Region V Public Report
JUNE 1972
-------
STATE AIR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Ruckelshaus And Mayo Approve Plans
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced
approval of most parts of State plans to implement na-
tional ambient air quality standards in Illinois, In-
diana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ohio.
National primary standards to protect health, and sec-
ondary standards to protect public welfare, were pro-
mulgated by EPA for six pollutants on April 30, 1971.
To achieve these clean-air objectives, all states sub-
mitted implementation plans which outline procedures
and regulations for reducing emissions from most major
sources of air pollution throughout the nation. EPA's
approval of these plans makes these regulations en-
forceable by the Federal government as well as by the
States.
Region V Administrator Francis T. Mayo complimented
State pollution control agencies in the midwest, "for
coming up with overall good plans in the brief amount
of time allowed and which hopefully will go a long
way towards improving the health of the 40 million
Americans in Region V.
Mayo said that states in Region V are continuing to
work on regulations to carry out their plans for imple-
menting the national standards and that some of the
deficiencies EPA has identified could well be remedied
by state action before EPA is required to promulgate
its own regulations by July 31, 1972.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA was required to approve
or disapprove the plans by May 31, 1972. The objective
of the plans is to allow States to achieve by mid-1975
standards to protect the public health, and levels pro-
tective of public welfare (secondary standards) within
a "reasonable time."
If a state fails to revise a plan that EPA has found
unacceptable, the Agency is empowered under the Act to
design and promulgate which ever sections are necessary
to meet the standards. The standards established last
year by EPA are for six pollutants: sulfur oxides,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, photochemical
oxidants, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons.
In a "Preamble" to the Federal Register publication of
the approved and disapproved sections of the state
plans, it was stated that a shortage of low sulful ox-
ide fuels may affect the meeting of secondary standards
in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio.
The combined effect of the implementation plans will
make a major contribution toward preserving not only
the quality of life in the United States but in pro-
tecting the health of many millions of Americans,"
said EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus in his
statement to the press. "The health of an estimated
177,000,000 persons in this country residing in areas
of high air pollution is threatened. These include
those suffering from emphysema and other respiratory
diseases, those with heart and circulatory problems as
well as individuals whose otherwise healthy state
might be subject to impairment. All of them will
benefit substantially from the controls imposed by
these plans," Ruckelshaus said.
The following major disapprovals were made by EPA for
Region V state plans:
Illinois
* The State plan does not provide adequate episode
stage criteria to prevent the reaching of "Significant
Harm" levels established by EPA. The plan does not
provide for obtaining emission control action programs
for all pertinent sources.
* The plan does not provide an adequate description
of the resources available to the state for the Metro-
politan Chicago Interstate Region and does not provide
for an agreed upon role between the City of Chicago and
the State agency.
* The strategy presented for the attainment of the
particulate and sulfur dioxide ambient air standards
within the Metropolitan Chicago Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region is not adequate due to the unenforce-
ability of the pertinent regulations.
Chronological order of events involving EPA action on state implementation plans:
By June 21st (2 to 3 weeks following
May 31st announcement)
EPA announcement of proposed corrective regulations corresponding
to previously disapproved portions of state plans. Also, concur-
rent EPA announcement of public hearings on Federally proposed re-
gulations, including the dates and locations of such hearings.
By July 21st (within 30 days of
hearing announcement)
EPA holding of public hearings at previously announced times and
locations.
By July 31st
EPA promulgation of corrective regulations unless such action has
been taken by the effected states and that such equivalent correc-
tive regulations passed by the state are in effect at this time.
Any EPA promulgation of regulations will be conducted through Fed-
eral Register notice.
February 15, 1973
EPA to reveive all compliance schedules not previously submitted to
EPA by the respective states, or originally submitted to EPA within
the implementation plan.
-------
Francis T. Mayo addresses the news conference on
the state implementation plans for Region V.
Indiana
* The legal authority for various local agencies
within the State is inadequate to carry out their as-
signed roles.
* The control strategies presented for meeting par-
ticulate matter and photochemical oxidant standards
for the Metropolitan Indianapolis Intrastate Air Qual-
ity Control Region are inadequate.
* The compliance schedules for sources of carbon
monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and hydrocarbons, extending
over 18 months are unacceptable as they do not provide
for periodic increments of progress. Also, no legally
enforceable compliance schedules for sources of Sulfur
dioxide were set forth in the plan.
* The plan does not have adequate procedures for
determining whether construction or modification will
result in violations of applicable control strategies.
Also, the plan has no legally enforceable procedures
for disapproving construction or modification.
* Emission limitations for particulate matter in
the Metropolitan Chicago Intrastate Region have not
been adopted.
Michigan
* The requirements for meeting Nitrogen dioxide
standards have not been met since the plan does not
provide for the degree Nitrogen oxide emission re-
duction attainable through existing technology in the
Metropolitan Detroit-Pt. Huron and Central Michigan
Intrastate Regions and the Metropolitan Toledo Inter-
state Region.
* Compliance schedules requirements are not met
since the State's sulfur dioxide regulations provided
for individual compliance schedules to be submitted
after the first required semi-annual report on Feb. 15,
1973.
Minnesota
* In the section dealing with new sources and mod-
ifications, the definition of "new" and "existing"
sources are inadequate. Also, the requirements are
not met since there is no procedure which provides
that approval of any construction or modification
should not affect the responsibility of the sources
to comply with pertinent emission regulations.
Ohio
* Compliance schedules for particulate and sulfur
dioxide sources which extend over 18 months, do not
provide for periodic progress check points.
Wisconsin
* State law precludes the release of emission data
in certain situations.
* The control strategy for sulfur oxides in the
Southeastern Minnesota-LaCrosse Interstate Region is
disapproved since a public hearing was not held on
the strategy and associated regulations.
* State emergency levels for carbon monoxide and
for the product of sulfur dioxide and particulate
matter are at levels equal to or greater than those
levels which could cause significant harm to health
of persons.
Excerpts From The Preamble
To The Federal Register
The approval and promulgation of the air implementa-
tion plans was released in detail in the May 31 Fed-
eral Register. Following are portions of the preamble
outlining the background leading to the approvals.
