ENVIRONMENTAL
NEWS
SUMMARY May 31, 1974
Office of Public Affairs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
AIR
Kentucky Public Service Commission hearing on Louisville Gas & Elec. bid to in-
stall scrubbers on two more of its plants heard testimony from EPA's John Finklea on
sulfur dioxide levels in Jefferson County (5 times over federal safety standards) caus-
ing estimated 100 deaths annually, which "clearly startled many persons at the hearing"
(Louisville Courier-Journal, 5/14/74). In'k major EPA effort to convince PSC to recon-
sider" earlier ruling blocking scrubbers, EPA's Robert Baum stressed potential enforce-
ment action for LG&E failure to meet '75 air standards, confidence in scrubbers express-
ed by EPA's Frank Princiotta (LG&E scrubbers...cleanest I have seen"), other state, lo-
cal air, health officials(Journal, 5/14/74). Adverse reaction from Edison Electric In-
stitute rep..."LG&E1s brief experience insufficient...should consider alternatives, such
as...higher smokestacks"...PSC ChairmaniLogan "bristling" to Baum: "What you are saying,
although trying not to be obnoxious, is that EPA is going to take action against LG&E...
unless we (PSC) allow the company to put on these scrubbers..."(Journal, 5/14/74). Story
also covered in Louisville Times. 5/14/74. UMW's President Arnold Miller calls for
scrubber approval in letter to PSC, to prevent "economic disaster"(Louisville Times,
5/16/74).
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. Ralph Nader, in letter to N.Y. Times(5/21/74), coun-
ters American Electric Power System attack on scrubbers with EPA statistics (Jan.'74),
which "...found FGD [flue gas desulfurization] technology ready for widespread use de-
spite the reluctance of large utilities to research & develop this technology." Nader
says "it is not necessary to weaken the Clean Air Act to accomodate intransigent utili-
ties by imposing higher levels of air pollution on the breathing public... A true meas-
ure of physical comfort should include our successes in preserving and restoring the
people's health." Environmental Technology & Economics(5/20/74) notes Bureau of
Mines estimate that by mid-'75, when clean air standards take effect, "one-third of na-
tion's coal supply will contain too much sulfur...", however, "use of stack-gas scrubbers
will extend the amount of coal that can be used."
VINYL CHLORIDE
The Washington Post(5/26/74) reports that data gathered from an EPA study of at-
mospheric concentrations of vinyl chloride along the Houston Ship Channel, where several
chemical plants are located, is being withheld pending possible criminal prosecution,
"would be released only after evaluation and possible legal disposition," according to
EPA officials in Dallas. The Louisville Times(5/9/74) reports that B.F. Goodrich is
aware that its plants release "small amounts" of vinyl-chloride gas into the air, but
company claims "there is no danger... the gas is a volatile substance that dissipates
rapidly...dispersed into the atmosphere in trace amounts only detectable by highly soph-
isticated instruments." EPA has begun monitoring both the air and water around Goodrich's
Louisville plant, and found concentrations below the federal "maximum" standard of 50 ppn
but which would be illegal if the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's proposed
new regulation of "no detectable level" takes effect in July(Louisville Times, 5/9/74).
While the Louisville Times(5/15/74), in calling for adoption of the new standards, admits
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
"enormous investments" will be necessary to maintain that level, "...it is certainly pre
ferable to more angiosarcoma victims. The public must be prepared to pay the full price"
The Louisville Courier-Journal(5/17/74) contends that industry's complaint of technolog-
ical impossibility and severe economic disruption may be valid: "OSHA, the industry and
the public must face [that] fact..." However, "industry...cannot be allowed...to post-
pone steps which will protect both its workers and persons who live near its plants...
OSHA Must continue to apply pressure. Human risk is an inescapable factor in most in-
dustrial processes, yet...must be minimized... No worker wants to be exposed to hazards
on the job... neither do most workers want their jobs eliminated along with the hazards.
...Vinyl chloride...appears to present the biggest and most frightening challenge OSHA
has encountered..."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. B.F. Goodrich has found "liver abnormalities" in sever-
al more of its Louisville employees, including some of its management and office person-
nel (LouJ:s^me_Times, 5/17/74) Louisville Times (5/13/74) and AP story in Paducah,
Ky. Sun-Democrat(5/14/74) discuss possible further evidence that Goodrich may have been
aware vinyl chlorides relationship to cancer as much as a year before it released its
information on the angiosarcoma victims U.S. Dept. of Transportation reports vinyl
chloride is an "explosive cargo" and is now studying to determine if "single large dose"
could cause cancer in the event of a railroad accident(Bergen County Record, 5/20/74).
