come from human and animal excretement and can cause disease. They are
primarily used as indicator of the presence of other harmful organisms
EPA  Sues  Carefree  Homes
U.S.EPA recently sued the operators of the Carefree
Homes mobile home park in Pendleton, Ind. for repeated
violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The suit, the
first of its kind in Region 5, charges that Carefree Homes
failed on many occasions to sample its drinking water for
bacterial quality.
  The suit also charges that Carefree Homes provided
water contaminated with coliform bacteria—an organism
                               found in the intestinal tracts of humans and animals.
                               The bacteria are used by health agencies as indicators of
                               the possible presence of disease-bearing bacteria.
                                 U.S.EPA is seeking a legally-binding consent decree
                               that would force Carefree Homes to comply with the
                               requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
                               penalty for noncompliance is as high as $5,000 a day.


       A:;«!.:'r/V?.f'C5skkv^?' Deep Saline Aquifier *.'.'• •'•'.'•'•' .''..•"»•'.'.'• "."•.''.•','•! •'•''•
       iSi^^r.H^-/i^-:-:.. •M-^^'^.-/^'^^-iL^:,::;^f^.^^m
Hidden beneath the Earth's surface is
one of its most precious jewels—
ground water. Stored away in geologic
formations called aquifers, this
resource is squeezed in between
particles of sand or in the cracks of
bedrock. While the extent of this
resource is not precisely known, it is
thought that the volume of water
within a 1/2-mile of the Earth's surface
is more than four times that of the
Great Lakes.
  Until recently, ground water was
thought to be protected from chemical
contamination because of the filtering
abilities of soil. But a 1981 study
showed that 235 out of 945 ground-
water systems sampled were
contaminated by one or more volatile
synthetic organic chemicals.
  The true extent of the problem
remains undocumented, but several
things are known. One is that soil is
not an effective filter for several
widely used classes of chemicals,
including low molecular weight
organic solvents such as benzene, a
cancer-causing chemical found in
gasoline and industrial solvents.
  Some of the substances most
frequently found in contaminated
aquifers are: gasoline, organic
solvents, heavy metals, inorganic
chemicals, pesticides, soil fumigants,
pathogens, and nitrates. With 117
million Americans depending on
ground water as their only source of
drinking water, this chemical
contamination is alarming.
  The biggest source of ground-water
contamination appears to be liquid and
solid wastes that have been depositec
in landfills, lagoons, or hazardous
waste injection wells. Fewer than 10
States require any regular ground-
water monitoring at the sites of those
landfills, despite indications that the
vast majority of them are major
sources of ground-water pollution.
  In addition, leaking underground
chemical and gasoline storage tanks
are thought to be major contributors t
the problem. There are about 2 millior
such tanks throughout the country,
and as many as 100,000 are thought
to be leaking.
 Animal feedlots often present a
ground-water problem when the
concentration of animal wastes
becomes too great. These wastes can
seep through the soil, causing
bacterial or nitrate pollution.

                                                                                 Domestic ''
                                                                                 Water .  ;
                                                                                 Supply ,' ,

 Abandoned wells, especially those
hat vertically connect two or more
iquifers, also pose a problem. In this
;ituation, water from a contaminated
iquifer can freely migrate to a pure
>ne. Another danger is that polluted
;urface water could find its way into
he well shaft.
 In areas of the country without
;ewer systems, septic tanks are the
nost frequently reported source of
:ontamination. These same areas
>ften rely on private wells for their
irinking water, and nearby septic
ystems could pollute those wells with
iisease-bearing organisms and
Titrates. Sometimes organic cleaning
;olvents are present as well.
 EPA has the authority, under
;everal Federal environmental laws, to
>rotect drinking water aquifers from
pollution. Region 5 officials are
working with the U.S. Geological
Survey and the States of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin to assess the extent of
the problem in this Region.
  At the same time, the Agency is
considering a regulatory program to
control leaking underground storage
tanks and is alerting the owners of
these tanks to the ground-water
problems caused, in large part, by
  During the past year, EPA has
developed a proposed ground-water
protection strategy to provide greater
coordination among EPA programs
aimed at protecting ground water and
to deal with major remaining  sources
of uncontrolled contamination.
  States, however, are encouraged to
 take their own ground-water protection
 measures. The State of Wisconsin, for
 example, has passed special legislation
 that mandates design standards and
 management practices for facilities that
 have the potential to contaminate
 ground water.
  The legislation also provides for a
 ground-water coordinating council and
 new regulatory programs designed to
 control substances that may contami-
 nate ground water. The law creates a
 fee schedule for activities that have the
 potential to pollute underground water
 supplies. The revenue generated from
 the fees will be used to finance
ground water related activities in four
State agencies. £;