On April 30, 1971 (36 F.R. 8186), pursuant to section
109 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Administrator'
promulgated national ambient air quality standards for
sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen
dioxide. Within 9 months thereafter, each State was
required by section 110 of the Act to adopt and submit
to the Administrator a plan which provides for the im-
plementation, maintenance, and enforcement of national
ambient air quality standards within each air quality
control region in the State. An additional period of
no longer than 18 months may be allowed for adoption
and submittal of that portion of a plan relating to
implementation of secondary ambient air quality stand-
ards. State plans must provide for attainment of na-
tional primary ambient air quality standards within 3
years after the date of the Administrator's approval
of such plans, except that a 2-year extension of this
deadline may be granted by the Administrator. State
plans must provide for attainment of national second-
ary ambient air quality standards within a reasonable
next page please
-------
time. Within 4 months from the date on which State
plans were required to be submitted, the Administrator
must approve or disapprove such plans or portions
thereof.
On August 14, 1971 (36 F.R. 15486), the Administrator
promulgated regulations (40 CFR Part 51) setting
forth requirements for preparation, adoption, and sub-
mittal of State implementation plans. These regula-
tions were amended October 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 20513),
and December 30, 1971 (36 F.R. 25233), to make certain
additions and corrections. The Administrator's regu-
lations (40 CFR Part 51) provided generally that State
plans must set forth a control strategy for attainment
and maintenance of the national standards; legally en-
forceable regulations and compliance schedules for im-
plementation of the control strategy; a contingency
plan for preventing the occurrence of air pollution
levels which would cause significant harm to the health
of persons; source surveillance procedures; procedures
to assure that construction or modification of station-
ary sources will not interfere with attainment or main-
tenance of the national standards; provisions for air
quality surveillance; a description of the resources
needed to carry out the State plan; and provisions for
intergovernmental cooperation... .Each State plan must
also show that the State has the legal authority nec-
essary to carry out the plan, as specified by 40 CFR
51.11. States were required to conduct one or more
public hearings prior to adoption of their implementa-
tion plans.
All 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa have
submitted implementation plans....
Where the Administrator disapproves a State plan or
portion thereof, or where a State fails to submit an
implementation plan or portion thereof, the Adminis-
trator is required, under section 110(c) of the Act,
to propose and subsequently promulgate regulations
setting forth a substitute implementation plan or por-
tion thereof. Where regulatory portions of a State
plan, including control strategies and related rules
and regulations, are disapproved or were not submit-
ted, regulations setting forth substitute portions
will be proposed and promulgated. When disapproved
portions are of a nonregulatory nature, e.g., air
quality surveillance, resources, intergovernmental
cooperation, and therefore are not susceptible to
correction through promulgation of regulations by the
Administrator, detailed comments will be included in
the evaluation report; in such cases, the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency will work with the States to
correct the deficiencies
The Act directs the Administrator to require a State
to revise its implementation plan whenever he finds
that it is substantially inadequate for attainment
and maintenance of a national standard. In accord-
ance with the statutory mandate, the Environmental
Protection Agency will make a continuing evaluation
of the State plans and will, as necessary, call upon
the States to make revisions.
ATTAINMENT OF PRIMARY STANDARDS
The Act requires attainment of primary standards as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 3
years from the date of the Administrator's approval of
a State plan except where an extension is granted by
the Administrator; it requires attainment of secondary
standards within a reasonable time. Except where ex-
tensions have been requested, State plans generally
provide for attainment of the primary standards in 3
Mayo (1.) and Frank Corrado, Director of Public
Affairs (r.) meet the press. The conference was
standing room only.
years. Whether more expeditious attainment of the
primary standards is practicable is a question that
will be subject to continuing examination in connection
with the Administrator's review of the compliance sched-
ules and progress reports to be submitted by the States
and as part of the Administrator's continuing surveil-
lance of State activities. It is already clear, how-
ever, that the aggregate emission control requirements
of the 55 State plans will create such a great demand
for clean fuels, emission control equipment, and other
items that attainment of the primary standards in many
urban areas in significantly less time than 3 years
generally will not be feasible.
The preamble continues, detailing requirements for
state plans and discussions of the plans in general
with particular reference to legal authority, main-
tenance of standards, fuel availability, transporta-
tion control measures, compliance schedules, emergen-
cy episodes, enforcement and data availability.
Specific discussion of each state plan forms the body
of the Federal Register.
On May 30, 1972, Judge Pratt, of the District Court
for the District of Columbia, issued an order requiring
the Administrator of EPA to review State implementation
plans to determine what action, if any, must be taken
by States to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in regions where existing air quality is better
than national secondary ambient standards. The order
gives the Administrator 4 months to complete this re-
view and an additional 2 months to promulgate require-
ments which are needed to prevent significant deterior-
ation of air quality in those regions. The order did
not prohibit the Administrator from approving or dis-
approving State plans for all air quality regions in
accordance with existing EPA regulations, but provides
only for an additional subsequent review of the plans.
According to John R. Quarles, Jr., Assistant Adminis-
trator for Enforcement and General Counsel, EPA in-
tends to appeal the decision of the District Court.
"It is our view that the Court's action does not sign-
ificantly affect the action to be taken by the Admin-
istrator on May 31, 1972. Any regulations approved
on that date become part of the applicable implement-
ation plan and are enforceable by EPA."
-------
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
The Environmental Protection Agency is involved in en-
forcing pollution laws in three major areas: water,
air and pesticides. Sere is a short synopsis of just
what is involved in making the law apply in these three
areas at the regional level:
Water
Sec. 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 USC 1151) sets out procedures for two types of en-
forcement :
1. Pollution abatement procedures
2. Water quality standard enforcement procedures
1. Conference abatement procedures: The act provides
that the discharge of matter into interstate or navi-
gable waters which endangers the health or welfare of
any person is subject to abatement. The abatement pro-
ceeding is long and cumbersome. It involves three
steps: conference, hearing and court action. The con-
ference is an informal gathering of state and federal
agency representatives. It must be called if requested
by a state governor or state water pollution control
agency, and if interstate pollution is involved. Con-
ferences of this type have been held for all of the
Great Lakes Basins. Following a conference, a summary
of the discussion is prepared which includes such top-
ics as the occurrence of pollution subject to abatement,
the adequacy of measures taken towards abatement, and
the nature of the delays being encountered in abating
the pollution.
If, at the close of the conference, it appears that the
pollution abatement is not progressing, the Federal gov-
ernment recommends that the appropriate state agency
take remedial action. If such action is not taken with-
in six months, public hearing must be called, to be held
before a board. The board must then recommend remedial
action and an appropriate schedule. If the action is
not taken in the specified reasonable time required to
abate the pollution, the federal government may request
the attorney general to bring an enforcement suit.
