Region V Public Report November CF ,. * ICALLY SPEAKING, IT'S A NEW BALL GAME ------- Message from Mayo Low Sulfur Fuel In Region V On May 31, 1972, when EPA announced approval- disapproval notices for State implementation plans, it was noted that in aggregate the plans required a degree of sulfur dioxide emission control that "may not be at- tainable in the time prescribed." More comprehensive studies by EPA have confirmed the fact that nationwide there will not be enough gas or low-sulfur coal available by 1975 to fill all of the needs required by State regulations. While there also are techniques available for stack gas desulfurization, this industry's capacity does not appear to be large enough to produce and install enough equipment to do the entire sulfur control job in this manner by 1975. In most cases, adequate low-sulfur oil can be obtained over the next several years to replace existing high-sulfur oil, however, it is not practical to rely on oil to solve the deficit in low-sulfur coal. As a background for the above, EPA initiated a study in December 1971 to determine the impact of the aggregated State Implementation Plans on the nation's fossil fuel resources. The control strategy specified by most states to reduce sulfur oxides is limitation of the maximum sulfur content of fuels which will result in a large shortage of low-sulfur coal. The total requirement for coal in 1975 is estimated to be 590 million tons, assuming present coal users do not switch to other fuels. The mismatch between coal requirements and availability due to sulfur regulations is projected to create a potential shortage of over 300 million tons of low- sulfur coal, again assuming no switching to other fuel and no use of stack gas cleaning. The major coal shor- tages exist in ten to twelve states located primarily in the Geat Lakes and Ohio Valley regions. An analysis of possible strategies indicates these shortages can be eliminated by a combination of fuel switching to low- sulfur oil, utilization of stack gas cleaning, and defer- ment of sulfur regulations in AQCR's which do not ex- ceed primary ambient air quality standards. These results were obtained by mid-May and are described in a report which is available from EPA upon request. The low-sulfur fuel shortage and the need for a reassment of SOx regulations by the states were discussed in the preamble to the Federal Register, Vol. 37 - No. 105, dated May 31, 1972. EPA's continuing fuel studies are primarily in the following areas: 1. Methods for increasing the supply of low-sulfur fuel. 2. Methods for increasing the utilization of stack gas cleaning by utilities. 3. Feasibility of reducing the demand for low- sulfur fuel by deferring regulations in AQCR's which can meet primary ambient standards without ad- ditional controls. 4. Compatibility of demand reduction and non- degradation alternative. Review of the situation several months ago indicated that it was advisable at that time that EPA not issue formal guidelines to the affected states or in any way formalize recommendations that states defer regulations PAGE 2 Francis T. Mayo in Priority II and III regions. It was then considered appropriate to allow the states to enter compliance schedule negotiations for each source armed with existing regulations, but understanding the fuel problem, EPA's attitude on attainment ot primary versus secondary standards, and EPA's willingness to accept plan revisions when the attainment of the primary standard is not comprised. It is now apparent that a more formal statement of EPA's position is needed. Basically, EPA's policy has been, and still is, that while States should negotiate compliance schedules under existing regulations, they should be aware that resources, nationwide, are not available to meet all existing State regulations in the time-frame prescribed in the plans. During these negotiations, they should also know that EPA will accept variances or plan revisions that delay compliance where necessary and where attainment of the primary stan- dard is not jeopardized. These changes must, of course, be considered plan revisions and undergo public hearings. In developing compliance schedules, the following areas of policy are of utmost importance and affected states should do everything in their power to achieve them: Any plan revision must provide for the attainment of the primary ambient air quality standard by the date approved in the implementation plan. Any plan revision should not allow degradation from a base year air quality level nor an increase in base year emissions. Many states, in their approved implementation plans, defined "reasonable time" for attainment of secondary standard as being coincident with the date for attainment of the primary standard. EPA will entertain arguments for redefinition of "reasonable time" for attainment of secondary air quality standards. Large scale fuel shifts from coal to other fuels should be discouraged; they could result in adverse economic and social impacts. Large fuel burning installations should be encouraged to opt for low-sulfur coal or stack gas cleaning as the solution to their sulfur emissions problems in a time- frame consistent with regional ambient air quality (Continued on poge 13) ------- Twin Cities: Busing Out the CO The problem is simple, even though it's hard to imagine: Minneapolis-St. Paul will still have a carbon monoxide problem in 1977. The Clean Air Act calls for an end to that problem by 1975, but EPA estimates that in 16 cities in the U.S. -- even with an approved two year ex- tension to 1977 the standards won't be met. The Twin Cities is one of those 16 problem areas. Other Midwest cities involved are Chicago and Dayton. It's hard to imagine that cities like Detroit and Cleveland will meet their deadlines while the Twin Cities won't, but EPA air technicians say the data are solid. So how do you solve the problem? Consultants have looked at all the alternatives and have come up with a number of suggestions for the Twin Cities, most of which have already been discussed publicly and some of which are on the way to becoming reality. Dr. John Olin, Assistant Director of Air Programs for the State of Minnesota, says the extra measures are needed because carbon monoxide concentrations will still be 10 to 12 per cent over the standards by 1977 if no additional action is taken. Proposed additional measures will generally seek to cut down on auto concentrations in the downtown areas of the Twin Cities. Options -- some or all of which will need to be adopted - include: Modern express bus service with road improvements and traffic controls to provide for priority movement for the busses. This bus service would include linkage bet- ween the Twin Cities. Off-street parking structures at the fringe of the Central Business District to intercept inbound traffic i this would also require cutting the number of available downtown parking spaces which now total about 35,000 in downtown Minneapolis alone). A Micro-transit system and skyway linkages to connect fringe parking, express bus terminals, and major downtown traffic generators utilizing: (a) interim shuttle busses and separate transit lands (b) people- mover systems on separate transit guideways. Traffic surveillance and control systems to provide automated traffic monitoring and to establish responsive control techniques including: (a) signal timing (b) diverting traffic from congested areas (c) priority traffic controls for moving busses and (d) metering of freeway ramps and start of changeable lane direction patterns. Selective inspection of vehicles for engine per- formance. Development of Vehicle-Free Zones in the central district. All of these strategies should be fairly easy to im- plement, say the consultants, because most of them have already been openly talked about. As traffic jam solutions. Right now State officials are considering all of the above strategies for reducing Carbon monoxide and plan to hold a hearing soon to find out public thinking as to whether these or other measures should be adopted. The twin Cities' Metro Clean Air Committee has already shown some skepticism towards many of the proposals. Says Director Sandi Knudson, "I just don't think they go far enough. I think it'll take more to really cut down on carbon monoxide here." The consultants, however, feel they have the data to show that a combination of these measures will allow the Twin Cities area to meet the 1977 standards. Alter the public hearing, planned for next January, the State will have to come up with a final strategy for submission to the EPA by February. The secret to the success of any new transportation controls, all parties agree, will be a new kind of cooperation between State, local and Regional agencies in getting any strategies to work. In the transportation area there hasn't always been that kind of cooperation -- or public enthusiasm for it - in the past. Whether the urgency of cleaning up the air will speed a new interest in mass transit