Region's  Wells
To  be  Sampled
For  Chemicals
Because of the special threat that
chemical contaminants pose to
underground water supplies. Region 5
has initiated a testing program to
detect volatile synthetic organic
chemicals (VOC's) in drinking-water
  A 1981 nationwide survey showed
that drinking water from 230 of 945
ground-water systems was
contaminated by one or more VOC's.
Industrial solvents and  degreasing
agents, which can pose serious health
risks, were the most prevalent
  The concentrations of these
substances  in the ground water were
found to be  substantially higher than
those generally found in surface
water. This is especially alarming
because well water is often used with
little or no treatment.
  Region 5 officials last year
announced  a 10-year program to test
every underground community water
supply in the Region for the presence
of VOC's. Wells in urban industrial
areas, near  hazardous waste disposal
sites, or in areas susceptible to
contamination will  receive first
  During Fiscal 1983, Region 5 staff
sampled 250 wells in Indiana and
received test results on 173. VOC's
have been detected in 39 percent of
the wells for which data are available.
The other five States sampled more
than  2,000 wells last year and
determined that about 20 percent
were contaminated by varying
amounts of VOC's. While most of the
contamination poses a  negligible
health risk,  drinking water wells in 21
Region  5 communities  had to be shut
down or specially treated to reduce
human exposure to carcinogens.
  "In one year of VOC testing, we're
finding more drinking water
contaminants than in all the previous
years of chemical testing required
under the Safe Drinking Water Act,"
said Joseph F.  Harrison, chief of
Region 5's Drinking Water Section.
                                            Carbon Tetrachloride
   1,2-Dichloroethane (EDC)
    1,1 -Dichloroethy lene
    1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
    (methyl chloroform)
    Trichloroethylene (TCE)
    Vinyl Chloride
A clear, colorless, highly flammable liquid with a characteristic
"gasoline-like" odor A constituent in engine fuels, a solvent for
fats, inks, oils, paints, plastics and rubber. Is used in the manufac-
ture of explosives, detergents, Pharmaceuticals, dyes and
insecticides There is strong occupational evidence that benzene
causes leukemia in humans, particularly at high occupational
levels of exposure  Most notably toxic to the  bone marrow
A colorless liquid used in refrigerants, metal degreasing,
agricultural fumigants and in the production  of semiconductors.
A known carcinogen.
A colorless, flammable liquid. Used as a solvent for resins, rubber,
asphalt, paints, etc and as a degreaser, dry-cleaning agent,
fumigant, pickling agent and extraction agent for soybean oil and
caffeine. Also used in photography, xerography, water softening
and as an anti-knock compound in leaded gasoline. A suspected
human carcinogen In acute doses it can cause unconsciousness,
coma, circulatory collapse and death. At subacute doses,  it can
cause liver, kidney, lung, heart, adrenal and gastrointestinal
A clear, colorless, volatile liquid used in cement latexes, film
coating lacquers, paper coatings and in the production of certain
fibers. A suspected human carcinogen; appears to be carcinogenic
in mice and possibly  rats. A central nervous  system depressant
that can cause liver and kidney damage in animals.
A clear, colorless liquid used mainly in dry cleaning. It is also used
in metal degreasing,  textile processing (dyeing) and in various
pesticides. A central nervous system depressant Long-term expo-
sure in animals has produced liver and kidney damage in animals.
A liver carcinogen in  mice, but not in rats.
A colorless liquid used in many household and industrial products.
The principal solvent in septic tank degreasers, cutting oils, inks,
shoe polishes and other products Also used in metal degreasing,
leather tanning  and drycleanmg Considered to be non-carcmo-
genic in humans. High levels can be toxic to the heart. Liver
damage is possible.
A colorless, nonflammable solvent used mainly for degreasing
metal parts Also used in dry cleaning,  as a disinfectant in
veterinary surgery and in spot removers, rug cleaners and air
fresheners A suspected human carcinogen, it can be toxic to the
liver and kidneys in very high doses.
An easily liquified compressed gas Highly flammable. It is
readily absorbed via the gastrointestinal tract, accumulates in the
liver, and is known to be a human and  animal carcinogen.
  Because EPA has not yet set
drinking-water standards for most
VOC's, "chemicals that are causing
the most problems right now are not
regulated," Harrison said.
  The Regional office uses health
advisories from the EPA Office of
Drinking Water in Washington to help
State health officials assess and
reduce the threat posed by the
contaminated wells.
  If EPA data  indicate that one
person in 10,000 is likely to develop
cancer as a result of drinking the
water, EPA advises that the water
must not be used for cooking or
drinking. This has happened in 21
                Region 5 communities. In cases when
                the possible cancer threat is less,
                EPA may recommend treating or
                diluting the water so that it is
                acceptable for human consumption,
                said Harrison.
                 The VOC testing program is a
                voluntary one. However, all Region 5
                States have agreed to participate and
                all, except Indiana, are doing the
                actual sampling and testing with
                EPA technical assistance and
                funds. EPA is running the VOC
                testing program in Indiana because
                the Agency has not yet given Indiana
                the authority  to administer Safe
                Drinking Water Act programs. <>