2. Water quality standard enforcement proceedings:
Once the states have set their water quality standards,
the discharge of matter into interstate waters which
reduces the quality of such waters below the water qual-
ity standards is subject to abatement by court action.
However, 180 days must elapse between the time when the
discharger is notified of the violation and the time
when an abatement action is authorized. This is the
procedure: A 180-day notice is issued to the discharger
and a hearing is held at which the federal government
presides and at which the state pollution control agen-
cy and the discharger are present. All parties have an
opportunity to make statements. During the ensuing
180 days, the parties meet several times in order to
achieve voluntary compliance with water quality stand-
ards, or a new schedule for achieving such compliance.
Should all else fail, at the end of the 180 days, a
court action may be brought. If there is no proof of
interstate effects, the consent of the Governor must be
obtained before the Federal government may file suit
against the discharger.
3. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, often referred
to as the Refuse Act, forbids the discharge into navi-
gable waters or their tributaries "any refuse matter of
any kind or description whatever other than that flowing
from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liq-
uid state." Civil actions for injunctive relief under
the Refuse Act are preferred for continuous, industrial
discharges. A criminal action is used primarily for ac-
cidental or sporadic incidents, such as oil spills.
This act may be used only against industries.
Criminal prosecutions may be recommended in cases of
isolated or instantaneous discharges resulting in seri-
ous damage, such as a fish kill. Such cases may be re-
ferred to the local U.S. Attorney without clearance from
Headquarters. Before recommending any enforcement ac-
tion, the Regional Office must assess that satisfactory
progress in controlling the pollution is unlikely in
the absence of enforcement proceedings. The discharger
should be notified of the problem and the fact that the
region is giving serious consideration to the initiation
of enforcement proceedings. The Regional Office, prior
to the action, should determine with some specificity
the nature of the treatment required to control the
pollution.
Civil actions may not be referred directly to the U.S.
Attorneys. Recommendations for enforcement proceedings,
together with appropriate investigator reports and data
(usually furnished by the District Office, Coast Guard,
or obtainable from the state pollution control agency),
are reviewed by the Regional Office for legal sufficiency
and then transmitted to Headquarters for final approval.
If a recommendation is approved, the Regional Office is
notified and only then refers the case to the U.S. At-
torney for his consideration. He may, of course, ac-
cept the case or decline prosecution.
This is the procedure for all enforcement recommendations
to Headquarters. When they are submitted for review, un-
less the Regional Office is notified by Headquarters in
writing or by telegram not to proceed, the Region is free
to go forward with the enforcement action at the end of
14 days after the recommendation is actually mailed to
Headquarters. However, in all cases where a proposed
enforcement action involves a novel theory of law, an
abnormal factual setting or other circumstances present-
ing significant policy issue, the Region must identify
such factors and indicate that it will await actual ap-
proval by Headquarters before proceeding. Also, some
cases may be of such national or major importance that
they will be handled out of the Washington office, rath-
er than the Regional Office.
Air
Thus far there are three main fields of federal enforce-
ment thrust under the Clean Air Act:
A. Implementation plans
B. New source performance standards
C. Hazardous emission standards.
The tools for federal enforcement essentially fall into
five categories.
1. Orders to comply may be issued for violation of an
implementation plan after 30 days notice, to inspect or
otherwise obtain information about a source for purposes
of establishing a violation or developing standards, or
violation of new source or hazardous pollutant standards.
They generally do not take effect until the polluter has
had opportunity for a conference with the Administrator.
This opportunity is not available when there is a viola-
tion of hazardous standards. Failure to comply with an
administrative order is subject to criminal penalties.
2. Civil actions may be sought in the appropriate dis-
trict courts for violations of state implementation
plans, new source standards or hazardous emission stand-
ards, or to enforce administrative orders.
please turn to page 14
-------
J^<
'
^~
.•-,-.
'
•
. • • .- ,
**-A*~
-•«• iiwQ
> CENTER
.A. i * Vl/
BACK TO NATURE IN KALAMAZOO
"All we had was an idea--we recognized the need to re-
gain contact with the natural world," recalled Dr. Lewis
Batts, Executive Director of the Kalamazoo Nature Cen-
ter. And today, that idea has become a reality that
brings thousands of people back to nature in Kalamazoo,
Michigan.
The idea of the Kalamazoo Nature Center was conceived
twelve years ago when a beech and maple woods north of
Kalamazoo appeared destined to become a gravel pit,
asphalt plant, or maybe even a sanitary landfill. This
threat precipitated a move on the part of Dr. Batts and
several other Kalamazoo citizens to try to preserve the
woods as a refuge for natural life and as a place for
people to come into contact with nature undisturbed.
The center became a reality as individual Kalamazoo
citizens made donations towards the purchase of 512
acres of land which would eventually constitute the
present Nature Center.
The somewhat vague idea that formed the original basis
for the project has been clarified. Today the nature
center is maintained as a non-profit, environmental ed-
ucation organization, dedicated to the task of develop-
ing in all citizens an understanding of man's true re-
lationship to his natural environment.
With environmental education as a goal, the center's
activities have expanded to incorporate an entire en-
vironmental education program that has recently been
accepted as an official adjunct to the Kalamazoo School
system. The program, designed to instill an environ-
mental awareness, in young children has brought about
development of a complete curriculum as well as plan-
ned tours of the nature center grounds. The recently
built Interpretive Center—a two-story geodesic dome--
incorporates a Sun-Rain Room housing glacial boulders
and tropical plants, exhibits interpreting ecological
principles, a Reference Library, an Orientation Room
and other offices and rooms that constitute an ex-
citing educational facility.
As an extension of its education program for youth, the
Center sponsors Environmental Education Workshops to
involve teachers in learning methods, techniques, and
concepts of environmental education. Education students
from Kalamazoo's Western Michigan University may now do
their student or special teaching project at the Nature
Center. In addition, education activities extend be-
yond the school year to various summer youth programs,
emphasizing understanding and wise management of our
resources. Programs for adults vary from the active,
such as bicycling trips, to the sedentary, such as film
showings.
please turn to page 8.
6
-------
Below: An aerial view of the nature center illustrates the interesting struc-
ture of the Interpretive Center which incorporates a Sun-Rain Room, a Reference
Library, an Orientation Room, and other offices and rooms that make up the ed-
ucational facility. Clearly marked trails and unspoiled scenery make hiking
through the 512 acres a pleasure.