in the Twin cities is still a question. Public interest and public insistence in the near future for improving mass transit seems to be the ticket. A familiar rush hour scene PAGE 3 ------- THE DEBUGGIFIED, IRRADIATED, DECIBEL-COUNTING WASTE WATCHERS AND THEIR BRAVE NEW WORLD "We're gearing up." No doubt about that exists in the mind of 33 year old James M. (Mike) Conlon, EPAs director of Categorical program. There's an in-house joke that everything that isn't concerned with air and water in EPA is destined for categorical programs. Therefore, categorical programs has become a short-term for Federal activity in the area of noise, solid waste, radiation and pesticide activity. With major new legislation passed this fall in pesticides and noise, "gearing up" is really the word to use. "We're not gearing up unnecessarily and just adding more people and money to these program areas," says Conlon. "What we really are in the midst of is pushing ahead with a whole new way of doing business (see summaries of new noise and pesticides legislation in this issue)." Major provisions of the new pesticides law, says Conlon call for a new strengthening of the Federal-state relationships. For example, there is the requirement for Federal enforcement authority to extend to both intra- state as well as inter-state movement of pesticides. And there is also the requirement for state certification programs for people who apply restricted use pesticides. "Here at the regional level," says Conlon, "our role in implementing the new laws will be to make sure there is close cooperation between the State programs and Washington. Our first task in anticipation of this will be to get a handle on just what kinds of real problems exist and to assess the present state capabilities and authorities are in these areas." To meet requirements of the new law, the regional program will have to increase both its general activities-coordination and technical service to state agencies and particular federal responsibilities for field inspection, surveillance and enforcement related to selling or transporting pesticides. Conlon notes that there are no grants available to state agencies in the pesticides program like there are in air, water and solid waste. However, the new act provides for EPA to execute enforcement and training agreements with the State. "So, the coordination role is very im- portant here," he emphasizes. While there are no new laws for EPA in the area of radiation, Conlon sees the possible development of a new EPA strategy in the near future in the setting of generally applicable radiation standards. "The primary Regional responsibility in radiation control is to assist state agencies and to help Washington set standards," says Conlon. "We help them prepare emergency response plans for potential incidents and give them technical assists in doing studies on background doses." Region V will be increasing its personnel in this area to three by the end of the fiscal year, says Conlon, especially with the growth of nuclear power plants in the Midwest. PAGE 4 Top /eft. Dr. Charles Lincoln; right: Litsey Zeffner. Bottom left: Mike Conlon; right: William Kehr. Conlon notes that of all the EPA programs, the most nationally oriented is the solid waste program. "Nevertheless," he says, "there are some significant activities that we're involved in at the regional level. "They include grants to state and local agencies for planning, technical assistance, and assistance in monitoring research projects. The range of staff capability has to be quite broad in the solid waste program, notes Conlon, "because we're involved in everything' from preaching against open dumps to funding futuristic resource recovery systems." The noise responsibilities from the new act aren't even at the gearing up stage at the regional level, notes Conlon, but he anticipates that once standards are set the program will get rolling. Conlon's major program directors include: William Kehr, Solid Waste. Kehr is 53 and a native of Carthage, Missouri. He is a civil engineer and former director of the St. Louis sanitary district and the former Great Lakes River Basin project. He has been in the field of solid waste control since 1968. Dr. Charles Lincoln, Pesticides. Lincoln, age 40, is a nationally recognized expert on Dutch Elm Disease. He formerly served with the U.S. Forest Service where he worked on using biological rather than chemical insect controls. He is a native of Palmer, Mass. Litsey Zellner, Radiation. Zellner, age 38, is a scientist specializing in radiation protection. He has worked in State and Federal radiation programs for the last eight years. He is a native of Ardmore, Oklahoma. ------- CALL,FOR PAPERS SECOND ANNUAL NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM SOCIETAL PROBLEMS OF WATER RESOURCES APRIL 28, 1973 ',,,, . .. REGENCY HYATT HOUSE O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Sponsored By ILLINOIS EARTH SCIENCE ASSOCIATION Papers will be open to workers in the various fields of wafer resources and its application to societal problems. Special'consideration will be given to papers discussing newer -.techniques used in solving water resources problems both surface and subsurface. Participation by industry, faculty and students from the social sciences is particularly welcome. March 15, 1973 Deadline for Submitting Abstracts (200 words) March 30, 1973 Announcement of Papers Accepted April 28, 1973 Technical Sessions Submission of Abstracts, Regis/rot ion. Hotel Reservation, exhibits and further communications should be directed fo: j DR. MUSA QUTUB Chairman, National Symposium on Societal Problems of Water Resources Northeastern Illinois University Bryn Mawr of St. Louis Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60625 A brochure on "Summer Jobs in Federal Agencies" is available from the Civil Service Commission, Washington D.C. 20415. It describes opportunities and requirements for summer em- ployment with the U.S. Government both in Washington and throughout the nation. PAGE ------- news briefs...news briefs ...news briefs Milwaukee Journal Environment Writer Paul Havs reports that the Milwaukee County Council voted 15 to 9 to reject a proposed air pollution ordinance which meets State and Federal Clean Air Standards. The story made banner headlines in the Journal Nov. 6. Madison, Wis., Capitol Times Environment Writer Whitney Gould reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has handed down a ruling on wetlands preservation that is landmark in the state with possible national significance. The Wisconsin high court ruled essentially that people do not have land use rights, even on their own lands if they injure public rights, according to Mrs UOUld. Likening pollution-ridden Cleveland to Death Valley consumer advocate Ralph Nader called for greater citizen action to force Congress to bring about drastic environmental changes, according to Cleveland Press Reporter Barbara Weiss. Ms. Weiss quoted Nader as saying: "In most communities it's a crime for an in- dividual to relieve himself in a river. Why, then, isn't it so for industries?" Nader spoke to a large audience at Amasa Stone Chapel, Case Western Reserve University. A new Kraft Pulp Mill owned by the Meade Cor- poration at Escanaba, Mich., has been plagued by odor and particulate emission problems since it began operation this summer, according to the Michigan Department of Public Health. Company officials presented a detailed account of their problems to the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission at the Commission's monthly meeting held recently at Escanaba. The Cleveland Press reports that the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled that it was not illegal for the U.S. Government to exchange marsh lands on the shores of Lake Erie with two utility companies for construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant The suit, filed by the Cleveland Sierra Club and Citizens for Clean Air and Water against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the Illuminating Co. and Toledo Edison Co., sought to overturn the exchange of the federally-owned Navaree Marsh for the privately-owned Darby Marsh. Continuing public pressure, "aroused and nurtured by a reasoned and vigorous press," must be maintained if man is to survive in a healthful environment, Cleveland Press Reporter Betty Klaric told a national convention of Theta Sigma Phi women's communications organization in Houston, Tex., recently. The Cleveland Press said the organization honored Miss Klaric for outstanding work in environmental reporting. The A.W. Stadler Co. Rendering Plant of Cleveland was scheduled to receive a good neighbor award from the Ward 2 Civic Club in Cleveland for its air pollution abatement efforts, according to the Cleveland Press. Plant Manager William McMeekin said the firm has spent well over $100,000 in the past three years, $50,000 of that recently for a new piece of equipment to control its odors. Stadler