 he disposal of wastes and other
 uids in underground injection wells
 /ill be closely controlled under a new
 .S.EPA program designed to protect
 rinking water aquifers.
 Recent EPA studies indicate
 lat, in terms of volume, more than
 alf of the liquid hazardous waste
 enerated in this country is disposed
 f in injection wells. These wells are
 ^pically very deep—between 4,000
 nd 6,000 feet below the surface—
 nd are designed to inject wastes and
 ther substances into strata far below
 quifers which are being or could be
 sed as drinking water supplies.
 However, there are several ways in
 'hich contamination of drinking water
 upplies can still occur. Faulty well
 anstruction can allow fluids to leak
 irough the well casing; the fluids
 iay escape upwards through nearby
 'ells into drinking water aquifers due
 > underground pressure or fractures
 nd faults; wells may also exist which
 iject into or above underground
 rinking water supplies; and fluid
 om injection wells may flow into
 ydrologically connected underground
 jurces of drinking water.
 Congress, when it passed the Safe
 rinking Water Act in 1974, foresaw
 lese possibilities. The Act required
 PA to establish a national
 rogram to prevent underground
 ijections that endanger drinking
 •ater sources. Congress intended in
 le Act to put no burden on EPA or
 le States to prove actual
 jntamination before establishing and
nforcing regulations. Congress also
learly envisioned the Underground
 jection Control (UIC) Program as a
tate responsibility; EPA is to
 ^minister it only where a State
 looses not to participate or fails to
 ^minister its own program effectively.
 Three Region 5 States—Illinois,
 hio, and Wisconsin—have received
uthority from EPA to run their
 vn injection-well programs. Region 5
 aff members have developed
 ograms for Indiana, Michigan, and
   Safe Drinking Water Act
                                          Resource Conservation and
                                          Recovery Act

                                          Toxic Substances Control Act
   Clean Water Act
   (Construction Grants Program)
   Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
   Rodenticide Act

   Comprehensive Environmental
   Response, Compensation and Liability
   Act (CERCLA, or Superfund)
Regulates public drinking water supplies that rely
on ground water. Requires States to regulate
waste injection wells so that aquifers are not
contaminated. A sole-source aquifer program
protects aquifers that are the primary source of a
community's water supply.
Specifies design and performance standards for
hazardous waste facilities that have the potential
to harm underground water supplies.
Prohibits the release of PCB's into ground water.
Specifies design and location standards for PCB
Requires ground-water monitoring in areas where
sewage sludge is applied to land.
Controls or prohibits the use of specific pesticides
that may affect ground water.