-------
In addition to the education and nature programs, a Hu-
man Environment House has been established. Headed by
Arnold Leeder, its aim is to provide for environmental
action. Activities range from the establishment of the
first recycling center in Kalamazoo to a continuous
program of monitoring of governmental activities on the
environment. By maintaining a constant awareness of
environmental developments, including key bills in Con-
gress, Refuse Act Permit applications, and state agency
actions, the Nature Center can provide an additional ed-
ucational function by alerting people as to what is hap-
pening. For those who have already been alerted, the
Center will research a subject and provide information.
In fact a consulting service has been established and
is allowing the staff of the center to develop relation-
ships with industry, by providing industry with inform-
ation. The research staff of the environmental action
program has done projects ranging from a bird census
based on field work in the western Michigan area, to a
study of pollution in Gull Lake, one of the most attrac-
tive residential lake areas in Western Michigan. In
each case the staff attempts not only to get the scien-
tific facts into understandable form but to outline
what can be done, what should be done and what will be
done.
The acreage has been divided into three sections. Over
300 acres have physically been retained as a natural area
with relatively undisturbed meadow, marshland, a trout
stream, ponds, thickets, young woodlands and the mature
beech-maple forest. The remaining 200 acres demonstrate
two types of land use management: a 25-acre semi-natural
area is currently being developed as an arboretum and
garden; and the remaining acres demonstrate the highest
degree of man's utilization of the land through farming.
The farm includes a small Barnyard with farm animals.
As a private membership corporation, operation of the
programs and resources of the center is headed by Dr.
Batts, the Executive Director, who is elected by the
to take action on them. The purposes of the Kalamazoo
Nature Center--at the present time conscientious and
intense--will probably, as Dr. Batts hopes, become an
"integral part of our regular life."
Left: Arnold Leeder, head of the Human Environment
House. Right: Dr. Arnold Batts, Executive Director
of the Kalamazoo Nature Center.
board of 15 Trustees. The program is carried out by a
staff of about 16, assisted by members of VEINS, the
Center's volunteer organization. No government subsi-
dies are made to the center and private foundation fi-
nancing that has been received only once, from a local
Kalamazoo foundation for assistance in construction of
the Interpretive Center. The major portion of operating
funds derives from memberships, fees, special donations,
the farm program and the Natural History Shop. A third
of the budget comes from the endowment fund established
in the early days of the Center.
Dr. Batts concludes that to finance such a project "You
need people who have money--but they also must have a
philanthropic attitude about their community. Kalamazoo
is fortunate to have a few such families." But interest
in the purposes of the Kalamazoo Nature Center is not
exclusive to these primary supporters. Over 5000 people
within a 50 mile radius of Kalamazoo are members of the
Center. The idea is obviously attractive. Numerous
other nature centers have been established in various
states; yet Dr. Batts feels that no other center has
the same scope as this one--he has a good-sized full-
time staff; well-planned, attractive physical facili-
ties, and a large site.
As for the future, Dr. Batts hopes to see the day when,
"we can become less of an agitator and more of an in-
former. I hope that there won't be a need to do the
things Arnie Leeder is now doing. We would like to
see environmental education as a recognized, bona fide
part of the school curriculum."
Dr. Batts senses a resentment among people who already
know that we have environmental problems and now want
to know what to d£ about them. He continues, "The
problems have really already been exposed. Our role
will be to design ways to contribute to the solution
of these problems."
While the Kalajnazoo Nature Center will remain a natural
and beautiful refuge for an increasingly urbanized and
busy people, it will do more than teach children of
flowers and birds. The center will inform and influ-
ence citizens to understand environmental problems.
-------
AIR PROBLEMS IN MICHIGAN
Program Director Comments On Implementation Requirements
"The problems are many, and they're difficult and com- He said the State has totally funded its program in the
plex, but they're not new. They're problems that we've
been thinking about and working at for a long time."
past, but it has only been a $100,000 program, whereas
now the program will cost somewhere around $1,500,000.
These comments were made by Lee Jager, Director of the
Michigan Department of Public Health's Division of Air
Pollution Control regarding his State's air pollution
problems.
Michigan's air cleanup implementation plan submitted
to EPA last January and given qualified approval May 31
actually was initiated in 1967, according to Jager.
He noted that a new area in the implementation plan is
control of sulfur dioxide at the state level. "There
are going to be sources of sulfur dioxide in Michigan
that will be required to control their emissions which
in past years we may not have thought necessary."
Another new aspect of the Michigan program is its epi-
sode avoidance plan, according to Jager. Individual
industries will be required to take abatement steps to
prevent the buildup of pollutants rather than react at
some later date to correct a buildup.
"This is a new approach, and its a good approach," he
said. "It will insure that the residents of the State
of Michigan never need experience emergency episodes
of air pollution."
EXPERIENCING GROWING PAINS
The Air Division Director said one of his biggest prob-
lems right now is finding qualified people to carry out
the additional manpower requirements that his Division
has under the implementation plan.
As a result of this problem, Michigan must select people
with good potential and train them.
The agency has grown from a two-man program in the mid-
'60's to a present staff of 31. "If we can find the
right people before the end of the fiscal year this will
be up to 41," Jager said.
"Next year," he added, "if our budget request is ap-
proved by the State Legislature, we'll be up to 58 peo-
ple. This parallels closely the manpower requirements
that we had in the implementation plan."
"Well, the problems here are obvious. You can't find
that many experienced people, and when you bring on
that number of inexperienced people you have to divert
existing staff from their effective duties to training
and we have, quite frankly, during this period of ex-
pansion, noticed a drop-off in productivity." Obvious-
ly, you reach a point where you pick up steam and get
going. We're hopeful that this point is not too far
around the corner."
Jager said the renewal process leads to the problem of
finances. "The State obviously has limited resources
that it is willing to apply, or is able to apply, to
environmental tasks. The Federal government is very
generous in that it pays the major part of the program.
We've applied for a maintenance grant which, if ap-
proved, would fund the State program at 60 percent of
the cost of the program, which is substantial, but none-
theless, leaves 40 percent to be paid for by the State."
Lack of office and laboratory space is another problem
that Jager faces. The problem has been solved for the
time being with portable prefabricated classroom struc-
tures. "Not being able to really predict how far we're
going to grow or how fast we didn't want to commit our-
selves to permanent quarters too quickly."
"Obviously," he said, "we're outgrowing our laboratory
space at the same time we're outgrowing our office
space. We used to do a few hundred samples a year,
now we're doing several thousand analytical samples a
year."
Presently, Michigan Department of Public Health Labora-
tories are being utilized.
