SEPTEMBER 1976
VOL. TWO, NO. EIGHT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
  QUIET,
PLEASE!

-------
THE  QUEST  FOR
PEACE  AMD QUIET
 "One winter night I stood and listened beneath the stars. It was cold,
 perhaps 20 below, and I was on a lake deep in the wilds. The stars
 were close that night, so close they almost blazed, and the Milky Way
 was  a  brilliant luminous splash across the heavens. An owl hooted
 somberly in the timber of the dark shores,  a  sound that accentuated
 the quiet on the open lake. Here again was the silence, and I thought
 how  rare it is to know it, how increasingly difficult to ever achieve real
 quiet and the peace that comes with it, how  true  the statement
 'tranqtiility is beyond price.' More and more do we realize that quiet is
 important to our happiness. In our cities, the constant beat of strange
 and  foreign  wave lengths on our primal  senses beats us into
 nenroticism, changes us from creatures who once knew the silences to
fretful, uncertain beings immersed in a cacophony of noise  which
 destroys sanity and equilibrium."
 —Sigurd F. Olson, "The Singing Wilderness."
   This need for quiet or at  least less noise is the main subject EPA
 Journal examines in this issue.
   We  begin  with an over-all  view  of the Agency's  noise control
 program in a question  and  answer session with  Charles L.  Elkins.
 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control  Programs.
   Then we take a look at one of the  most irritating sound problems in
 modern society—airport noise.  Another article  examines the little
 recognized problem of noise in the home.
   As an example of some of the actions EPA is taking to deal with
 these matters, the Agency's new  laboratory in Sandusky, Ohio,  for
 testing truck noise is described in an article.
   Other subjects covered in this issue include:
   A  photo essay on a New  Jersey waterfront ship graveyard where a
 huge new park is planned.
   A  review of a report by the Council on  Environmental Quality on
 the effectiveness of the environmental impact statement process.
   An article on the progress being made by the U.S. Navy in curbing
 pollution from its ships.
   Another in our continuing series of regional reports, with  the
 spotlight this time on the Region  VIII Office in Denver.
   An article which should be of interest to everyone who changes the
 oil in his car and is faced with the question: What do you do with the
 dirty  oil?

-------
I'l'inlcd on recycled paper.
U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY

Russell K. Train, Administrator
Patricia L. Cahn, Director of Public
             Affairs
Charles I). Pierce, Editor
Staff: Van Trumbull. Ruth Hussey.
David Cohen

The EPA Journal is published
monthly, with combined issues
July-August and November-December,
by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Use of
funds for printing this periodical has
been approved by the  Director of the
Office of Management and Budget •
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy.
Contributions and inquiries should be
addressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20460. No
permission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials. Subscription:
$8.75 a year, $.75 for single copy.
domestic; $11.00 if mailed to a foreign
address. No charge to employees.
Send check or money order to
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Washington. D.C. 20402.

COVER:
Illustration by George Rebh


PHOTO CREDITS
INSIDE COVER   Larry Higgins
PAGE 2. 16
PAGE7.9

PAGE 8
PAGE 10, 11
PAGE 12

PAGE 16. 17
Ernest Bucci
Michael Philip
Manheim*
David Brill*
F. Roy Kemp
Continental
Oil Co.
A.1 Wilson
*DOCUMERICA PHOTOS
               ARTICLES
               CONTROLLING NOISE POLLUTION
               An interview with Charles L.  Elkins,
               Deputy Assistant Administrator for
               Noise Control Programs

               THE  ROAR FROM ABOVE
               A report on aviation noise and
               what is being done about it

               HOME NOISES
               The sounds in the home that
               can interfere with hearing

               TESTING, TESTING
               EPA opens new laboratory for
               checking noise from trucks

               LIBERTY  PARK PLANNED
               FOR JERSEY SHORELINE
                                                   PAGE 2
                                                   PAGE 6
                                                  PAGE 8
                                                  PAGE 9
                                                 PAGE 10