Requires ground-water monitoring at specific
hazardous waste sites. Helps pay for cleanup of
tainted drinking water supplies.
Minnesota and for the Indian Lands in
the Region. The Agency estimates that
there are at least 3,500 wells in the
three States that must be regulated by
  The main feature of EPA's
Underground Injection  Control (UIC)
program is a permit system that
authorizes injection-well operators to
operate their facilities under the
conditions and limitations of the
  However, permits will not be issued
for operations that do not comply with
ERA rules and regulations. "If a
technical decision  is made by the
Agency that a well shall not receive a
permit, then it will be closed," said
Robert Hilton,  chief of the Ground-
Water Protection Section in Region 5.
  The basic concept of the program is
to prevent the contamination of
drinking water by keeping injected
fluids in the well and the intended
injection zone.
  There are five types of wells that
will be regulated:
  Class I—Wells used to inject
municipal, industrial, and commercial
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes
beneath the lowermost formation
containing an underground drinking
water source. Class II—Wells used to
inject fluids which  are brought to the
surface in connection with
conventional oil or natural gas
production, to  inject fluids for the
enhanced recovery of oil or  natural
gas, or to store hydrocarbons which
are  liquid at standard temperature and
pressure. Class III—Wells used to
    inject fluids for extraction of minerals.
    Class IV—Wells used to inject
    hazardous or radioactive wastes into
    or above an underground drinking
    water source. These wells are illegal.
    Class V—Injection wells not included
    in classes I-IV Typical of such wells
    are recharge wells, air  conditioning
    return flow wells, and aquifer
    recharge wells.
      Region 5 personnel will be meeting
    in August with oil and  gas industry
    representatives in Indiana and
    Michigan to explain the new Federal
    UIC requirements. The UIC regulations
    in Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota
    took effect on June 22, 1984. Because
    of the critical nature of Class I well
    operations (hazardous  waste
    injection), EPA staffers will meet
    individually during the  next 6 months
    with the owners and operators of
    those wells.
      Public hearings and,  in some  cases,
    public meetings, will be held before
    any permits are issued or denied,
    Hilton said. Anyone wishing to be
    added to a EPA mailing list for the
    Underground Injection  Control
    program should write to:

        Robert Hilton
        Chief, Ground-Water Section
        U.S.EPA Region 5
        230 S. Dearborn  St.
        Chicago, IL  60604   &

               EPA  and  Army  Corps
               Work  to  Protect  Wetlands
In a prototype national program.
Region 5 water quality specialists are
working with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the States to identify
and protect the Region's most
sensitive wetlands.
  Wetlands are low-lying swamp and
marsh areas that nurture young fish
and animals and are nature's way of
controlling erosion and floods. These
areas have been filled in and
developed to such an extent that only
about 30 percent remain. An
estimated 300,000 acres are lost each
year to farming and development.
  The goal of Region 5's wetlands
protection effort is to develop a series
of maps that will show which
wetlands are considered
environmentally sensitive and
therefore unsuited for development
and which wetlands might be less
affected by dredge and fill operations.
  These maps will help the Corps of
Engineers decide whether to issue
dredge and fill permits under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. If an an
is environmentally sensitive, it is
unlikely that the Corps will issue a
permit for dredge and fill activities
  The advance identification of thes
sensitive areas should be a helpful
tool for landowners, said Barry
DeGraff, assistant to Region 5's Wai
Quality Branch chief. "We want to
provide information that property
owners can use ahead of time," he
said. "People appreciate it when yoi
sit down and tell them what to expe
in the future."
  EPA is often forced into a
reactive posture on wetlands permit
said DeGraff, because the Agency
doesn't review proposals until they
have been formally submitted to the
Corps. Under the  new program,
EPA will have early input and may
be able to accelerate the permit
process while reducing the number
environmentally unacceptable
  This wetlands protection program
known as AIDS—Advanced
Identification of Disposal Sites.
Although it has been part of Clean
Water Act guidelines for years, it is
being tried for the first time in Regie
5. Areas in Kenosha County, Wise.,
have already been designated as
environmentally sensitive—that is,
they fall into one or more of several
categories: highly productive waters
waters beneficial  for flood control,
important fish and wildlife habitats,
and areas where ground water migf
be adversely affected if developmen
were to occur.
  Region 5 water quality staffers an
now beginning to work with plannir
commissions and natural resources
departments in all six states to deve
a comprehensive  AIDS program for
the Region. £