LEGAL SUPPORT NEEDED
"The greatest deficiency of this agency is the lack of
legal support, pure and simple," Jager said. "We have
had an attorney assigned to the commission by the At-
torney General, and based on his own estimate, he can
only supply somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of his
time."
He said the Division has had to write its regulations
with engineers, enforce them with engineers, prepare
complaints with engineers, and make preparations for
legal proceedings with engineers.
"Now, I'm not downgrading engineers," he said, "I hap-
pen to be one, but they are not trained in the legal
field and, therefore, are not as effective as properly
trained legal advisors."
"I think EPA would echo those sentiments," he added.
SPA'S COMMENTS ON THE MICHIGAN PLAN
The Michigan implementation plan like every other state
plan in Region V did not escape unscathed from the
close scrutiny of EPA's air standards analysis.
EPA disapproved two major aspects of the Michigan plan.
First, it said: "The requirements for meeting nitrogen
dioxide standards have not been met since the plan does
not provide for the degree of nitrogen oxide emission
reduction attainable through existing technology in
the Metropolitan Detroit-Port Huron and Central Michi-
gan Intrastate Regions and the Metropolitan Toledo In-
terstate Region."
And, second, the Agency said: "Compliance schedules
requirements are not met since the State's sulfur di-
oxide regulations provided for individual compliance
schedules to be submitted after the first required
semi-annual report on Feb. 15, 1973."
DIRECTOR EXPRESSES VIEWS
"It's no secret that we're in disagreement with EPA on
a number of significant points," said Jager.
"We view rather skeptically the view of the Federal
government that oxides of nitrogen are a serious air
pollution problem in the State of Michigan," he said.
please turn to page 14
-------
EPA PROGRAM NOTES:
left: Valdas Adamkus, Deputy Regional Admin istator
for Region V. right: Charles Ovnbey, newly appointed
Ohio River Basin Coordinator.
Valdas V. Au.-iikus, Deputy Administrator of the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency's Midwest Region, has been
designated to serve as a member of the U.S. Delegation
on the Environment to visit the U.S.S.R. in July.
Adamkus says: "The delegation will help formulate spe-
cific proposals for joint cooperation between the
United States and the Russians under the new agreement
signed by the President on May 23 during his trip to
the Soviet Union."
The agreement commits both nations to long-term cooper-
ation in the study and prevention of pollution and de-
velopment of the basis for controlling the impact of
human activities on nature.
The U.S. delegation is scheduled to arrive in Moscow
for a five-week visit on July 8. The agency will in-
clude visits to Moscow, Leningrad, and Kiev, with ad-
ditional excursions expected.
Adamkus, a native Lithuanian, is the only member of the
seven-man delegation who speaks Russian and is familiar
with the region. The delegation will be headed by
Thomas E. Carroll, EPA Assistant Administrator for Man-
agement. Other members include: Gerlad W. Werdig
(Washington, D.C.), Richard Sullivan (New Jersey),
Stanton P. Coerr (Washington, D.C.), Dr. John Buckley
(Washington), and John Convery (Cincinnati).
Adamkus expects that the visit will aid in familiarizing
the U.S. Delegation with the pollution problems of the
U.S.S.R. with particular emphasis on water pollution.
In addition, he says "a closer relationship should de-
velop between the environmental agencies of the U.S.
and the Soviet Ministery for Science and Technology
which handles environmental protection in the U.S.S.R."
Adamkus has been with EPA and its predecessors since
1970 serving as Deputy Director of the Ohio Basin Re-
gional Office prior to assuming his duties as Deputy
Regional Administrator for the states of Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. He
was formerly a consulting engineer in Chicago.
Charles R. Ownbey has been appointed Ohio River Basin
Coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection A-
gency. Francis T. Mayo, Administrator for Region V,
said "The opening of this new office and the appoint-
ment of Mr. Ownbey emphasize EPA's continuing concern
for the pollution problems along the Ohio River. Mayo
expressed the hope that the appointment of Ownbey will
facilitate communication at all levels of government
in the effort to combat pollution of the Ohio River.
Ownbey assumed his new duties June 11. He has been
with EPA and its predecessor agencies in the Federal
water pollution control program since 1959. From 1968
to the present he served as Chief of the Planning
Branch of the Office of Water Programs in Region V and
as principal liaison with the Corps of Engineers in its
water quality management studies in the Region. He was
Director of a 6-year comprehensive study of water qual-
ity problems of the Great Lakes and Illinois River
Drainage Basins. He has also served with the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
In expectation of his new duties, Ownbey emphasizes
that "Because the Ohio is one of the largest rivers in
the nation, the control of the quality and quantity of
the river water is vital to the welfare of citizens of
the area and to the economy of the nation. It is in
recognition of the importance of the river that EPA
has taken this step."
Illinois, Michigan, Indiana and Minnesota have been
awarded a total of $591,400 in additional funds for
their water pollution control programs by Region V,
according to James Marth, Region V Director of State
and Interstate Programs.
The funds, which are in addition to grants already re-
ceived for these programs, were made available under
Section 7 of the Water Pollution Control State Program
Grants for Fiscal Year 1972, Marth said.
"All six states in Region V were eligible for addition-
al funds," Marth said. The increases available by
state were as follows: Illinois, $215,450; Indiana,
$116,900; Michigan, $180,050; Minnesota, $79,000; Ohio,
$223,900; and Wisconsin, $99,750.
10
-------
LOCAL AND NATIONAL
EPA is sponsoring three two-week environmental educa-
tion workshops for high school teachers to be offered
this summer in Las Vegas, Neveda. The workshops will
be presented by EPA's Western Environmental Research
Laboratory and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
under a contract awarded to the University by EPA's
Office of Public Affairs.
The workshops are designed to encourage establishment
of meaningful environmental programs at the high
school level. The intensive two-week sessions will
bring together classroom teachers and experts from
the EPA, from academic, business, and government sec-
tors to discuss ways of defining, attacking and
solving environmental problems at the community level,
and ways of involving youth in these projects.
Some of the water pollution leaders from States in
Region V attended a briefing on legislation pending
in Congress at EPA's midwest headquarters during May.
Among those leaders present were (from back left)
Roy Porteous, Businessmen for the Public Interest,
Chicago; Constance Herman, Illinois Womens Federation;
Becky Muir, LWV of Indiana; Louise Rome, LWV of Ill-
inois; Janet Johnson, LWV of Winnetka, Illinois;
Helen Bicker, of the Indiana Division AAUW (American
Association of University Women); (front left) Paul
Leach, Director, Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
Lansing; Lee Botts, Lake Michigan Federation; Betty
Hirlihy, LWV of Indiana; Marian Kroscher, LWV of
Wisconsin; Beverly Driscoll, League of Women Voters
(LWV) of Minnesota.
