EPA 910/9-86-152
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 96101
. Office of the Regional Administrator
Environmental Programs in
Alaska
An EPA Report
-------
Introduction
Environmental issues continue to be objects of keen interest to both
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the government and citizens of
the State of Alaska. The federal policy toward state assumption of primary
responsibility for environmental programs continues to be implemented. Thus
far, five of the eight programs for which delegation is possible have been
partially or fully delegated. EPA continues to exercise oversight for these
programs and retains primary responsibility for programs not delegated. EPA
grants and technical assistance remain available for all programs.
This report discusses from an EPA perspective the major environmental
issues in Alaska today. The status of the federal-state partnership is
emphasized. Following the description of important issues, EPA's grants to
the state are listed.
This report is a "snapshot" of issues that constantly change, sometimes
overnight. For anyone wishing additional information or current
developments on any of these subjects, the following roster of senior EPA
staff in EPA Region 10 should be consulted.
Regional Administrator
Deputy Regional Administrator
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Alaska (Anchorage Office)
Regional Counsel
Water Division Director
Air and Toxics Director
Environmental Services Director
Hazardous Waste Director
Robie G. Russell
Ralph R. Bauer
Al Ewing
James Moore
Robert Burd
Gary O'Neal
Robert Courson
Charles Findley
(206)
(206)
(907)
(206)
(206)
(206)
(206)
(206)
44-2-5810
442-5810
271-5083
442-1073
442-1237
442-4152
442-1295
442-1906
-------
Hater Programs
Drinking Hater
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides quality standards designed to
ensure that people are drinking healthful water. Drinking water is required
to be sampled and analyzed by an approved laboratory. Such laboratory
facilities are unavailable throughout much of rural Alaska. Commercial air
service is inadequate to bring samples to a laboratory within the 48-hour
period required by EPA regulations and sound scientific practice. No
meaningful oversight of drinking water systems is possible without sampling
and reporting. Therefore, the protection against waterborne illness is
flawed. Fortunately, most of Alaska's population is not affected by this
problem. Indeed, the existence of mainly small, decentralized water systems
minimizes the population at risk in the event of an outbreak of waterborne
disease.
Alaska's water systems face another potential difficulty in the near
future. Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act passed this year by
Congress will result in more stringent water quality criteria to be
promulgated by EPA in 1987. Compliance with these criteria will likely
require filtration for all surface water supplies, which will lead to a
significant expenditure for many community water systems. Laboratory
testing requirements for all systems will also be more extensive. No
federal grant funding has historically been available for capital
improvements to water supply systems.
Responsibility for the drinking water program has been delegated to
Alaska. There has been an increase in the state's enforcement activity and
compliance results in the past year. Issues which remain to be resolved in
the future include federal enforcement overfiling in instances when state
action is not timely and appropriate, and EPA's definition of significant
noncompliers, which are those systems requiring the most immediate
enforcement attention.
Placer Mining
Placer miners are required to operate under a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, issued by EPA. As of July,
1986 there were 572 permits for placer mining in Alaska. The permits
establish effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and management
practices. The principal mining pollutants are settleable solids,
turbidity, and arsenic. Miners are required to monitor these pollutants and
submit discharge monitoring reports at the close of the mining season.
-------
EPA inspections and the miners' own monitoring reports, or their
failure to file reports, reveal a widespread pattern of non-compliance.
EPA's enforcement effort has increased in order to achieve greater
compliance. These data reflect the intensification of the enforcement drive:
1984
51 inspections
(36 sampled)
3 referrals
2 compliance orders
66 consent orders
264 warning letters
to nonreporters
1985
52 inspections
(46 sampled)
13 referrals
33 compliance orders
2 consent orders
77 warning letters/requests
for information
378 warning letters to
nonreporters
1986
96 inspections
(18 sampled)
The enforcement emphasis has led to improved compliance by many
miners. They are upgrading their operations with better treatment systems
and reduced wastewater discharge.
