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

-------