EN VIRONMENTAL
NEWS
S UMMA R Y J™ 2 8-197*
Office of Public Affaire U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA
"Reported to be extremely displeased" at "EPA's lack of independence," Sen.
Muskie(D-Me.) postpones Public Works Committee confirmation hearings on Roger Strelow,
James Agee, until successor to Stanley Greenfield named as Asst. Admin, for Research
and Development (Environmental Health Letter, 6/15/74). Muskie considers all three pos-
itions interrelated, wants simultaneous consideration—also seeks to use occasion for
discussion of EPA "deficiencies." "Said to be teed off" at Train, colleagues for "sub-
ordination of environmental missions to larger political goals." Some examples of this:
(1) Misleading him on transfer of R&D funds from EPA to Energy Research and Development
Agency, (2) caving-in to Rep. Whitten(D-Miss.) demand that agency file environmental im-
pact statements, (3) promulgation of thermal pollution standards that Muskie considers a
"cop-out and responsive only to the utilities," and (4) Train's "acquiescence" to OMB on
Clean Air Act amendments. Leon Billings, heading Muskiefs staff investigation into EPA
"inadequacies," says "Train seems to be more responsive to the enemies of environment
than to his strongest supporters."
RESERVE MINING
Three-judge panel of U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals grants Reserve Mining
a minimum 70-day delay in implementing District Court Judge Miles Lord's order (4/21/74)
banning asbestos-like emissions into air and Lake Superior. Panel rules that evidence
doesn't support "a finding of substantial danger" and that "Reserve appears likely to
succeed on the merits of its appeal on the health issue" (Wall St. Journal, 6/5/74),
(Wash. Post, 6/S&6/74), (N.Y. Times, 6/S&9/74), (Chicago Tribune, 6/5/74), (Denver Post,
6/5/74), (Air/Water Pollution Report, 6/10/74). EPA formally asks Justice Dept. to ap-
peal decision to Supreme Court (Wash. Post, 6/12/74),(Environmental Health Letter, 6/15/
74), but Assistant Attorney General Wallace Johnson demurs, saying that Supreme Court
would be unlikely to grant review because key issues remain to be decided in lower
courts (Wall St. Journal, 6/17/74), (Wash. Star-News, 6/17/74). However, Justice will
ask Circuit Court to reconsider ruling.
EDITORIAL REACTION; "Appeals court has seemingly done a better job of balancing con-
flicting interests than was done in a lower court which had ordered...Qthe] shutdown,"
says Wall St. Journal(6/14/74). "The appeals court said it simply had not seen persua-
sive evidence that the pollution posed the kinds of health hazards claimed and therefore
justified a closedown order...That sounds like a reasonable judgment to us." Wash.
Star-News(6/9/74) says decision "astonishing," and that appeals court "weighed the pub-
lic interest all too lightly." Adds that "decision seems to contradict itself: While
the three judges accuse Judge Lord of overreacting to the evidence, they go on to say
that 'a monumental environmental mistake' was made in allowing the dumping in the first
place." THE APPEALS COURT "had to reject the 'immediate hazard1 argument in order
to avert an economic disaster to the region," says Chicago Daily News(6/6/74). "...In
these circumstances, phasing out the pollution may be the best solution even though it
cannot be regarded as wholly satisfactory...Reserve fought the case on economic grounds,
pleading that the cost of converting to land dumping would be prohibitive. But the
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
courts are not buying that argument, and shouldn't.. .Trading health and pure water for
iron ore would be a bad bargain."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. Minnesota Gov. Wendell Anderson says state will appeal
decision of three-judge panel to full nine-member 8th Circuit Court, and if rejected
there, to Supreme Court(Cincinnatti Enquirer. 6/9/74) MAJORITY OF MINNESOTANS in
Minneapolis Tribune(6/2/74) survey think Reserve's discharge should be halted "immedi-
ately"; even larger percentage favor protecting environment over saving Reserve jobs, if
choice necessary.
IN OTHER GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENTS. Detroit Free Press(5/29/74) feels Detroit
River, Lake Erie, "being flushed clean faster than even some experts had hoped," while
N.Y. Times(6/9/74) article indicates "encouraging progress has recently been made" on
cleaning up all the Great Lakes Chicago Daily News(5/28/74) reports scientists in-
vestigating recent evidence indicating that rain, snow and winds big contributors to
Great Lakes pollution problem.