                                 EPA  and  Indians
                                 Work  Together  for
                                 Safe  Drinking  Water
egion 5 serves a very special group of
anstituents—the Indians who live on
D reservations in Wisconsin,
linnesota, and Michigan. There are
3 community drinking water systems
n these reservations that must
amply with EPA sampling and
jporting requirements. Until recently,
owever, many tribes were unaware
: the requirements or were irregular
Dout complying with them.
 Many of these problems stemmed
om a lack of communication between
DA, the Indian Health Service,
id the tribes, said Ron Kolzow, an
nvironmental protection specialist  in
egion 5's Drinking Water Section. In
le past, EPA depended on the
ibes to report on drinking water
ualitytothe Indian Health Service,
jt the tribes now are reporting
irectly to EPA.
 During Fiscal 1982, only 11 percent
: Indian water systems were
smplying with the drinking water
jgulations, said Kolzow. Most of the
olations were for  failing to sample
nd report water quality rather than
>r impure water, he explained. Most
idian water systems in Region 5 rely
n high-quality underground aquifers.
 By Fiscal 1983, however, the
Dmpliance rate for Indian water
/stems was up to 49 percent. In the
rst quarter of Fiscal 1984, the
jmpliance rate was 84 percent. The
ramatic improvement, according to
olzow, was due to EPA and
idian Health Service cooperative
forts to educate tribal sanitarians
nd maintenance personnel. An
mphasis on personal contact and
ommunication was especially helpful,
aid Kolzow.
 "It's really been a success story,"
3id Edith Tebo, chief of the Drinking
i/ater/Ground-Water Branch in
egion 5. "We've really turned this
round, but now we must work to
eep the compliance levels so
onsistently high."
                                                    Keweenaw Bay

                                       WISCONSIN  mmmm
  To keep Indians in Region 5 informed
about safe drinking water and well
maintenance, EPA has given
$1 6,400 to the nonprofit Minnesota
Rural Water Association. That group
has held several workshops for
Indians, has visited reservations to
offer specialized help, and  is
publishing a quarterly newsletter for
  Sam Wade, the water association's
program manager, said the Indians'
problems are not unique. "The
problems on the reservations aren't
really that different from those in
small municipalities." Wade said his
workshops focus on the proper use
and maintenance of a drinking water
system. "Our whole association is
based on the old saying that 'an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure,'" he said. "We're not engineers,
but what we offer is a common-sense
operational perspective."
  One of the biggest problems facing
the tribes, Wade noted, is their failure
to look at a water system as a utility.
"It has to be self-supporting and it has
to be paid for," he said. ^