A leading U.S. authority on Dutch elm disease, Dr. A.
Charles Lincoln, has been named director of the Region
V Pesticides Branch.
The Pesticide Branch is part of the Region V Categori-
cal Programs Division headed by James M. Conlon. In
addition to pesticides, Categorical Programs has re-
sponsibility for the agency's regional programs deal-
ing with solid waste management and radiation.
"In addition to having principal operational responsi-
bility for agency pesticide programs in the Region,"
Region V Administrator Francis T. Mayo said, "Dr. Lin-
coln will be the chief regional contact with state,
local, and other Federal agencies in relation to the
Agency's pesticide efforts."
The new Pesticide Branch chief will be responsible for
the day-to-day operation of the Regional pesticides
program, including domestic marketing surveillance,
accident investigation, and the principal technical
assistance efforts related to the assessment and con-
trol of pesticides, within the scope of agency respon-
sibility.
Officials of Region V said 10 water supplies in the
Region were classified in May as having met estab-
lished Federal standards for use by interstate car-
riers.
They are: the City of Cleveland, Ohio; and the Wis-
consin cities of LaCrosse, Sturgeon Bay, Oshkosh,
Sheboygan, Superior, Eau Claire, Madison, Manitowoc,
and Green Bay.
EPA Region V Administrator Francis T. Mayo said:
"Under Federal quarantine regulations, water supplies
from which buses, trains, and airplanes take tlu- water
which they serve to their passengers, must meet stand-
ards set by EPA."
The EPA approvals are part of an ongoing inspection
program by the Agency designed to assist the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration with its responsibility
for certifying water used by interstate carrj T». \t
present, 85 water supplies in Region V are ;<• -J
under the program.
II
-------
MENTAL GUIDELINES FOR SUMMER HOMES
Although Michigan has an aggressive phosph
I Inland Lake Studies Section of the Michigan Water
'ources Commission recently published a set of
•vironmental guidelines" for Michigan inland* lalfee-
The publication said that researchers have
certain types of soil filter out most of
rus and other nutrients before such
the lakes.
potential resultant pollution."
publication points out the primary responsibility
'vjror the water quality of inland lakes lies with the
•-•Cities, villages or townships in which they are lo-
' Vated.
It says Michigan property owners who have notified
local officials about known discharges of raw sewage,
,oil or other pollutants into their lake and have seen
no correction of the problem should contact their
Michigan Water Resources Commission in Lansing.
The guidelines are broken down into nine areas. These
include nutrients, septic tanks, shoreline lawns, silt
and debris, boa-ts, pesticide and herbicide ,sprayingys*.^
litter, the need for lake level stabflizati6n1%^nd/'-^x
,-.-,I,,,K, i ,*„».!„„ o£ j-jje lakes. • " s ' , ^."V'vjw
'*£.'
'.&,
Lakefront owners who have septic tank
should take special care to minimize the
detergents used for laundering, it said.
the amount of phosphate detergents used
reduced through experimentation.
« >""
"If surface water drains are installed on $>ur, proper-
ty, be certain they are far enough from yoilr^sew^ge
system," it cautions, or, "sewage, i;e§^|j^.-,fliay", reach
the lake through these
- "
•!," it empha-
systems can
Nutrients, especially the "phosphates present in human
waste^ 3l|3 e contacted for direct^pn
and maintenance of septic tank sy:
>
"• * *
Shoreline Lavms '
Shoreline lawns are not recommend
ists and ecologists. "For better
quality and surrounding lake veget
"the shoreline should && left in ij
Officials
ier location
nservation-
ion of water
it says,
ral state."
.', lizing al-
Lakefront property owners intent ori ., , „
ready, es"lablished lawns are advisei^t tt .ke the fol-
lowing precautions suggested by Projfe,, 'd G. Ellis
of Michigan State University.
12
-------
First, the soil should be tested to determine if the
lawn needs phosphorus and potassium. "This is par-
ticularly important," says Prof. Ellis, "in that most
fertilizers on the market for lawn use contain more
phosphorus and potassium than the grass actually
requires."
Consequently, he says, use of mixed fertilizers leads
to the increase of phosphorus in the soil. He says
this increase is readily detected by soil testing,
and points out that County Cooperative Extension
Agents will provide soil testing information.
Second, nitrogen fertilizer should be applied when
the grass is actively growing to minimize loss of
nutrients to nearby lakes or streams. "For the most
effective application," adds Prof. Ellis, begin fer-
tilizing in the spring when temperatures are suffi-
ciently warm to produce growth of grass and discontin-
ue before the grass ceases to grow in the fall, with
the last application not later than August 15."
Silt and Debris
Turning to the subject of silt and debris, the guide-
lines caution that when they are washed from the land
around construction sites they blanket fish spawning
beds and food supplies. "Steep banks and exposed
soil require immediate seeding and mulching or
planting of native vegetation to deter erosion."
In Michigan permits for lake dredging, filling,
building a beach or constructing a dam must be ob-
tained through application with the Hydrological
Survey Division, Bureau of Water Management, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Stevens T. Mason Building,
Lansing, 48926.
Boats
All boats equipped with sanitary facilities must have
sewage holding tanks, recirculating self-contained
marine toilets or sewage incinerator devices, under
the 1970 Watercraft Pollution Control Act 167.
"Because fewer such recreational boats are found on
inland lakes," say the guidelines, "the law is most
often of concern to boat owners traveling the Great
Lakes."
However, says the publication, the discharge of raw
sewage into any Michigan waters is illegal. The
nearest conservation officer of sheriff's department
should be contacted about a known violation of this
law, it urges.
The guidelines point out that owners of these properly
equipped boats who are far from Great Lakes marina
pumpout stations can empty holding tanks at one of
the many gasoline filling stations equipped for travel
trailer waste disposal. "Houseboats should be con-
nected to an on-land septic tank or sewage system,"
it adds.
Pesticide and Herbicide Spraying
Pesticide and herbicide spraying on and around the
lakes can damage the environment if improper proce-
dures or products are used, according to the guide-
lines .