Surface Mining
U.S. Borax proposes to operate an open-pit molybdenum mine within the
Misty Fjords National Monument in southeast Alaska. The firm has applied
for a NPDES permit for the disposal of 80,000 tons per day of mill tailings
Land impoundments have been ruled out as a feasible
due to their enormous size and the difficulty in controlling
a rainy climate. The remaining alternatives are: disposal in
Quadra Fjord, or in Wilson Arm/Smeaton Bay, another nearby
Boca de Quadra offers a deeper and larger disposal site, with
less potential for affecting marine life. However, disposal in
(waste ore)
alternative
leachate in
the Boca de
fjord. The
consequently
the Boca de Quadra will
raise capital costs $59
also require construction of a
mill ion, or 87..
tunnel which wi11
The decision-making sequence will involve publication of an EIS with a
preferred alternative. This is a joint product of the USFS and EPA. After
the EIS is published, the EPA Regional Administrator will issue an ocean
discharge permit based on the agencies' preferred alternative.
Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives EPA joint authority with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over aquatic resources known as wetlands.
Wetlands are considered by EPA as special aquatic sites because they provide
fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, and natural water pollution
treatment. Wetlands often are considered promising areas for development.
Controversy may result when land development proposals compete with
preservation in wetland areas.
-------
EPA and the Corps of Engineers are jointly involved in an undertaking
which holds great promise for the disposition of wetlands issues. Advanced
Identification Planning is a process whereby the Corps of Engineers and EPA
provide a non-binding plan to identify where dredge spoils should or should
not be dumped. This process has already taken concrete form in the Juneau
Wetlands Interagency Task Force. Formed at the behest of the City and
Borough of Juneau, the Task Force includes approximately a dozen state,
federal, and local agencies. The group's deliberations are designed to
produce an effective planning tool for wetlands management in the Juneau
area.
A similar effort with respect to the Colville Delta on the North Slope
is just beginning. If successful, it may serve as a prototype for the
management of the extensive wetlands on the North Slope.
EPA is working to improve relations with the Alaska Department of
Transportation. In order to expedite permit issuance for road building
activities, both agencies are encouraging pre-application processing of §404
permits so that priorities and standards are identified in advance, and
surprises and 'last minute changes in permit conditions are minimized. This
Abbreviated Permit Process (APP) already has proven successful in the
issuance of oil and gas exploration permits.
A NPDES Delegation
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) recently
began to consider requesting delegation of the NPDES program. Under present
law the entire program, including placer mining, oil and gas, seafood
processing, and pulp mills, must be delegated as a package. The Clean Water
Act, as re-authorized, would permit partial delegation of EPA programs to
the state.
The assumption of primacy would have substantial resource implications
for Alaska. The state now employs one person in each of three regional
offices to handle permit certification. (Certification means approval by
ADEC that a permit will satisfy state water quality and coastal zone
management standards.) In addition, the Department also reviews EPA draft
permits and provides the Agency with comments. Delegation will require a
significant increase in state funding for environmental programs.
Air and Toxics Programs
Air Toxics
Nationally, EPA has identified air toxics as a top priority. Efforts
are underway to assess the severity of this problem in Alaska. Region 10
has funded a private contractor to conduct an air toxics inventory, which
will analyze everything from household wood stoves to small and large
industry. ADEC is participating in an advisory role, assisting the
contractor in file searches and information gathering. The Department is
also requiring applicants for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permits to submit air toxics information. The state has agreed to develop
an air toxics program commensurate with the results of the inventory.
-------
In a further Instance of federal-state cooperation, EPA has fully
funded one additional air quality manager position in the Southeast Regional
Office of ADEC. The state in return has agreed to match this grant with an
air toxics staff position.
Other obstacles to full compliance with clean air standards are
particulate emissions from wood stoves and carbon monoxide levels in
Anchorage and Fairbanks. Both problems involve fundamental issues of
interference with individual lifestyles. A more stringent federal
regulation for particulates will take effect in 1987. While the Anchorage
and Fairbanks inspection and maintenance programs are among the best-managed
in the country, additional measures will likely be needed to meet national
air quality standards. Alternative means of transportation, highway
planning, improved woodstoves, and alternate home heating methods also may
have to be considered.
Asbestos
Asbestos contamination is a matter of great public concern. With over
100 asbestos renovation or demolition projects in Alaska per year, the
problem is significant. EPA is prepared to delegate this program to the
state, but ADEC has expressed interest only in the disposal portion of the
program, which involves notification to contractors. One possible
J_ alternative is to delegate demolition and renovation to the Alaska
Department of Labor, which already certifies contractors. Continued
dialogue between federal and state officials will be required to resolve
this issue.