RESERVE MINING
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis takes "under advisement" Reserve's
appeal of April 20 decision by Judge Lord to close down the plant(Wash. Post, 5/16/74).
Considered a "classic" among environmentalists and federal officials, case pits, says
Russell Train, "...the public health issue against the economic one... fas'] the basic
underpinning for our environmental laws is the public health."(Wash. Post, 5/25/74).
Reserve testified to its previous contention that "there had been no evidence of any im-
mediate health hazard"(St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 5/16/74)(see News Summary. 5/17/74),
while federal, state attornies rejected attempt by Court for compromise to keep Reserve
open while switching to on-land disposal, citing immediacy of health hazard(Minn. Tri-
bune, 5/16/74, Wash. Star. 5/16/74). Since effect of asbestos-fibers not evident for
15-20 years, health-hazard cannot be proved beyond "reasonable doubt," so "...how the
appeals court rules," EPA officials say, "and what it says about the extent to which the
government must prove a public health threat will affect the whole cleanup effort by the
federal government and its allies"(Post. 5/25/74). Story also in Detroit News, 5/12/74;
St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 5/13/74. Both Wash. Post(5/14/74) and Minn. Tribune(5/13/74)
call for management responsibility to protect employees' "environmental rights...to be
freed from the threat of economic blackmail so they may actively join in the uphill bat-
tle to restore and protect the environment(Tribune. 5/13/74). Tribune asks state legis-
lature to "...look into questions raised by management that deliberately use potential
job losses to sidetrack pollution controls." Post(5/14/74) says "the Silver Bay battle
has become a textbook case of corporate intransigence...[Reserve] chose to delay and
fight instead... The time is past when industries could make a mess...and freely walk
away." D.J.R. Bruckner, in a syndicated column(L.A. Times. 5/8/74), asks government to
"...use the law to force industry to use technology to protect life, fthen] the value of
technology will be obvious, and the economy will be healthy for much longer."
IN OTHER GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENTS. Office of Management^ Budget has released to
EPA $3.5 million for further evaluation, prevention & control of Great Lakes pollution,
to be used under joint U.S.-Canada agreement made in 1972(Clean Water Report, 5/10/74).
N.Y. Timpq/5724/74) reports that Canadian scientists have ruled phosphates, not
carbon, key to eutrophication process, settling long-standing controversy. The scien-
tists have asked the U.S. to ban most phosphate detergents from sewage in the Great
Lakes area as soon as possible Wall St. Journal(4/25/74) commends improved water
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY I
quality of the Detroit River and Lake Erie, and The Chicago Tribune(5/6/74) sees indica-
tion of improvement in Lake Michigan.
OCEANS
Environmental Technology & Economics (5/20/74) reports that National Science Foun
dation-funded study finds "life proceeds at much slower rate at great ocean depths...
[which] may have great significance in...proposals to dump garbage and other wastes on
the deep ocean floor... They may simply accumulate." The National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice (NMFS) is being accused of sabotaging the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
Lewis Regenstein, exec, vice-pres. of the Fund for Animals writes in a Wash. Post column
(5/23/74) that a South Carolina fur company is about to be issued a permit to import
skins from seals slaughtered off South Africa, in direct opposition to the Act's prohibi
tion on U.S. importation of any furs Henry Truby, pres. of the World Dolphin Founda-
tion, notes another NMFS hearing in Seattle on proposed issuance of permits to allow com'
mercial fishermen to kill dolphins, since the tuna industry has not figured out how to
avoid catching them in their nets(Miami Herald. 5/16/74).
BREEDER REACTORS
I
Under pressure from OMB and Calif, congressman Chet Holifield, EPA drops plans
for cost/benefit analysis of breeder reactors(N.Y. Times. 5/21/74, Wash. Star. 5/21/74).