               Retiree  Builds  New  Career
               In   Environmental  Ed
Visiting teacher Roy Porteous had just
finished a unit about Lake Michigan,
and he was delighted when several of
his third-grade pupils offered to help
carry his materials to his car. But he
wasn't prepared for what came next.
  "Why don't you kidnap us?"
whispered one of the schoolgirls.
  "Why, what would I do with you?"
  "Take us to McDonald's for dinner,"
she suggested.
  Porteous, speaking in the melodeous
British accent he has retained since
moving to the United States from
Trinidad 63 years ago, recounts that
incident as one of the highlights of his
career. His volunteer career, that is.
The one he built since retiring in
  A former CBS sales executive,
Porteous said he found his new voca-
tion after hearing reports that Lake Erie
was dying. Woried that the same thing
could happen to Lake Michigan, the
Winnetka, III., resident set out to get
a crash course in ecology. "I said this
is where I'm going to put whatever
energy and time is left to me."
  After 2 years as a volunteer at the
Lake Michigan Federation and at
Business and Professional People for
the Public Interest in Chicago,
Porteous was invited to speak to some
Winnetka sixth-graders about what he
had learned. He's been roving around
Chicago's North Shore ever since,
teaching a six-week unit about Lake
  In January, he was working at the
Sacred Heart School in Hubbard
Woods, III., teaching Jean Hewlett's
third-grade class. Hewlett said the
children eagerly await Porteous'
weekly visits. "That's what they talk
about all year. They can't wait until
they reach third grade so they can
have Mr. Porteous."
  As he pulled props and illustrations
out of his sack with the ease of a
magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat,
it wasn't hard to see why. "This is
what happens to water when no one
cares," he said, displaying a jar full of
muck from the Skokie Lagoons. A
chorus of vehement "yuks" rose from
the classroom. "When you pollute the
water, the water's in trouble, but you
are too," he said somberly, draping a
black cloth over the jar of muck and
pointing a toy gun at his head. "The
only solution is to stop putting the
pollution in the water."
  "Every year, more teachers in
different schools want him to come
and talk," said Lee Bolts, former
director of the Lake Michigan
Federation and a friend of Porteous'.
"He keeps learning; he keeps getting
excited about finding out new things
about Lake Michigan. That must be a
big part of the reason he continues to
expand his audience. His own
enthusiasm is probably the most
important thing he teaches them."
  If nothing else, Porteous is an
enthusiast. "If you reduce ecology t<
living, real terms, you're talking abo
damn exciting things," he said.
"Environment isn't just a word—it's
condition, a state—it decides wheth
you live or die."
  Porteous said the secret to his
rapport with children is keeping
everything simple. "I don't burden tl
children with statistics," he says, "I
careful not to use any scientific
jargon." Keeping his words to a
minimum, Porteous relies heavily or
pictures and maps to tell his story.
"I've been known to buy a $30 book
just to cut out one picture, or take a
encyclopedia and gut it. I'm a
scavenger. My wife doesn't know he
much money I've spent." He display
huge book he bought for one strikim,
picture. "I wanted to make the point
that if you take a soil sample at the 1
of Mt. Everest, you'll find a sea shel
  Porteous' dedication seems to be
inspired by two beliefs: one, displayi
on a sign  over his desk at home, say
"Man's mind, stretched to a new id*
never goes back to its original
dimension." The other, often quoted
Porteous himself, is "You can go wit
hunting for just so long, but that
doesn't clean the environment. You
have to proceed from there and teac
tomorrow's chairman of the board."

                Illinois  Town   Innovates  to
                Ensure  Safe Water Supply
or years, the City of Elgin, III., relied
n the Ironton-Galesville aquifer for its
rinking water. But the aquifer was
everely overdrawn, the city was
rowing, and it became apparent in
he mid-1970's that an alternate
ource was needed.
 The logical choice was the Fox River,
Yhich has an average flow of 543
lillion gallons a day. But the city,
t/hich once drew its drinking water
rom the Fox, had abandoned the River
n 1920 because of pollution
 Ron Zegers, director of water for the
!ity of Elgin, said the debate raged for
bout 2 years. The aquifer was fine for
he time being, but "it didn't seem to
e a realistic source to bank on," said
egers. Population projections were
howing that Elgin, with 64,000
eople, could have a population of
00,000 by 1995 and a daily water
emand that could reach as  high as 24
lillion gallons during the summer.
 The city decided to blend the old and
he new—literally. In an innovative
love, it decided to mix water from the
DX River and the aquifer to meet the
rowing demand. That decision would
uarantee a safe drinking water
upply, even during a pollution
mergency on the Fox.
 A new treatment plant completed in
982  and an expanded existing facility
an provide 24 million gallons of water
 day, if needed. Water is blended at
he new plant and is treated along
airly conventional water treatment
ines.  But Elgin water has three basic
roblems that require special
Mention, said Zegers.
 The first problem is that the aquifer
 ater contains relatively high levels of
arium, radium, and hydrogen sulfide.
 A line softening process is used to
irtually eliminate barium and radium,
ut the high  levels of foul-smelling
ydrogen sulfide require aeration and
erric  sulfate treatment.
  Well water entering the plant is sent
to the odor control building and
aeration chamber, where the hydrogen
sulfide is removed. It is then blended
with the river water in the 2-million-
gallon presedimentation basin.
Coagulants, powdered carbon, and
potassium permanganate are added to
remove sediment and destroy algae,
bacteria, and virus.
  The water is then piped to a
600,000 gallon softening basin,
where minerals are removed by lime
softening. The waste lime is sent in
slurry form by pipeline to a 60-acre
disposal site several miles away, and
the softened water is then sent to the
secondary sedimentation basin, where
it is chlorinated. Once this is done, the
water is filtered through coal, sand
and gravel in indoor filtering basins. It
is then pumped into the 1 -million-
gallon finished water reservoir and
into the distribution system for human
  On an average day, the plant treats
8.6 million gallons of water—a figure
that shoots up as high as 13 million
gallons a day during the summer.
  The Elgin plant's  treatment scheme
is "one of the most advanced and
innovative in the Midwest," said
Joseph F.  Harrison,  chief of Region 5's
Drinking Water Section. "We are
pleased that the city has taken these
steps to meet their water shortage and
drinking water quality problems