Pesticides
ADEC has primary responsibility for the pesticide program in Alaska.
Until FY87 the state has only accepted a minimal federal grant
(approximately $15,000 per year) for certification of pesticide
applicators. This year the state has been awarded an enforcement and
compliance grant of $70,000. This is a consequence of an EPA pesticide
profile that showed higher than anticipated pesticide use in Alaska - 5
pounds per person annually. Alaska's unique situation with respect to
pesticides mandates careful attention: the lack of experience with
pesticides increases the likelihood of misuse, the rapid increase in land
under cultivation, the possibility of import violations due to mail orders
and the difficulty of controlling import entry points.
Through the use of federal funds the state is increasing its pesticides
enforcement capability. With the assistance of an EPA employee detailed to
the state, ADEC is working on a program overhaul which will include
proposals for statutory and administrative regulation revisions.
-------
Hazardous Waste Programs
RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act).Authorization
RCRA "authorization" (the term of art for delegation in this program)
has not yet been made to the state. A Cooperative Agreement and a grant for
$264,800 are in place to deal with matters of hazardous waste disposal.
Four ADEC staffers have been credentialed as EPA RCRA inspectors. The
benefits to the state have been substantial: last year there were 40
state/federal inspections, whereas EPA alone could have accomplished only
about 15. This year approximately 60 state/federal inspections are planned,
a marked increase over what EPA could accomplish alone.
ADEC's credentialed staffers do more than conduct inspections. They
prepare all the documentation, including recommendations to EPA, on
potential compliance/enforcement cases. The state is also preparing its own
program including regulations, permit and enforcement strategies, and a
penalty matrix. Although recent amendments to RCRA will delay full state
authorization for several years, the spirit of cooperation and the expertise
being developed under the Cooperative Agreement are indicators of a strong
future program.
In another promising development, the state is conducting a siting
study to overcome Alaska's lack of a hazardous waste disposal site or
off-site storage facility.
The state has taken an increasingly active role in EPA's issuance of
RCRA Part B permits for approved hazardous waste facilities. ADEC is also
assisting EPA in investigating the number of waste releases at the Prudhoe
Bay Arco faci1ity.
Superfund
Another joint federal-state activity is the Multi-State Cooperative
Agreement (MSCA), the purpose of which is to investigate old hazardous waste
sites. This assessement is designed to add or eliminate sites from the
Superfund National Priority List — those sites which qualify for a federal
cleanup effort. The MSCA has eliminated 3 Alaskan sites from NPL
consideration after about 50 inspections; 1 site may yet qualify for the NPL.
The passage of HB 470, establishing a state Hazardous Waste Response
Fund, has provided a legal foundation for the state's involvement in
hazardous waste issues. ADEC can now respond to emergency releases and
investigate old dump sites. The surprising number (roughly 150) of CERCLIS
(potential NPL) sites in Alaska includes sites being examined by the
military under separate legal authority. Another reality is that we are
adding sites to CERCLIS faster than they are being eliminated.
-------
EPA Grants to the State of Alaska
SPY 87
(Grants are to ADEC unless otherwise noted. Amounts shown are approximate.)
Air Programs
Grant: $492,100
State of Alaska matches approximately the same amount.
$97,000 (direct grant to City of Anchorage; matched by
$238,000 from the City)
Drinking Hater
Grant: $576,950
State Match: $192,317
RCRA
Grant: $264,800
State Match: $100,000
Alaska Health Project
Grant: $27,000
State Match: $2,700
U.ST
Grant: $160,000
State Match: $25,000
Hater Pollution Control
Grant: $200,800
State Match: $104,300
CERCLA Site Investigation
Grant: $500,000
Pesticides (applicator training and certification)
Grant: $15,000
State Match: $15,000
-------
Pesticides (enforcement)
Grant: $75,000
State Match: $13,200
Sewage Treatment Facility Construction
Grant: $10,824,000
Construction Management Assistance Grant (Clean Water Act § 205(g))
Grant: $457,358
Hater Quality Management Planning (Clean Nater Act § 205 (j))
Grant: $162,000
Groundwater Pollution Control
Grant: $160,000
-------
A Glossary of
EPA Programs in Alaska
Hater Programs
- Mater Pollution Control
The federal Clean Water Act provides for the regulation of water
pollution through the issuance of NPDES permits, which control the level of
pollutants that can be released into waters of the United States. In
Alaska, the major permittees include pulp mills, placer miners, log transfer
facilities, seafood processors, municipal sewage treatment facilities, and
oil and gas operations. EPA conducts inspections of these industries to
monitor compliance. In the event of non-compliance, administrative
remedies, which often include compliance schedules, are available. In the
event of a substantial violation, referral to civil or criminal litigation
is also a possibi1ity.
