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.

-------