"To safeguard Michigan waters against possible con-
tamination from chemical weed killers," it says, "the
Department of Natural Resources is now requiring per-
mits for the use of any aquatic herbicide to be ap-
plied in public lakes, ponds or streams." The DNR
Fisheries Division determines which bodies of water
may be sprayed for weeds and what chemicals may be
used in each case.
Persons considering a water weed control project are
urged to keep in mind that certain water plants are
food for waterfowl.
"Insect spraying near lakes should be applied with
caution," the guidelines admonish, "giving wind di-
rection and approved pesticides first consideration."
The Michigan Natural Resources Department's Research
and Development and Information and Education Divi-
sions and Bureau of Water Management have available
a free list of "Pesticide Dos and Don'ts."
Litter
"Litter poses a continuous pollution problem for our
lakes and streams," it says. "Every citizen should
be reminded that litter accumulated on ice-covered
lakes during the winter will end up in the water or
on the beach in the spring."
Lake Level Stabilization
The need for lake level stabilization has been recog-
nized since the first change in the State Constitution
in 1908, according to the guidelines. "Since that
time," they point out, "Michigan has had a. succession
of inland lake level laws."
Under the current Michigan law. Act 146, P.A. of 1961
as amended, the guidelines say, each County Board of
Commissioners has the authority and responsibility in
lake level matters. "Lake front property owners can
seek aid through request or through a 2/3 petition of
waterfront freeholders to the Commissioners."
Usually, they say, the cost for establishing and main-
taining a legal level or levels is minor in comparison
to the benefits received. Although the Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources cannot make field surveys
and engineering reports as was once the case, they
add, DNR continues to aid lakefront property owners
by advising and reviewing reports, plans and specifi-
cations prepared by consultants.
Rehabilitation of the Lakes
Rehabilitation of lakes by dredging or other means
under Act 345 of 1966 is extremely expensive. Inland
Lake Renewal Projects, sponsored by the States of
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, are actively
searching for successful renewal techniques and water
quality protection methods.
"Michigan environmental laws have been gceatly
strengthened during the past few years," according
to the guidelines. "However," it adds, "the active
interest and support of every citizen is necessary
if we are to preserve our Water Wonderland."
13
-------
continued from page 9
He said his Agency pointed out in its implementation
plan that the method of analysis used by EPA is in ap-
propriate.
"The standard was actually based on another method of
analysis that would give a two-to-one difference," he
said, "and the difference quite frankly is that you
either have an air quality problem or you don't, de-
pending on which method of analysis that you use."
(Editor's Note: EPA has obtained information placing
doubts on its reference analysis procedure for nitrogen
dioxide. Further analysis of ambient air levels may
result in re-classification of high priority (Priority
I) regions such as Metropolitan Detroit-Port Huron and
the Central Michigan Interstate Region. This will re-
sult in postponing the effective date for control ac-
tion from December 1972 to July 1973. This in no way
affects the 1975 cleanup deadline for nitrogen dioxide
or the actual ambient air standard itself.)
Jager said that if either Michigan or EPA adopts EPA's
proposed rule on nitrogen dioxide in Michigan, it may
well change the mind of many of those industries that
have announced programs for the reduction of particu-
lates and sulfur dioxide based on conversion of coal
to oil or coal to gas.
"This is because EPA would limit the emissions of oxide
of nitrogen from oil or gas," he said, "but would not
limit the emission of oxides of nitrogen from coal-
burning sources."
It could very well be, he pointed out, that if EPA pro-
ceeds to adopt this rule that they will make it impos-
sible to attain air quality standards for particulates
or sulfur dioxide emissions.
"We can't argue with the philosophy of making air qual-
ity better," he said. "Nobody can argue with that phi-
losophy."
But, he asked, is it a proper allocation of resources
at this critical point in time and on the other hand
does it interfere with other control installations?
"In this case, specifically nitrogen dioxide," he
stated, "it would do both. It would interfere with
other control programs and it would drastically divert
needed resources away from other control programs."
Jager argued for a realistic approach in the use of re-
sources. "There are only a finite number of resources
that are going to be applied to environmental cleanup,"
he pointed out. "To spend them in the wrong place is
certainly subject to question."
He said EPA appears to be committed to a technical
point of the Clean Air Act amendments and cannot recog-
nize the fact that measurements may not be a true indi-
cation of what air quality is.
"Measurements are only as accurate as the procedures
used," he noted, "and the fact that any analytical pro-
cedure gives you an answer does not necessarily mean
that the answer is correct, particularly in the face
of the vast majority of scientific evidence that that
measurement is incorrect and other procedures would
give a more reliable answer."
continued from page 5
3. Penalties of up to $5,000 and/or one year imprison-
ment per day of violation may be sought where there is
a failure to comply with an administrative order for
violation of state implementation plan during period
of federally assumed enforcement after 30 days notice,
or violation of new source or hazardous pollutant emis-
sion standards. The fine may be increased to $50,000
and/or two years imprisonment per day of violation on
a second conviction.
4. In addition, in order to determine if a violation
has occurred, the administrator is empowered to inspect,
monitor, test, require recordkeeping, etc. Any falsifi-^
cation of records or tampering with equipment is subject
to a fine of $10,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment.
5. Emergency authority is granted the Administrator un-
der Section 303. He is empowered to immediately enjoin
a polluter if the source is presenting "an imminent and
substantial endangerment to health" and state and local
authorities are inactive. Imminent and substantial en-
dangerment has not been defined by the Clean Air Act,
but EPA proposed regulations for the states who must
set up emergency programs in their plans based on 24-
hour concentrations at "danger" levels with an expecta-
tion that meteorological conditions will continue for
another 12 hours.
Pesticides
Members of Region V Enforcement Division and Pesticides
Division attended a two day training course conducted
by the Pesticides Enforcement Division in Washington,
D.C. The training course was designed to provide to
the region the knowledge needed to enforce the non-re-
gistration provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Region V will soon be enforcing the non-registration
provisions of FIFRA. The inspectors in the field will
spot the non-registered product and call Washington to
determine if the product is in fact non-registered.
The Pesticides Division, once non-registration is con-
firmed, will prepare a case file for the enforcement
division. The enforcement division will review the
casefile and send a citation to the violator who has 20
days to request a hearing or respond in writing. After
the hearing the enforcement division prepares the case*
file for referral to the U.S. Attorney and furnishing
him support in prosecution of the case. The maximum
fine is $1,000 under FIFRA for non-registered items.
In addition to non-registration Region V will be han-
dling certain mislabeling violations. These bring a
maximum fine of $500 for each violation. Also proce-
dures are being developed for sei ures of non-register-
ed products.