Control £r
    Source- City of Elgin
        1.  Air and ferric sulfate are
           added to well water to
           remove hydrogen
           sulfide from water.
        2.  River water is treated
           with chemicals to
           remove sediment, and
           to destroy algae,
           bacteria, and virus.
        3.  Minerals are removed
           from water by lime
        4.  Softened water is
           treated again with
           chemicals to remove
           remaining suspended
        5.  Treated water is filtered
           through a dual media
           filter as final treatment
        6.  Water  is pumped to
           consumer or to a
           reservoir on the plant

Region  5  Enforces
Environmental  Laws
Region 5 referred more cases for
prosecution during the second quarter
of fiscal 1984 than any of EPA's nine
other regions, Regional Administrator
Valdas V. Adamkusannounced recently.
  In response to EPA Administrator
William D. Ruckelshaus' emphasis on
the enforcement of environmental
laws, Region 5 referred 40 civil cases
and 1 criminal case to EPA head-
quarters during January, February and
March. Once the cases are reviewed by
attorneys in Washington, they will  be
forwarded to the U.S. Department of
Justice for prosecution. These cases
constitute half of the cases referred
to headquarters by the regions.
  In addition, Region 5 issued 200
administrative orders—legally-binding
documents that specify environmental
remedies. Many of these orders were
addressed to municipal sewage plants
that have not yet developed industrial
pretreatment programs as required
by law.
  In a memo to Region 5 staff,
Adamkus said he was "extremely
pleased with the effort you put forth to
help maintain the excellent reputation
we have earned in all of our
enforcement programs. This type of
effort provides an excellent foundation
for strong programs in the future." <>
Notice of Violation (NOV): An administrative
  tool used to notify a pollution source that it is
  not complying with a particular portion of an
  environmental law. EPA typically issues
  NOV's to the polluting municipality or
  industry. Sometimes, however, NOV's are
  sent to States to draw their attention to a
  particular violation.
Administrative Order (AO): A legally
  enforceable administrative action used by
  the Agency to inform a polluter of violations
  of law and to require correction of the
  violations. Region 5 has issued 121 water-
  related AO's this fiscal year.
Civil Lawsuit: A lawsuit filed by the U.S.
  Department of Justice on behalf of EPA.
  Seeks immediate compliance with the law
  and usually asks for fines Region 5 has
  referred 7 water-related civil cases to the
  Department of Justice since the fiscal year
  began last October
Criminal Lawsuit: A lawsuit filed by the U.S
  Department of Justice on behalf of EPA.
  Seeks criminal penalties, such as fines or jail
  terms, for a violation of environmental law
EPA  Helps Clean Up
Hammond Area

One of EPA's  most significant
pollution control accomplishments ir
the Great Lakes occurred in Indiana
EPA sued the Hammond Sanitary
District in 1980 after it was found tc
be the primary source of grease balk
and fecal matter washing up on Chi
cago beaches.  That problem,  whicf
resulted from an improper connec
tion between the sewage system an<
a stormwater pumping station, wa;
solved with the help of EPA con-
struction grants money.
    How You  Can Help...

    Public participation is required by some, and encouraged
    by most, laws and regulations governing this Agency.
    Here are the ways any citizen can participate in the
    various decision-making procedures of the Water

    CONSTRUCTION GRANTS: Public hearings are held
    before States determine the priority list for municipal
    sewage projects to be funded by construction grants.

    drafted for major Federal actions with the  potential to
    significantly affect the quality of the human
    environment. Public hearings are conducted before and
    after a draft impact statement is prepared.
    NPDES PERMIT SYSTEM: Any owner or operator of a
    source that discharges waste into the waters of the
    United States must have a permit under the National
    Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
                    The permits are issued by ERA or by States with EPA-
                    approved programs for administering the system.
                    Public opportunities to participate in the NPDES program
                    include: commenting on draft permits, appealing permit
                    decisions in court, and bringing citizen suits against
                    dischargers to enforce permit conditions.