LAND USE
SOME REACTION TO HOUSE DEFEAT(211-204) OF RULE FOR DEBATE ON LAND USE BILL: "A
splendid example of the old American tendancy toward recklessness-cum-myopia, working in
tandem with crassly brutal impeachment politics," charges N.Y. Times ed.(6/13/74).
"Though the bill was so mild that it contained no sanctions and left it open to the
states to ignore it if they so chose, it was falsely painted by conservative and special
interest groups--which incidentally may be expected to form Mr. Nixon's bedrock support
against impeachment--as a dangerous threat to American freedom, to the sanctity of pri-
vate property, and to practically everything else that is sacred, from motherhood to the
flag...The need for land-use control is obvious, that is to all except those whose vis-
ion is blurred by the outmoded illusion of America as an unlimited cornucopia, those who
are willing to grasp for the fast real estate or developmental buck irrespective of the
consequences, and those for whom the survival of the Nixon Administration takes first
priority." In same issue of Times, Gladwin Hill says House rejection of land use bill
"an exercise in futility" since circumstances have long since pushed states, feds into
land use planning. Cites Coastal Zone Management Act, Clean Air Act, '72 water pollu-
tion law; also cites "mini-crises" that "have forced virtually every state to adopt at
least 'single purpose' land regulation." Time(6/24/74): "By dodging critical land-
use problems, the House and the White House have taken a giant step backward."
Wash. Star-News(6/17/74); "The continued uglification of the American landscape got a
big boost from the House last week, in a display of illogic and political weaseling that
defies comparison...This was the worst capitulation yet on an environmental issue...If
there is one explanation for this reversal, it is Watergate. Because it has been pre-
occupied with Watergate, the press has failed to spell out the issue, allowing extreme
right-wing elements to foster the mistaken impression that the land use measure would
have interfered with private property rights...The President caved in to these minority
pressures, hoping thereby to gain anti-impeachment votes in the House...Mr. Nixon's per-
sonal survival in office is what it's all about." Wash. Post(6/15/74); "This ir-
responsible performance is deeply disheartening to those...who believe that cooperative
federal-state efforts are required to save the nation's finite land resources from hap-
hazard, ruinous development. The House vote should be equally discouraging for those
who think that Congress can and should assert creative leadership in tackling the nation-
al problems which the executive branch has failed to meet...A crucial resource protec-
tion bill has been shelved by a coalition of the profiteers, the primitives and the
President." Wall St. Journal(6/17/74) ; "Those of us who are less impassioned on
the issue might conclude that the House acted with considerable wisdom. There is little
jersuasive evidence that it struck any kind of really damaging blow at environmental in-
terests. And on the positive side, it may have headed off a movement toward over-plan-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
ning that could, over time, seriously damage economic growth."
IN OTHER LAND USE DEVELOPMENTS. "Land use planning is on the way, like it or
not," observes Casper Star-Tribune(5/28/74). "...Historically, control of land use has
rested with local governments sensitive to the needs of the people most affected by the
decisions. This is the way we want to keep it...Unless local groups get on with the
task, there's always the threat of federal intervention."
STRIP MINING
Continued coverage of strip mine bill controversy in Christian Science Monitor
(6/6/74), Louisville Courier-Journal(6/7&14/74) "THE BILL TO REGULATE STRIP MINING
which has emerged from the House Interior Committee is not an environmentalist's dream,"
says N.Y. Times(6/11/74), "but it is not a nightmare either...To its discredit, the
Nixon Administration has joined the coal lobby in opposing any meaningful bill. If this
bill is defeated, and no law is enacted, the Industry is likely to have its way and a
profitable raping of the land will continue indefinitely under the guise of easing the
energy shortage." Colman McCarthy in Wash. Post(6/4/74); "Each week sees another
1,200 acres of land stripped. While this earth quakes, Congress nears its fourth year in
leisured debate on regulatory legislation...It is as though Congress, tranquilized, per-
sists in believing in a quick-fix solution: how else can strip mining be defined, except
as quick devastation for quick corporate benefits? If Congress does ignore the many
calls for strong legislation.. .nothing remains but to create a new type of National Dis-
aster Area—for the disaster laid upon the land not by an act of Nature but by an act of
Congress."
