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

-------