                    UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL: The Safe
                    Drinking Water Act requires U.S.EPA or the States to set
                    up a permit system to regulate waste injection wells. Th«
                    purpose of  the system is to prevent these wells from
                    contaminating underground drinking water supplies.
                    Draft permits must be presented for public comment.

                    DREDGE AND FILL PERMITS: Permits are issued by
                    the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the disposal of
                    dredged or  fill material in the waters of the United
                    States. EPA comments on the proposed permits after
                    holding public hearings.
                                 *U S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-756

       For  Further Information
                                          If you would like additional information about specific EPA programs, please visit the
                                          Office of Public Affairs, U.S Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 230 South
                                          Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, or call (312)353-2072
                                           This office maintains a supply of EPA publications, operates an informal speakers'
                                          bureau and coordinates regional distribution of environmental films. There is no
                                          charge to the public for these services
                                           If you encounter an environmental problem, report it first to your local, and then
                                          your state, pollution control agency. Those numbers are listed below. For specific
                                          information about EPA programs call'

                                          U.S.EPA Region 5	(312) 353-2000   ILLINOIS
                                          Air Pollution	(312) 353-221 2   Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
                                          Automobile Problems                      2200 Churchill Road
                                           Catalytic Converters .... (202) 382-2640   Springfield, IL 62706
                                           Certifying a Car for Sale (313) 668-4277   (217) 782-5562
                                           Fuel Economy	(313) 668-4329   24-hour number  (21 7) 782-3637
                                           Fuel Switching 	(312) 886-4577
                                           Imports 	(312) 886-6082   INDIANA
                                           Tampering with                         Indiana State Board of Health
                                           Emission Controls	(202) 383-2640   133° W  Michigan Street
                                           Warrnaty &                            Indianapolis, IN 46206
                                           After-Market Parts	(202) 382-2940   <31 7> 633-°1 °°
                                          Great Lakes National                      24-hour number:(317)633-0144
                                           Program Office  	(312)353-2117   MICHIGAN
                                          Hazardous Waste,                         Michigan Department of Natural Resources
                                           Super  Fund 	(312) 353-9733   Stevens T. Mason Building
                                          Oil &  Chemical Spills                      Lansing, Ml 48909
                                           National Emergency                     (517)373-1220
                                           Response Center	(800) 424-8802   24-hour numbers: (517) 373-7660
                                           Region 5 Emergency                                   (800)292-4706
                                           Response Center	(312)353-2318   MINNESOTA
                                          Pesticides	(312) 353-2192   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
                                          Radiation	(312) 886-6175   -\ 935 w County Rd B-2
                                          Toxic  Substances	(312)886-6006   Roseville, MN 55113
                                          Water Qauhty                            (612)296-7373
                                           Wastewater Treatment  .(312) 353-21 21    24-hour number- (61 2) 296-7373
                                           Drinking Water	(312) 353-2650
                                           Wetlands	(312)886-6678   ""   .-           ,D     .    A
                                                                                 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                                 361  E. Broad St.

                                          Region 5 ENVIRONMENTAL HOTLINE:
                                          Illinois residents call: 800-572-2515       24-hour number: (within Ohio only)
                                          All other states: 800-621-8431            (800) 282-9378
                                                                                 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                                                                                 P.O. Box 7921
                                                                                 Madison, Wl 53707
                                         Now Available:
                                         Report on the Environment 1983,
                                         Region V.
                                         contact the office of Public Affairs fU-§  Environmental Protection Agency
                                         freec°pv                       Region  V,  Library
                                        	230 South Dearborn Street	
                                                                        Chicago, Illinois   60604

United States
Environmental Protection
Region 5
230 S  Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
                                                              THIRD CLASS
                                                               BULK RATE
                                                          Postage and Fees Paid
                                                             Pej-mit No. G-35