The principal EPA grant program, in terms of dollars, is for
construction of treatment facilities to enable municipalities to meet
secondary sewage treatment standards. Some funding is also provided for
operation of the state's water quality management program.
- 404 Program
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that discharges of dredge
and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, be
authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps' permitting
program incorporates regulations promulgated by EPA. Furthermore, the EPA
provides the Corps of Engineers with comments and recommendations on
specific permit matters. The EPA may initiate an enforcement action to seek
compliance in cases of unauthorized discharge of fill material. The EPA
also may join with the Corps of Engineers, for purposes of advance planning,
to identify areas generally suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of fill
material.
- Drinking Water
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provides for the monitoring of
public drinking water supplies. Water must be sampled for such pollutants
as turbidity and bacterial contamination and the samples must be analyzed by
certified laboratories. Water systems must report their sample results. If
they fail to report or if sampling reveals non-compliance with mandated
standards of cleanliness, then a spectrum of administrative remedies,
ranging from drinking water advisories and boil water notices to litigation
for failure to comply, are available. Amendments to the SDWA passed in 1986
will impose stricter standards for surface water supplies, which may require
filtration. New contaminants, including organic and inorganic chemicals,
also must be sampled.
-------
10
Air and Toxics Programs
- Air
The air program consists of monitoring of ambient air (which is
concerned with the quality of the air we breathe regardless of source) and
of point sources, such as large industrial facilities. The program features
motor vehicle inspection and monitoring (I/M) stations in Anchorage and
Fairbanks (due to the air quality problems associated with autos and cold
winters) and air quality permits for larger individual sources.
- Pesticides
The pesticides program is concerned with misuse of pesticides
(misapplication, illegally high concentrations), mislabeling, certification
of applicators of restricted use pesticides (the most toxic ones), and
import of pesticides that fail to conform to federal criteria for labeling
and use. Marketplace inspections are the most common means of discovering
violators.
- Toxics
Asbestos and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are the primary toxics of
concern. The asbestos program focuses on demolition and renovation of
buildings, with the attendant problem of asbestos waste disposal. The PCB
program is aimed at one of our most toxic pollutants, which is most commonly
found in electric utility equipment, such as transformers. The improper
disposal of PCBs in the past has contributed to some of our worst Superfund
problems.
Hazardous Waste Programs
- CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act) — "Superfund"
This program is designed to identify and investigate hazardous waste
disposal sites which are threats to public health or the environment. The
most serious sites are included on the National Priority List (NPL) where
they become eligible for federal cleanup financing (the so-called Superfund)
with the additional potential for cost recovery from the parties responsible
for the waste dump.
- RCRA
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act is designed to avoid
creation of future Superfund sites by regulating wastes from creation to
disposal ("cradle to grave"). EPA licenses disposal sites to handle
hazardous wastes only if they can demonstrate adequate technology,
appropriate management practices, and financial resources to minimize the
chance that they will become an environmental hazard.
-------
11
- Spill Response
EPA provides emergency response capability in the event of a spill or
release requiring urgent measures. Several oil spills and a formaldehyde
release at Moose Pass have brought EPA staffers out for emergency spill
response, often in conjunction with state officials.
- US!
The LIST program (Underground Storage Tanks) is designed to combat the
unseen leakage of substances, usually oil and gas, from their underground
repositories. A 1984 law requires these tanks to be manufactured and
installed so as to minimize corrosion, and provides for monitoring of the
tanks in case of leakage after installation.
------- |