IN RELATED DEVELOPMENTS. In study prepared for National Academy of Sciences, a
panel of scientists conclude that (1) Little use made of available technology in rehabil-
itating strip mined land, and (2) It is impossible to completely restore land after
stripping, but possible to reclaim areas for farming, wildlife preservation. Panel rec-
ommends that: (1) Surface mining for coal be barred in western U.S., unless mining com-
panies present detailed advance plans for rehabilitation, (2) Feds take the lead in mak-
ing rehabilitation plans mandatory(Wash. Post, 6/4/74),(Newsday. 6/3/74).
IN OTHER STRIP MINE DEVELOPMENTS. Rocky Mountain News(6/6&7/74) focuses on en-
vironmental impact statement compiled by four federal agencies predicting that strip
mines proposed for the eastern Powder River Basin of Wyoming will create "a region com-
pletely different" from the ranching area it is now, with a 50% loss in the productive
capacity of the land, degraded air quality, reduction in water supply, increased school
enrollments, and disappearance of some wildlife forms—among other damage. ..... MASSIVE
STRIP MINE, POWER PLANT DEVELOPMENTS in neighboring states may cause damage to Nebraska
air, soil and vegetation, say two state environmental authorities (Omaha World-HeraId, 6/
2/74) Billings Gazette(6/5/74) quotes author who calls Eastern Montana a "national
sacrifice area"(bacause of future energy development) but it comments: "He was resigned
to it. That doesn't mean we have to be. By its laws, Montana and Wyoming and the Dako-
tas, can prevent a rip up which leaves them raw and unrewarded. If they will stick to-
gether on reclamation, on price-related taxation and high standards to prevent pollution,
they can serve the nation's energy needs and their own best interests."
UNLEADED GAS
Alan Kirk, EPA Asst. Admin, for Enforcement, says fed regs insure that lead-free
gas will be available across nation in time for '75 autos. Regs require 111,000 service
stations begin selling unleaded by July 1, 1974, with additional stations in rural areas
to meet requirements by end of this year(Wash. Post. 6/6/74), (Time, 6/24/74).(Wash. Star-
News, 6/5/74). (Detroit News, 6/5/74). (AirTWater Pollution n^grt, 6/10/74)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS SUMMARY
COMMENTING ON EARLIER AAA CLAIM that up to 10 million '75-model owners may not find un-
leaded gas available if supply, distribution problems not quickly solved (see 6/7/74
News_§ummary) . Memphis^ Commerlea 1 Appeal(5/28/74) says: "Watching Big Brother—sometimes
known as the federal government—in another of those experiments in controlling our
lives reminds us of the great line Oliver Hardy used to feed to a hapless Stan Laurel:
'Another fine mess you've gotten us into.'" Paper says plan simple enough when laws
were being passed and regs written, "but in real life": (1) Long strike has blocked pro-
duction of special nozzles, (2) since big companies guaranteeing unleaded only to sta-
tions they own, many independents, minor brands may not have any unleaded to pump, and
(3) Fed regs shortchange some areas, particularly rural sections.
IN OTHER AUTO POLLUTION DEVELOPMENTS. EPA Mobile Source head Eric Stork "admit-
ted" that agency's '74 fuel economy figures "didn't communicate" and that a consumer
survey found "weight classes had no meaning at all" for car buyers. Stork says EPA will
aggregate '75's into broader categories and "try not to flood consumers with too much
information."(Detroit Free Press, 5/30/74).
AIR
Alvin Aim, EPA Asst. Admin, for Planning & Management, calls anti-scrubber ads
placed by American Electric Power System "inaccurate."(Advertising Age, 6/3/74). Refer-
ring to ads contending that installation of scrubbers at all U.S. power plants would
create, in five years time, 10 square miles of sludge five feet deep, Aim calls them
"irresponsible," commenting that "Even if you take a big system like American Electric
Power and if you assumed they needed scrubbers at all their plants, which they don't,
you are only talking about a sludge disposal problem of 1.3 square miles." Billings
Gazette (5/29/74) lauds Montana Gov. Thomas Judge for challenging Administration proposal
allowing industry to continue operations without installing scrubbers—halting operations
only when pollution exceeds fed air standards. "That's the old shell game of now-you
see it, now-you-don't...one that stripped to its essentials says 'let the wind blow it
away.'...The only truly effective...control is to cut the emission or discharge of pol-
lutants. Without it you don't have pollution control. The pollution is just passed
along to cause future woes here, there and, eventually everywhere."
09W)Z 'O-Q 'NO13NIHSVM
AON30V NOI103iOdd 1V1N3WNOMIAN3 'STl
LOI -v saivdjv onarid jo
------- |