converts meat scraps into tallow used in PAGE 6 making soap and chemicals. It also produces dry doe food products. The Cleveland Engineering Society has announced that the 4th Annual "Engineering Your Environment" conference and exhibition will be held on Wednesday May 9, 1973. The conference, an activity of the Environment Group of the Process Industries Division of the Cleveland Engineering Society, will be held in the Society's educational facility, the Cleveland Engineering and Scientific Center, 3100 Chester Ave., Cleveland 44114. Program details and exhibitors information are available upon request to the Society. The Connecticut River Ecology Action Corporation P.O. Box 44, Hadley, Mass. 01035, reports that its film, The Flooding River, A Study in Riverine Ecology," a 34- mmute, color, 16mm. sound film on the Connecticut River, written by Lincoln P. Brower, Amherst College biology professor, is available for sale rent and previewing. Interested parties should contact Educational Services, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10016. The film sells for $395 and rents for $25. State grant payments amounting to more than $1.5 million have been made to 15 Wisconsin communities for construction and improvement of sewage treatment facilities, according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Since its origin in 1966, the state grant program has contributed more than $36 million to a variety of water pollution control projects around the state. FEDERAL REGISTER EPA Region V Administrator Francis Mayo has announced that States, major municipalities and other interested parties may wish to subscribe to the Federal Register in order to keep up-to-date with regulations and guidelines in connection with various provisions of the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Subscriptions to the FEDERAL REGISTER may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, Governmental Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Its catalog number is GS4.107. It is also available from the U.S. Government Printing Office Bookstore, 219 S. Dearborn St, Room 1463, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Telephone 312- 353-5133. The Federal Regionster will be mailed to sub- scribers free of postage for $2.50 per month or $25.00 per year, payable in advance. The charge for in- dividual copies is 20c for each issue. ------- LAKE MICHIGAN AND THE WATER The Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference - and all other water pollution enforcement conferences - were ended with the enactment of the new Clean Water bill on October 18, 1972. However, the momentum generated by a September session of the conference, and continued in a reconvened executive session held November 9 in Chicago, is ex- pected to continue in the next few months. This means that recommendations adopted at the November meeting, though no longer official, are ex- pected to be carried through at the state level. Earlier recommendations and timetables adopted through the conference mechanism remain effective as provided for and in accordance with the new act. A principal issue at the executive session concerned waste heat discharges; a controversial issue on Lake Michigan which has a total of 27 power plants (six of them nuclear and now under construction) on its shore. The EPA position enunciated at a previous conference session which required closed-cycle cooling on large thermal discharges was modified, in accordance with the provisions of the new water act. The new Act, amongst other things imposes a requirement of the application of best practicable control technology. EPA enforcement director James 0. McDonald said that pending thermal discharge standards proposed by the states will receive final EPA review and will be either approved or disapproved by January 18, 1973. If the state thermal standards are not approved, EPA will proposed modifications required in the submitted standards to make them approvable. If the resubmitted standards are not so modified EPA will act to promulgate appropriate standards. For the immediate future, McDonald said, under the new Act any permits issued must be based on approved state thermal standards, in addition to other requirements. McDonald said each permit would contain a clause requiring backf itting if plant monitoring showed ecological harm resulting from the thermal discharge. The final Lake Michigan conference session also set up the machinery for two technical study committees. The first committee, to be headed up by Region V Sur- veillance and Analysis Director Dr. Robert Zeller, will study the effects of intake structures on water organisms. This committee, expected to conclude its work in 60 days, will come up with recommendations on what requirements should go on the power plant permit applications in this regard. The second group will be composed of 15 members chaired by an EPA Biologist. Plant by plant and lake- wide monitoring will be studied and evaluated. It is expected that citizen groups, utilities, and the scientific and academic communities will be represented on this committee. The conferees also reached an agreement on recom- mendations on a number of other standing issues on Lake Michigan including: DISINFECTION 1. All point sources of phosphorus input to Lake Michigan subject to the phosphorus removal deadline of December 1972 which are now behind schedule should be reviewed and where feasible should be required to utilize interim facilities to effect the maximum phosphorus reduction by the deadline date. 2. Industrial waste sources which are behind Lake Michigan clean-up schedules and which have not been subjected to enforcement action resulting in an ac- ceptable program should be given high priority in issuance of discharge permits. 3. Each State should, by April 1, 1973, prepare a detailed listing of municipalities subject to the combined sewer control recommendation. Each State agency should initiate a program which would require each municipality with a combined sewer overflow problem to prepare, by December 31, 1973, a report which should contain the following as a minimum: (a) A delineation of the areas involved in the problem, (b) Identification of specific engineering solutions to control or treat com- bined sewer overflows, (c) Estimate of the cost. Each State should, by September 1, 1973, prepare a ranking of the combined sewer overflow problems in order of priority needs for correction. The existing Conference recommendation and water quality stan- dards deadline for establishment of control or treatment of combined sewer overflows is July 1977. 4. By February 15, 1973, the States shall prepare an evaluation of the non-public waste discharges to surface waters in the Lake Michigan Basin. The evaluation should identify the quality and quantity of wastes discharged and whether such a discharge has an adverse impact on the water quality of Lake Michgan. CHLORIDES In view of the fact that chlorides are persistent, the States and EPA believe controls above those presently in progress on discharges of chloride waste should be established. It is recommended that: 1. The States in cooperation with EPA, through existing or future permit programs, endeavor to limit the loading rate for each State to the minimum feasible level. 2. The States should initiate detailed studies to examine chloride contributions from land run-off. PHOSPHORUS It is recommended that: 1. The existing 80 percent phosphorus requirement of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference should be supplemented by a 1 mg-l total phosphorus objective for municipal effluents. However, where present reductions already exceed this level, or where more stringent levels are feasible, they should be sought and maintained. Facilities of less than 2500 population equivalent would be exempt from the additional requirement. Each state should prepare, as soon as possible, an evaluation of the additional treatment facilities necessary and cost of same to upgrade treatment from the 80 percent present phosphorus removal requirement to die 1 mg-l ob- jective; such information to be evaluated by the States and EPA as soon as possible but no later than December 31, 1973, and an appropriate schedule developed for obtaining the l mg-l objective shortly thereafter. 2. The States and Federal Government should en- deavor to promote the utilization of effective soil con- servation techniques in order to reduce the amounts of phosphorus reaching the Lake from non-point sources. 3. Additional research and monitoring regarding the trophic status of Lake Michigan and the basic relationship between nutrient inputs or other limiting elements and eutrophication should be conducted to (Continued on page 13) PAGE? ------- Water Pollution and the Rule of the Law An address by John R. Queries, jr. Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General Counsel to the American Bar Association National Institute on "corporations under at- tack". The speech provides a good analysis of the new regulatory structure for Industrial wastes. .. . Effects of this new water pollution law will be far- reaching. The new law will dramatically strengthen our capability to set and enforce tight requirements for pollution control. The law will - for the first time - subject the murky perplexities of waste water discharges to an effective system of legal regulation. The law also will provide vast new programs to plan and fund municipal waste treatment facilities, but this morning I will concentrate on the creation of the new regulatory structure to govern industrial wastes. To appreciate the major significance of the new law it is necessary to recognize the basic weaknesses of the Federal pollution control regulatory system. The first permanent Federal legislation dealing with water pollution was enacted in 1948. Subsequent Federal legislation was enacted in 1956,1961,1965,1966, and 1970. Under these laws major efforts have been made to fight water pollution, and some substantial progress has been achieved. Despite this long history and repeated in- novation, however, an effective national regulatory system has never been achieved. Anyone forced to work with this system - whether for government, for industry, or as a private citizen - is aware of its baffling un- certainties, its unpredictable manner of application and its irregular results. The key to an effective regulatory system is that there be firm, specific requirements imposed on all parties with evenhanded fairness. The exact requirements must be clearly understood and publicized. They must also be uniformly and strictly enforced. In the field of pollution control these basic ingredients simply have not existed. Therefore we never have had a meaningful system of legal regulation. The chief tool used to date in efforts to curtail pollution has been public opinion, striking with unpredictability whenever and wherever officials or citizens have been able to attract publicity to alleged cases of notorious abuse. Even when cases have gone to court, the results of litigation have often been forged as much in the newspapers as in the courtrooms. The most serious national effort to establish an ef- fective regulatory system was initiated by the Water Quality Act of 1965. Under that law States adopted federally approved water quality standards, with im- plementation plans intended to set abatement requirements for each polluter based on receiving water needs. All too often prepared in haste and approved in ignorance, however, these requirements have proved to be a disappointment. Though the water quality standards have contributed enormously to progress against pollution, from a lawyer's viewpoint they failed to establish the basic elements of a sound regulatory system. The chief defects were these: The requirements were vague, and they have not been effectively enforced. Typically the legal specifications of a company's abatement obligations were set forth only in a general directive, such as a requirement to install "secondary treatment or its equivalent." The application of that directive to the complexities of an individual plant has PAGES been highly speculative, often depending on verbal un- derstanding between State officials and plant engineers. Moreover, even if the requirements were clear, it has been anyone's guess as to when or how they might be enforced or when comparable requirements might be enforced against similar plants elsewhere in that State or in other States. No sanctions have been imposed for default, except for the possible vicissitudes of adverse publicity. Every day of delay has meant money saved by the polluter. Thus decisions on a company's pollution control program often have been based chiefly on its public relations policy rather than its legal obligations. When the Environmental Protection Agency was formed two years ago, we recognized a paramount need to command legal respect for pollution control requirements. We learned a new word, "slippage", and found that default in meeting abatement requirements was so commonplace it was not even considered blameworthy. We set out to change basic attitudes toward these requirements. We established a new policy of tough enforcement. We made it clear that the way of recalcitrance led to the courthouse door, including ad- verse publicity, and in the past two years we have engaged in more than 600 enforcement actions of various types. We have obtained numerous fines and several consent decrees. We have also increasingly obtained voluntary compliance. But we have not been able to overcome the basic weaknesses of the law itself, especially the vague laxity of the abatement requirements and the lack of effective enforcement tools. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 will bring a profound and far-reaching change in our entire system of pollution control. It will upgrade a crude and shaky structure of targets, gaps and loopholes into a tight regulatory system. Precise, detailed abatement requirements will be established. They will be enforced through streamlined legal procedures and heavy penalties for violations. In my judgment, these changes are going to revolutionize the social structure of water pollution control. Within a few years the new law will end the reign of evasion and emotion. It will in their place establish the rule of law. The sweeping statements I have just made are based on specific provisions of the new law and their ap- plication to our programs. I would like now to explain what these are and how I believe they will operate. The chief factors are as follows: First, the law mandates establishment of effluent limitations. These will be specific numerical requirements setting forth precise upper limits on the waste loads which a plant will be permitted to discharge into our waterways. In the past a chief weakness of the regulatory programs has been the absence of specific yardsticks to measure satisfactory performance. This has permitted polluters to claim that they were meeting requirements despite inferior systems of control or sloppy operation and maintenance of their abatement facilities. Second, the law establishes higher standards for ------- pollution control. The law specifies that each industry must by July 1,1977, meet effluent limitations reflecting application of best practicable control technology currently available, or in cases where the receiving water requires more stringent control then higher levels of treatment or control must be achieved. This will establish at the minimum a uniform national standard applicable to all plants wherever located. By ending the total reliance on receiving water conditions, the new standards immeasurably simplify problems of evidence. This will facilitate effective regulation of many gross polluters who have strenuously resisted their clean-up obligations. During the next five years all plants must undertake abatement programs to achieve the new control requirements. Third, the new law creates a national permit program. Every industry will be required to obtain a permit under Section 402 of the law. Issuance of these permits will provide the mechanism through which the new, more stringent abatement requirements will be set. Moreover, once issued, these permits will contain in a single document the complete schedule of requirements for each individual plant. Copies of the permits will be available to the companies, State officials, Federal of- ficials and private citizens. Fourth, the new law establishes through penalties to enforce compliance. Violations of permit conditions or other requirements will be subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day, in addition to other civil remedies and administrative actions. Willful or negligent violations will be subject to criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per day. For the first time the pollution control requirements will be backed up by meaningful sanctions. This is a fundamental and indispensable (though previously missing) element of any regulatory system. From a lawyer's viewpoint it is critical to the basic legal advice that, "The law is the law. It must be obeyed." Finally, my evaluation of the effect these provisions will have is also based on my familiarity with the technical foundation present in the Federal and State pollution control programs. The concept of effluent limitations has been commonplace for several years. Until recently, however, its feasibility has been in doubt. The establishment of a minimum national requirement of best practicable control technology greatly simplifies the development of effluent limitations for individual plants. I also believe that the enforcement record and the enforcement capability of the Environmental Protection Agency, supporting the enforcement programs of State agencies, has established adequate credibility to assure that the new requirements will be enforced and that foot dragging will be harshly punished. The new national