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
------- |