The intended study was to have given EPA a broader base for critical evaluation of AEC's
breeder reactor program, after calling AEC's impact statement on the program "inadequate
(see following story). Times noted that Mr. Holifield, a "long-time champion of nuclear
power" having "considerable influence with the budget office" felt that EPA, "in their
zeal to stop any form of generation of electricity, fossil or nuclear, to preserve pure
air and pure water, is going beyond its mission." EPA said publication of proposed study
was "an error," as the study was originally to have been used in EPA's evaluation of the
impact statement Citing incomplete, often improper assessment of reactor safety
problems, plutonium disposal methods, cost-benefit ratios, EPA scores AEC's draft envir-
onmental impact statement on fast-breeder reactors as "inadequate." Based on demonstra-
tion project scheduled for '80 completion, and projected long-range 550-breeder-reactor
network plan slated for full-scale operation by 2020, AEC concludes environmental impact
of fast-breeder program "acceptably low," and economically beneficial(Wash. Post. 5/7/74)
But, EPA feels "fthe] draft statement does not support these conclusions because of omis-
sions or deficiencies in the treatment of certain issues"--specifically, note Wash. Star
(5/7/74), Bergen County (N.J.) Record(5/6/74), in the handling, storage of plutonium.
EPA scores AEC for ignoring other technological alternatives, such as solar energy(N.Y.
Times, 5/7/74; Christian Science Monitor. 5/15/74).
EDITORIAL REACTION; "Delay-[in the program], however, is of no consequence,
given the potential hazards involved. Unless it can be shown that the breeder reactor
will be safe, there should be no breeder reactor program... The AEC still has not shown
that there are adequate safeguards against the accidental release of long-lasting and
deadly radioactive plutonium. Nor, says the EPA, has it shown that the costs of the
program will be justified by the results.. .EPA wants better answers than the AEC has thus
far given."(L.A. Times. 5/8/74) Washington Star-News(5/13/74) ; "The possibilities
of disasterous power-plant accidents will be greater, as will the consequences of mis-
handling.. .great quantities of toxic, bomb-grade fuel. Mistakes of the kind that now
keep so many nuclear plants closed down for repairs do nothing to assuage the safety
fears of those who dread the arrival of the fast breeder... It will be necessary.. .to
chalk up a much better operating record than has been established in the first few dozen
plants." N.Y. Times (5/25/74) points out that "The fast breeder also creates a
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
distinct possibility, for the first time, of construction of nuclear weapons...[reactor]
is keyed to use of plutoniutn... [which] can be made directly into a bomb by one or two
skilled persons." Scores AEG on failure to consider alternatives, especially solar
energy; calls AEG statement "parochial, self-serving document."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. Wall St. Journal(5/13/74) calls for less emotional re-
sponse to nuclear safety issues: "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific communi-
ty is that nuclear plants are safe by any relative measurement. But critics have chosen
to frame their objections in absolute terms, claiming any risk at all is intolerable...
an effective emotional argument. It is conceivable that nuclear power is not the long-
range answer to world energy consumption...but...nuclear power is the only...source that
is technologically advanced enough at the present time."
IN OTHER NUCLEAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS. Chicago Tribune(5/13/74) says speed-up of
nuclear plant licensing process is near, as Joint Atomic Energy Committee is expected to
report out a bill soon which would, among other things, eliminate mandatory public hear-
ing at the construction permit stage, bypass the application review by the Independent
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and authorize AEC to issue interim permits
prior to hearings on operating licenses, if judged in the public interest Inter-
national ecologist Barbara Ward calls "...plutonium bomb...very high price to pay for
energy" in comments on nuclear power, warns against its "poison and lethally cancerous"
properties, and asks that "environmental safeguards not be sacrificed to meet energy
needs," in remarks at a meeting of the American Society of Planning Officials in Chicago
(Chicago Sun-Times. 5/13/74).
LAND USE BILL
House Rules Committee votes out land use bill by 8-7 vote. Sponsored by Rep.
Morris K. Udall of Arizona, bill would provide $800-million to states over 8 years, with
extensive federal guidelines for state planning, but is expected to be challenged on
House floor by weaker version offered by two other Arizona Congressmen, John Rhodes
and Sam Steiger, allowing $40 million over 5 years with no guidelines. The Rhodes-
Steiger version is currently supported by the Administration(N.Y. Times, 5/16/74; Wash.
Post, 5/16/74).
see-vaa
A9N3DV NOU.33J.OHtl 1VlN3NNOtflANa
QIVcl 833d QNV HOVXSOd
'NOJ.9NIHSVM
A3N3DV NOI13310ild 1V1N3WNOJIIAN3
------- |