permit program will not begin from scratch. Many States already have permit programs. In addition our Agency has been working persistently for two years to lay the foundation for an effective national program. We already have on hand roughly 23,000 ap- plications submitted under the Refuse Act Permit Program established by President Nixon in December 1970. These applications have been processed with great care. We have concentrated our efforts on roughly 2,700 major dischargers, whom we believe in the aggregate account for the vast majority of all industrial wastes discharged into our waterways. As the legislation has been developing in Congress, we have made vigorous efforts to prepare for it. Although the determinations of best practicable control technology must be made in- dividually as to each plant, we have already developed a vast amount of guidance to our professional personnel for use in making such determinations. We have con- ducted numerous staff seminars on this subject. We have also prepared large numbers of draft permits, including draft permits for more than 1,000 of the major dischargers that I referred to a moment ago. Permits under the new program will specify effluent limitations that must be met after anticipated abatement programs have been completed during the first few years. These will set firm targets for each company's engineers. The permits will also set effluent limitations applicable during the interim. The effluent limitations will apply to numerous parameters of each plant's discharges. Too often in the past requirements have focused only on the oxygen demanding wastes and have not zeroed in on other substances in the waste stream such as heavy metals or toxic substances. Frequently these elements are not controlled by the treatment facilities designed to reduce BOD discharges. The new requirements will specify limits not only for BOD but also for total suspended solids, alkalinity or acidity, temperature, oil and grease, and individual heavy metals and toxic substances. Permits will require continuous monitoring by the major dischargers, with frequent reports subject to the penalties of perjury. All of the permits and all of the reported data will be made readily available for public inspection. Perhaps our most important concern in establishing the national permit program under the new law will be to establish, promptly and smoothly, good working relationships between EPA and State agencies. The new law authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to begin issuance of permits under Section 402 im- mediately. It also contains detailed provisions for ap- proval of State programs to authorize the States to assume operating responsibility for the new national permit program. In a great many cases State agencies will have to receive new legislative authority from their State legislatures before we will be permitted under the law to give final approval to the State programs. We are empowered to authorize a State to operate the permit program on an interim basis, but the interim authorizations will all expire within five months under the terms of the law. Our objective will be to work closely with the States to enable them to meet the strict requirements of the law as rapidly as possible. In the meantime we will move for- ward to issue permits out of EPA, though in these cases also we will seek active participation by the States. We will need to establish effective arrangements so that the issuance of permits will go ahead at full speed whichever level of government has the formal authority. Since permits are necessary to trigger the next step forward in pollution abatement, our foremost concern will be to make certain that the program moves ahead as fast as possible. As a result of the national permit program an entirely new structure of regulation will be established in this country to control pollution from industrial wastes. Within the near future large numbers of permits will be issued to major dischargers imposing new sets of control and monitoring requirements. To summarize, they will present the following advantages: 1. Specific pounds-per-day limitations will be placed on effluent from each plant. These will pin down exactly what requirements must be met. 2. These effluent limitations will cover numerous parameters. In particular they will require tight controls over discharges of heavy metals, toxic substances and (Continued on page 13) PAGE 9 ------- EPA Program Notes EPA has announced that all State clean air im- plementation plans are technically deficient insofar as they do not contain explicit provisions to prevent "significant deterioration" of air quality in areas where the air is already cleaner than required by Federal standards. The notice of disapproval complies with an order of the District Court of the District of Columbia, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on November 1, 1972. On May 30, 1972, the U.S. District Court, in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, interpreted the Clean Air Act as requiring not only the achievement of the national ambient air quality standards, which are defined to be fully protective of health and welfare, but also the prevention of "significant deterioration": of air quality in areas that are already clean enough to meet the standards. The court order requires EPA to promulgate the necessary regulations by December 1, 1972. EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus said that to implement the Court order in a reasonable manner he must resolve a number of complex, interrelated legal, technical and social issues. EPA is proceeding toward resolution of these issues on a priority basis and expects to publish, as soon as possible, proposed regulations setting forth appropriate requirements for modification of State implementation plans. EPA plans to invite comments from agricultural, environmental, consumer, industrial and other in- terested groups before issuing regulations implementing the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA) over the next four years. The legislation was signed into law by the President on October 21. "The new law is the most important piece of legislation in this field since the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was passed in 1947," EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus said. A notice formally requesting comments on certain FEPCA provisions will be published shortly in the Federal Register. A major study of airport noise and the development of noise standards for trains and motor carriers in in- terstate commerce will be the first action programs under new authorities given EPA by the Noise Control Act of 1972, according to EPA. EPA has announced that it has republished in the Federal Register all current applicable motor vehicle control regulations so that they will be available in one document. The various regulations and amendments, applicable beginning with the 1973 model year, nave been published over the past years in several different issues of the Federal Register. The republication will, for the first time, place all regulations in one publication, providing for greater ease in use. The Agency noted that these are not changes to the regulations, and do not alter the emission standards or other emission control requirements. Region V is holding a Municipal Wastewater Treat- ment Facilities Design Seminar Nov. 28-30, at the Lake Tower Inn, 600 N. Lake Shore Dr., Chicago. The seminar is being conducted as part of the Agency's Technology Transfer Program. Its focus is on the design and cost PAGE 10 aspects of selected topics pertinent to the environmental enhancement of the Lake Michigan Basin. Technical sessions are being devoted to nitrogen control, phosphorus removal, and the upgrading of existing wastewater treatment plants. Clifford Risley, Jr., chairman of the Region V Technology Transfer Com- mittee is coordinating the seminar. A public session to develop policy positions on the issues which comprised the fourth session of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference in September was held Nov. 9-10 in Chicago. In announcing the session, EPA Region V Administrator Francis T. Mayo said: "Although the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 do not provide for the continuation of the conference mechanism as a method of water pollution abatement, it is our thought to hold the session as planned." Also, Mayo pointed out that, although there can be no further legal action or legal effect to the session recommendations such as the empaneling of a hearing board, there can be no doubt of the value of crystalizing the important conference discussions. (See article on conference) An Indiana firm referred to the U.S. Justice Depart- ment by EPA for civil action for dumping untreated toxic wastes into the tributary of a navigable stream has been ordered by a Federal District Judge to clean up its wastewater discharges. Judge Jesse E. Esbach