It is hoped that by shifting enforcement responsibilities
to Region V a more vigorous program can be initiated.
The Michigan Air Pollution Control Chief said the EPA
air quality secondary standards are "very low numbers.
"They're numbers that are severely challenged by many
segments of the scientific community as being neces-
sary," Jager added. "But, nonetheless, they are tar-
gets now because they're Federal regulations."
14
-------
Information On Air Pollution
As the federal government increasingly encourages cit-
izen participation in policy making, the citizen must
equip him-or herself for the role. The adoption of
state air implementation plans is an example of a pro-
cedure which has recognized citizen opinion through
public hearings. In order to assist the citizen in
developing his or her understanding of the implement-
ation plans, the Office of Public Affairs is encour-
aging distribution of a number of pamphlets on air
pollution. To receive any of the following publica-
tions, write Publications, Office of Public Affairs,
One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
General Citizens Guides
A Citizen's Guide to Clean Air. January, 1972. The
Conservation Foundation.An extensive discussion of
federal air quality standards and procedure in adop-
tion of implementation plans and standards of perform-
ance.
Air Pollution Episodes. A Citizen Handbook. December,
1971. Environmental Protection Agency. Discussion of
air pollution disaster and air pollution episode con-
tingency plans.
Citizen Role in Implementation of Clean Air Standards.
October, 1971.Environmental Protection Agency.Dis-
cussion of control regulations and the citizen role in
achieving clean air.
Air Pollution; The Facts. April, 1971. National
Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association.
Brief overview of causes, effects of and controls for
air pollution.
Take Three Giant Steps to Clean Air. 1967. Public
Health Service.Discusses the importance of getting
the facts, informing others, and taking action in
order to abate air pollution.
Laws and Regulations
The Clean Air Act. December, 1970. Environmental
Protection Agency.
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Federal Register. April 30, 1971.
Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Implementation Plans, Fedetal Register. August 14,
1971.
Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources,
Federal Register. December 23, 1971.
For Younger Students
Needed: Clean Air. 1967. Channing L. Bete Company.
"no dischangerstandands
EPA has announced "no discharge" standards designed to
bring an end to the discharge of wastes into navigable
waters. The standards will require over 600,000 U.S.
vessels and an unknown number of foreign flagships to
have a no-discharge device such as a holding tank or
recirculating toilet.
The standards, announced June 23 and published on that
date in the Federal Register, will not affect vessels
which do not presently have marine toilets such as row-
boats, canoes, and a variety of other mostly small
craft.
The establishment of standards of performance for ma-
rine sanitation devices by EPA is called for by the
Federal Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
The law requires the Coast Guard to issue and enforce
regulations consistent with the EPA standards governing
the design, construction, installation, and operation
of the marine sanitation devices.
The Coast Guard presently expects to issue its regula-
tions in about six months. The regulations will be
published in the Federal Register on the day they are
announced.
The EPA standards will become effective for new vessels
in two years after the Coast Guard regulations are es-
tablished, and for existing vessels in five years from
that time.
Incentives are provided for boat owners to equip their
vessels with marine sanitation devices certified by
the Coast Guard. Certification calls for devices which
will reduce fecal coliform bacteria to no more than
1,000 per 100 milliliters and prevent the discharge of
visible floating solids.
Existing vessels with certified sanitation devices
(basically raacerator-chlorinators) installed within
three years after the initial standards and regulations
are promulgated would be allowed to retain such devices
for their useful life.
If the equipment is installed between three and five
years after the date of promulgation it could be used
for eight years after the date of promulgation. Then,
a holding tank or recirculating toilet or some other
device that meets the no-discharge standard must be in-
stalled.
States may ask EPA to issue regulations completely pro-
hibiting vessels from discharging sewage, treated or
untreated, into State waters that require special pro-
tection to meet water quality standards and are part of
the nation's navigable water system.
The states in six-state Region V which have holding
tank requirements at present are Illinois, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Michigan, and Indiana. Ohio has a proposed
holding tank requirement now before its Legislature.
The Region V Public Report is edited and published by
the Public Affairs Staff of Region V.
-------
good news;
EPA has announced approval of a package of far-reach-
ing interstate water quality standards submitted to
the Federal agency by the State of Illinois. The
announcement was made jointly by EPA Regional Admin-
istrator Francis T. Mayo, Illinois EPA Director
William L. Blaser, and Illinois Pollution Control
Board Chairman David P. Currie.
"The standards, originally adopted by the Illinois
Pollution Control Board earlier this year, are con-
sidered some of the finest and most comprehensive in
the country," Mayo said.
With the announcement the Illinois standards became
subject to Federal enforcement for the interstate
waters of Illinois in line with the Water Quality Act
of 1965.
The standards package covers such pollutants as mer-
cury, phosphorus, chlorides, bacteria, heated water
discharges, acids, phenolic compounds, oil, and such
heavy metals as lead, copper, zinc and iron, and
provide a detailed blueprint of requirements essential
for the protection of Illinois waterways.
Mayo said EPA has not approved three aspects of the
standards proposed by the State. The exceptions to
the approved water quality standards plan are thermal
standards for Lake Michigan, a "restricted use con-
cept" for certain waters in Northeastern Illinois,
and the lack of a comprehensive implementation plan
that includes interim accomplishment dates for pro-
tecting stream use designations.
In mid-May the Ohio Senate passed and sent to the
Ohio House of Representatives a long-awaited bill
to set up an environmental protection agency for the
state, according to the Dayton Journal Herald.
The cabinet-level department would take over functions
now performed by the Ohio Health and Natural Resources
departments. The measure, which includes mandatory
environmental education courses in Ohio grade schools,
has the backing of the administration of Gov. John J.
Gilligan, the Dayton newspaper said.
DETROIT--Scout Troop 23 of the North Trails District
in the Detroit Area Council was enjoying a May Satur-
day outing in the Pinckney State Recreation Area when
they noticed a large fire in the woods.
Quickly and efficiently they grabbed the nearest fire-
fighting equipment consisting of water, shovels, and
rakes and sprung into action. Upon reaching the area
they discovered 2 small boys entrapped within the
blazing circle. The boys were rescued and the fire
extinguished thanks to the efforts of the quick-
thinking scouts.
The possible disaster of an extensive forest fire due
to the wind that day was averted by this organized
group of young men.
FROM: Public Affairs
One North Wacker Drive
Eighth Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60606
EPA-335
TO:
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Library
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (PL-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
------- |