of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana at Fort Wayne signed a consent decree Oct. 18,1972, which directs Kitchen-Quip, Inc., of Waterloo, Ind., to reduce the nature of its wastewater effluent to the standards prescribed by the State of Indiana and EPA. The com- pany is obliged to meet these standards not later than one year from the date the decree was signed, and failure of the company to meet the deadline could result in the assessment of monetary damages or such other penalties as the judge might deem appropriate. Region V has referred the Peabody Coal Co. of Vigo County, Ind., to U.S. Attorney Stanley B. Miller of the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis, for civil ac- tion on pollution charges. Region V Administrator Francis T. Mayo said EPA is seeking a mandatory in- junction to force the Peabody Company to abate pollution of North Coal Creek caused by discharges from two large refuse piles on either side of the creek during rainfall. EPA contends that the discharges constitute a violation of the Federal River and Harbor Act of 1899. A report done for EPA concerning the economic im- pact of environmental regulations on the steel industry over the next five years is now obtainable through the National Technical Information Service in either paper copies or microfiche film. The report, announced by EPA October 12 and titled, "A Study of the Economic Impact on the Steel Industry of the Costs of Meeting Federal Air and Water Pollution Abatement Requirements," was prepared with the cooperation of the President's Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of Commerce. Inquiries should be addressed to: National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151. ------- HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SYMPOSIUM What causes spills? Are there any preventive measures industry can institute to avoid spills? Where can one obtain information on cleaning-up a hazardous material spill? These and many other related questions were an- swered at the Environmental Protection Agency spon- sored Hazardous Materials Pollution Control Symposium held in Chicago on November 8-10,1972. The symposium, attended by two hundred business executives and government officials, stressed the latest developments leading to practical solutions of hazardous materials pollution field problems. The three day session was divided into topical sections. The first day included discussion of "Protection of the Environment From Hazardous Material Spills" and "Prevention of Hazardous Material Spills in Industry". Thursday saw a discussion of "Hazardous Materials in Transportation" and "Air Hazards and Safety Measures". "Containment and Cleanup of Spilled Hazardous Materials" and a wrap-up session on "Hazard Identification and Information" ended the symposium on Friday. The United States, like other nations, is faced with the problem of both oil and hazardous material spills. Congress provided the federal government with authority to move forward in an aggressive program to prevent or mitigate oil spills in 1970. The 1972 amend- ments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act give the same backing to the hazardous materials program. Hazardous spills into the air, water or on land, while not necessarily on the increase, are becoming of in- creasing concern to environmentalists, government agencies, and the general public. At present, according to Ira Wilder, Edison Water Quality Research Division NERC, Edison, N.J., more than 1.4 billion tons of potentially hazardous materials are transported annually by motor truck, railway, water barge or pipeline. Each of these means of transport are subject to accidents which result in spills. Spills of hazardous materials may be the result of human error, equipment failure or weather conditions and have been known to cause extensive damage to the ecosystems in which they occur. Kenneth Biglane, EPA Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., stressed the need for im- mediate notification following spills because of the dangers of spills to public health and human safety. He added that "prevention, response, and restoration are key elements to the hazardous material program as they are to the oil program." When a spill occurs, there are a number of information systems available to help establish priorities in clean-up and containment in order to minimize life hazards, property damage and harm to the surrounding en- vironment. EPA's Division of Oil and Hazardous Materials has developed the OHM-TADS, the Oil and Hazardous Materials Technical Assistance Data System. This pilot project has been used successfully on several occasions and is of daily use in evaluating priority spill areas. The Manufacturing Chemists Association's Chemical Transportation Emergency Center (CHEMTREC) provides immediate action response information to the scene of a chemical transportation accident on receipt of a phone call identifying the product involved. This ser- vice, available 24 hours a day, is a voluntary program of the MCA member companies. It attempts to provide timely and accurate information to the emergency services, carrier personnel, general public and others who might be involved in hazardous materials spills. A Hazard Information System (HI) has been proposed by the Department of Transportation. This system will consist of three important elements for emergency response personnel - new labels and placards, in- structive "action cards" and a two-digit HI number, possibly the most important aspect of the new system. Francis T. Mayo, Midwest Administrator for the EPA, called the symposium a success. "It was helpful for the people involved in processing, transporting, or storing hazardous materials and for the representatives of government agencies acting in these areas." Copies of abstracts of papers read are available from: Environmental Protection Agency, Region V Attn: Chester A. Marcyn 1 North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 -Mary Canavan IJC TO BEGIN LAKE SUPERIOR STUDY The International Joint Commission (IJC) will undertake a detailed investigation of the water quality of Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The IJC has announced the appointment of a 12- man joint U.S. - Canadian study team, to be known formally as the International Reference Group on Upper Lakes Pollution. Region V's Carlysle Pemberton, Jr. has been named Chairman of the U.S. Section. The study will be similar to the one concluded by the Commission in 1970 on Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The latter study led to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada signed last April by President Nixon and Prime Minister Trudeau. The IJC was requested by the governments of Canada and the U.S. to conduct this in-depth study in accordance with provisions of that Agreement and provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty which provides that boundary waters shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other. The Commission will also study pollution of the boundary waters from agricultural, forestry and other land use activities. The study group will carry out its work under the direction of the Great Lakes Water Quality which the Commission appointed last July. The study will determine the extent and source of pollution in Lakes Superior and Huron; the remedial and preventive measures needed to abate or control pollution; and recommendations for the establish- ment of water quality objectives for these lakes. The Commission will hold the first of a series of public hearings at Thunder Bay, Ontario and Duluth, Minnesota to receive testimony relevant to the subject matter of the study. The hearing in Duluth will be held Thursday, December 7 at 9:30 AM in The Great Hall of the Radisson Duluth Hotel at 505 W. Superior Street. PAGE 11 ------- Environmental Legislation Expands EPA Authority The Second Session of the 92nd Congress sow the passage not only of the much publicized "water bill", but significant new environmental legislation In the areas of noise control, pesticide control and ocean dumping. Following is a brief description and sum- mary of major provisions of each. Noise Control Act of 1972 This is a new Act vest, g in the Environmental Protection Agency authority to control the emission of noise detrimental to the human environment. Major provisions of this new Act: require the development and publication of criteria respecting noise, the publication of information respecting the levels of noise requisite to protect the public health and welfare, and the publication of a report or series of reports identifying products which are major source of noise and giving information on the techniques for controlling noise from such products; require the Administrator to set standards for products which have been identified as major sources of noise and for which standards are deemed feasible in the categories of construction equipment, transportation equipment, any motor or engine, or electrical or elec- tronic equipment and grants authority to set standards for other products which are deemed feasible and requisite for the protection of the public health and welfare; require the Administrator to make a comprehensive study within nine months on the control of aircraft and of cumulative noise exposures around airports. amend section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act to require EPA, after submission of the above report, to submit to FAA proposed regulations to provide control of aircraft noise and sonic boom determined necessary to protect the public health and welfare; to set forth procedures for FAA acceptance, modification or rejection of such proposed regulations; and to provide a further consultation and review role for EPA if its proposed regulations are not accepted by FAA, with FAA to report its findings and conclusion and publish such in the Federal Register. require the Administrator to prescribe standards setting limits on noise emissions resulting from the operation of equipment and facilities of interstate railroads and from the operation of interstate trucks and buses which are in addition to any applicable standards set for new products. require all Federal agencies to carry out to the full extent of their authority the intent of this Act, and requires the Environmental Protection Agency to coordinate all Federal noise research and noise control programs. PAGE 12 Federal Environmental Pesticide The new Act completely revises the Federal Insec- ticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) which has been the basic authority for Federal pesticide regulation since 1947. (See Chart) on page 14. The new Act regulates the use of pesticides to protect man and the environment and extends Federal pesticide regulation to all pesticides including those distributed or used within a single State. Major provisions of the new Act will: prohibit the use of any pesticide inconsistent with its labeling. No pesticide may be registered or sold unless its labeling is such as to prevent any injury to man or any unreasonable adverse effects on environmental values, taking into account the public interest, including benefits from its use. require pesticides to be classified for general use or restricted use. Restricted use pesticides may be used only by or under the supervision of certified applicators or subject to such other restrictions as the Administrator of EPA may determine. strengthen enforcement by: requiring the registration of all pesticide producing establishments, and regular submission by them of production and sales- volume information; authorizing entry of establishments and other places where pesticides are held for sale or distribution for inspection and obtaining samples; authorizing stop sale, use, or removal orders and seizure against hazardous pesticides if necessary; providing civil and increased criminal penalties; authorizing cooperation with States; and improving procedures governing registration and cancellation actions by allowing scientific review and public hearings to be held concurrently. give applicants for registration propriety rights in their test data but establish a mandatory licensing system whereby such data could be used by a second applicant upon the payment of reasonable compensation. t authorize the payment of indemnities to persons holding pesticides before the issuance of a suspension notice if the pesticide is finally cancelled; except a manufacturer may not receive any indemnity if he had knowledge of facts that the pesticide should be suspended or cancelled and does not advise the Administrator. more on next page ------- authorize the Administrator to establish pesticide packaging standards, regulate pesticide and container disposal; issue experimental use permits, conduct research on pesticides and alternatives and monitor pesticide use and presence in the environment. provide for certification of pesticide applicators by the States under a program approved by the Administrator; for cooperative enforcement with States; grants-in-aid and other assistance to States. States are also authorized to issue conditional registrations for pesticides intended for specific local use, and could impose greater regulation on a pesticide than that of the Federal government, except as to packaging and labeling. establish a series of effective dates for various provisions of the Act and continue the existing law in effect until the new provisions become effective. Every provision of the new Act must be effective within four years. Ocean Dumping Major provisions of this act will: ban the dumping of all chemical, biological, or radiological warfare agents, and high level radioactive wastes. Provide that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may issue permits for the transportation for the purposes of dumping or for dumping of all material except for dredged spoil which will be handled by the Corps of Engineers but consistent with EPA criteria. Civil penalties may be assessed by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, and an action may be brought to impose criminal penalties when the provisions of this title are knowingly violated. t Authorize the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Coast Guard and EPA to initiate a com- prehensive program of research on the effects of ocean dumping. Allow the Secretary of Commerce to designate as marine sanctuaries those areas of ocean waters and to the outer edge of the Continental Shelf for the purposes of preserving or restoring such areas for their con- servation, recreational, ecological, or esthetic values. Water Pollution and the Rule of the Law (Continued from page 9) other similar elements which in the past have often been neglected. 3. Firm dates for completion of abatement programs will be backed up by tough enforcement sanctions, in- cluding heavy civil and criminal penalties. These will assure that it is not to the advantage of the polluter to default in achieving its abatement program. 4. Extensive requirements will be established to require monitoring and detailed reports by dischargers on the volumes and characteristics of their waste loads. 5. All of the requirements and all of the data will be available to the public. For the first time it will be both possible and convenient for a citizen to learn the legal requirements imposed on a polluter and whether it is meeting them. The new legislation has also dramatically expanded the scope of the permit program beyond its coverage under the Refuse Act. All municipalities will be required to obtain permits. Feedlots and irrigation return flows will also be brought into the system. Because in these areas we do not have the same background of advance preparation, we must anticipate that implementation of LAKE MICHIGAN (Continued from page 7) provide a basis for controls beyond those thus far recommended. PESTICIDES 1. It is recommended that the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife continue and intensify fish sampling for the purpose of establishing trends in pesticide residues. The EPA will coordinate with the BSF and W in monitoring findings and will report to the States on July 1 of each year the results of monitoring program. 2. The States should endeavor to secure passage of adequate legislation to record usage of chlorinated hydrocarbons and other pesticides. these parts of the permit program will not proceed quite as rapidly. As it is extended to cover these new areas, however, the same benefits which I have described with regard to industrial discharges will also be realized with regard to these sources of pollution. In conclusion, these new requirements will transform our institutional systems for pollution control. They will usher in a new era of effective regulation. This will benefit society by facilitating the achievement of sparkling clean water. It will also, I believe, provide substantial benefits to the regulated industry. These benefits will include clarity, predictability, and assurance that competitors are being subjected to comparable requirements. These requirements should also mean that the negative and often unfair image of corporations as dodging their responsibilities will change once the responsibilities are clearly defined and in fact complied with. Message From Mayo (Continued from page 2) conditions. Large boilers with special technical problems or those which expect to be phased out within a few years, thus making capital intensive solutions prohibitively expensive, may reasonably opt for fuel switching to low-sulfur oil or natural gas. By discouraging large scale fuel switching away from coal and delaying compliance when primary standards are not jeopardized, the additional supplies of low-sulfur coal and scrubbers which will be available in 1975 can go to priority uses and scarce supplies of low-sulfur oil and natural gas will be reserved for area sources and large fuel-burning installations with special problems. Compliance schedules for large fuel combustion sources planning to use new sources of low-sulfur coal or stack gas scrubbing to meet SIP's should spell out in detail the lead times involved in obtaining new supplies of low-sulfur coal or in obtaining, installing and checking out new stack gas cleaning devices. Even where ambient air quality conditions would permit delays in com- pliance, such a timetable of action must be agreed upon to insure the achievement of secondary standards within a "reasonable period." PAGE 13 ------- COMPARISON OF FIFRA AND FEPCA PROVISION FIFRA I. Registration of products A. Products covered Interstate products only NEW BILL Both Interstate and Intrastate products B. Classification II. Control of Use A. Certification of applicators All products classified for general use although labels can specify use conditions None Product can be classified for general use or restricted use. If restricted, to be used only by certified applicator or under "such other restrictions as the Administrator may provide." States submit plans for certification in ac- cordance with EPA guidelines. EPA authorized to enter into "cooperative agreements" with States. B. Experimental Use Permits Limited authority EPA may issue permit to enable applicant for registration to gather field data under controlled conditions. C. Penalties for Users None - only control is over interstate ship- ment of misbranded (adulterated or mislabeled) products Provides civil and criminal penalties for shipment of misbranded products and penalties for use inconsistent with specifications on the label. Civil penalties are imposed after administrative hearing, review-in court. Criminal fines are im- posed after court trial. III. Registration of Establishments None Each establishment is to register with EPA, submit information on production, and keep books on distribution of products, etc. IV. Inspection of Establishments None Authority to enter establishments for pur- pose of "inspection and obtaining sam- ples". V. Indemnities None EPA to pay losses to any person who possesses product at time of suspension. VI. Exemptions of Federal Agencies VII. Disposal and Storage A. Procedures Federal agencies not subject to Act. Their major actions are reviewed by CEO's Working Group On Pesticides. None Federal agencies are covered. EPA can exempt any federal or state agency if "emergency conditions" exist. EPA issue regulations for disposal or storage of pesticides and disposal or storage of excess pesticides. B. Disposal Sites None EPA to accept and dispose of pesticides products which have been suspended. VIII. Monitoring None EPA to develop national plan for monitoring pesticides. IX. State Aid None EPA can delegate enforcement to States (with grants) and contract for training of certified applicators. X. State Authority Control over intrastate products Control maintained to extent states can establish stricter standards. XI. Exclusivity of Data EPA can rely on any information in Its own files to evaluate a subsequent applicant's request for registration. EPA cannot rely on data when submitted by a subsequent applicant for registration unless the first registrant gives per- mission. If permission is withheld, EPA should determine what second applicant must pay. XII. Public Participation PAGE 14 Third parties public interest groups and users. Makes express provision for outside par- ticipation. Administrator can call hearings on his own initiative. EPA publishes notice of applications for registration. 30 days after registration EPA publishes data submitted in support of application for registration. ------- GOOD NEWS: Pollution abatement agreements calling for the ex- penditure of some $50 million by four firms over the next three years have been approved by the Board of Directors of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. At its October meeting, the Agency Board signed agreements with Northern States Power Company; Boise-Cascade Company, International Falls; Erie Mining Company, Taconite Harbor; and Spencer- Kellogg Company, Minneapolis. The Agency also ap- proved time extensions for two companies - Hennepin Paper Company of Little Falls and the Universal-Atlas Cement Plant of U.S. Steel in Duluth - for im- plementation of clean-up measures. The 3M Chemolite plant in Cottage Grove, Minn., became the first facility along its section of the Mississippi River to start construction of additional wastewater treatment improvements to meet new pollution control regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The $650,000 construction project, ap- proved earlier by the MPCA, is expected to be completed and in operation in late November, 1973. Included in this project is equipment for additional chemical treatment of all wastewater, tertiary treatment for some of the wastewater, a major addition 'to the existing control house, an eighth settling tank, chemical mixing and coagulation tanks, chemical storage facilities, pumps, mixers and other items. and occasionally for the general public, range from aesthetics to ecology. Cincinnati Post Environmental Writer Richard Gibeau reports that a smokeless incinerator developed by Gordon Hoskinson and manufactured by the Kelley Company of Milwaukee was recently demonstrated in Cincinnati for about 120 industry and government representatives. Hoskinson said the largest model of the incinerator, with 12 cubic yards capacity, can process the solid waste generated by a community of up to 10,000 population. Gibeau quoted Marion T. Smith, senior engineer of Cincinnati's Air Pollution Control Division, who was present for the demonstration, agreed with Hoskinson's assertion that the incinerator meets Federal Clean Air Standards. Sandusky, Ohio, has expanded its sewage treatment plant to make it among the first in the State to remove phosphorus, according to the Cleveland Press. Plant Superintendent John McGinness said the city used to dump 1650 pounds of phosphorus into Lake Erie daily. Now, with the addition of liquid alum, the city's discharge of phosphorus to Lake Erie has been reduced to 200 pounds per day, according to McGinness. Ohio Clubs of the American Automobile Assn. are giving the first state-wide free automobile exhaust tests in an effort to reduce air pollution from motors. The Columbus Auto Club conducted the first emissions check clinic in August using a Honeywell combustion analyzer. The analyzer is available to 56 other clubs in the State of Ohio. Thomas J. Jones, executive vice president of the state group, said the test requires two minutes and shows whether the vehicle meets emission standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The State of Minnesota is funding six counties under a new program designed to keep junked cars from becoming roadside eyesores. The counties have con- tracted with the State to collect auto hulks. The program is funded by a $1 auto-transfer surcharge. Cleveland Plain Dealer Environmental Reporter William D. McCann said it is estimated that more than 360 courses related to environmental matters are available this year at Cleveland's three universities. The courses, for undergraduate students, graduate students, Detroit Citizen Briefing The Detroit Federal Executive Board will sponsor a one-day symposium on the Citizens Role in the Environmental Impact Statement Process on January 18,1973 in the Detroit City-County Building, 2 Woodward Ave., beginning at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of the symposium is to inform the general citizenry of their role, responsibilities and opportunities in the Environmental Impact Statement process. EPA's Director of Federal activities, Sheldon Meyers, will be on hand to discuss the significance and limitations of the Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality. Representatives from the following organizations are expected to be on hand also: Detroit Edison, Huron River Watershed Council, Michigan Autoworkers Conservation and Recreation Department, the Michigan Student Environmental Confederation, State Highway Dept., City of Detroit, the Corps of Engineers, Oakland County, EPA, and the Department of the Interior, among other agencies. There will be a $2 registration fee. All inquiries on the symposium should be directed to Mr. James Harris, Executive Assistant to the Detroit FEB, & Detroit Data Center, 2700 Greenfield Road, Oak Park, Michigan 48237. PAGE 15 ------- REGION V PUBLIC REPORT is published monthly by the Office of Public Affairs, Region V Environmental Protection Agency at One North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606 for distribution in the states of the Region (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan.) Regional Administrator .. Director of Public Affairs. Editor Art Director . Francis T. Mayo . Frank M. Corrado Helen P. Starr AnnN.Hooe FROM: Office of Public Affairs United States Environmental Protection Agency One North Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA-335 PAGE 16 ------- |