                                                 PAGE 12

                                                 PAGE 13
               SOLVING AN OILY DILEMMA

               NAVY CLEANS UP

               COUNCIL SAYS IMPACT STUDY WORKS WELL  PAGE  18

               REGION  VIII ON PARADE                       PAGE  19

               PROTECTING THE NEW FRONTIER             PAGE  22

               SHARING THE JOURNAL                    BACK  PAGE



               DEPARTMENTS
PEOPLE

NATION

INQUIRY

NEWS BRIEFS
PAGE 16

PAGE 14

PAGE 24

PAGE 25

-------
CONTROLLING
NOISE   POLLUTION
 An interview with Charles  L. Elkins,
 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control Programs
 Q: Wild! is noise and how is it distin-
 guished from sound'.'
 A: Noise is usually defined as un-
 wanted  sound.  In some  cases, of
 course, one person's noise  is another
 person's  music, but  we find that there
 is a  general  public consensus about
 what constitutes major sources of noise
 requiring Federal regulation.
 Q: In the Noise Control  Ad of 1972,
 Congress, in effect,  instructed EPA to
 determine the level of environmental
 noise that would protect  public health
 and welfare. Is this  an attainable  mis-
 sion for the Agency?
 A: In 1974 we published the  "Levels
 Document"  which  sets out, based on
 our current knowledge,  those levels
 which would protect public  health and
 welfare with an adequate  margin of
 safety.  As new information is devel-
 oped through research and studies, that
 document will be updated.
   The question of whether this country
 could ever attain safe noise levels for
 all activities is uncertain  at this time,
 although  I would certainly suggest that
 it  would  be  a long time from  now
 before that would happen.  The cost and
 the technical  feasibility  of achieving
 various levels  of abatement are being
 determined. In selling the standards
 under the Noise Control  Act we  have
 tried  to achieve the greatest protection
 of public health and welfare taking cost
 and technical feasibility into account.
 Q: Why  wasn't regulation of noise left
 to State and local authorities?  Why did
 the federal government  hare to get
 into it'.'
 A: The Noise Control Act does empha-
 size that the  primary responsibility for
 noise control rests with State and  local
 authorities. On the  other hand, some
 sources of noise are products which are
 manufactured in a few cities and  sold
 all over the country, such as  automo-
 biles, trucks, and  aircraft. For this
 reason Congress determined that noise
 abatement at the  source  would be
 achieved  most efficiently by  national
 uniform standards for the major sources
 of noise.
 y: What  is EPA's  role  vis-a-vis the
States and municipalities generally  in
the control of noise?
A: The Noise Control Act differs from
most of the acts which  EPA  adminis-
ters.  We do not have a grant  program
to initiate and support State and local
control programs.  Our function is, in-
stead, to provide  technical  assistance.
leaving to the State and local  govern-
ments the funding of these programs.
   Our job in the past has been  to
develop  model codes, ordinances and
materials which they can use to run
their  programs. Region VIII is develop-
ing a workbook which will take local
communities, step  by step, through the
development  of a noise control pro-
gram.
   I would be  less than honest, how-
ever, not to indicate that to date our
program of technical assistance to States
and localities has been minimal, be-
cause of resource constraints  and the
necessity under the Noise Control Act
to proceed expeditiously with  the set-
ting  of national  source standards.  I
would hope that we  would  be able  to
give this effort much more emphasis  in
the future and our office has developed
proposals along  this line which the
Agency is now considering.
Charles L. E/kins
 Q:  Why was primary responsibility for
 regulating  airplane noise given to the
 Federal Aviation Administration?
 A:  This  was a matter of very  hot
 debate during the passage of the 1972
 Noise Control Act. The legislative his-
 tory clearly indicates that the Congress
 was generally very disturbed with the
 lack of progress in noise abatement in
 the aviation field, and they felt that the
 message had to be gotten to the FAA
 that more and faster action was needed,
 so they thought very seriously of giving
 the entire authority to EPA.
  However,  Congress finally decided
 instead to keep the regulatory authority
 within the  FAA since  it is imperative
 that final decisions  in the aviation area
 be based on a review of all the factors,
 including protection of  health and wel-
 fare, economic feasibility and safety.
  Safety  is one particular  factor  in
 which FAA  clearly has the expertise
 and there is no need for EPA to try to
 develop  a  staff with these  specialized
 skills. However, Congress did provide
 us the authority to  propose  regulations
 to the FAA. These are  published in the
 Federal  Register  as Notices of  Pro-
 posed Rulemaking, leaving to the FAA
 the  final decision of whether or not  to
 promulgate a  final rule.  If the  FAA
 does not promulgate our proposed rule,
 they must publish explanations of why
 they did not accept the  EPA recom-
 mendations.
 Q:  Wasn't  EPA's concern about noise
from the Concorde exaggerated?
 A: No. I believe our position was just
 not  fully understood.
  We agreed that one Concorde flight a
 day or two flights a  day  would be
 hardly noticed at  Dulles Airport and
 even at JFK.
  What we argued  was that the  initial
 flights constituted a "foot in the door"
for  the 25 flights a day into JFK and
five flights a day into Dulles which the
 British and  French have projected.
  This number of flights would provide
a serious noise impact at JFK because
the  Concorde is clearly  noisier than the
present generation of aircraft which we
and  the FAA believe are too noisy and
 PAGE 2

-------
should be phased out or retrofitted with
noise control  devices. This number of
flights  would also be  a problem at
Dulles  in the future if  the population
around  the airport continues to grow as
it has in the past.
  The "foot in  the door" argument  is
especially relevant  in this case because
of our  international  treaty obligations
which prohibit us  from discriminating
among airlines.  If we  give approval to
the   French  and  British  airlines, there
will  be  really no  basis  on which the
Secretary of Transportation can deny
equal treatment to  Iran Airlines,  which
has already indicated they will purchase
Concordes  or  to, for  that  matter.
Pan Am  or TWA.
  Mr. Coleman's response to that argu-
ment is  that  he  will issue an  Environ-
mental  Impact Statement at  the time
that  any further  applications are  made.
We  of  course  believe  that  an EIS
should be  written in such a case, but
we feel the  time  to  deal with the
problem is at  the  start and not  after
"the horse is already out of the barn."
Q: /.v //  economically practical ami
feasible it! this time  to appreciably
reduce aircraft and airport noise'.'
A: It definitely is. In fact, the history of
aviation noise is  quite remarkable. It is
our observation that very little has been
done  to abate aviation noise, despite all
the furor about it over the last 20 years.
   As we  see  it. there  are so  many
panics responsible for pail of the  prob-
lem that they have never been forced to
act together to  abate  the  noise.  The
airlines, the aircraft manufacturers,  the
aiiport proprietors,  land use planners—
each of these  groups points a finger at
the others, and says,  "I cannot  solve
the whole  problem.  When you  get  the
others to do something, come back and
talk to me."
                            George Kehh
   Secondly, the  problem has been con-
 strued  as  being  so technically  difficult
 that  citizens  have  had a  hard  time
 cutting through the technical jargon to
 see  that,  in fact,  things are possible.
 Many of  the  required actions do  not
 cost a great deal  of money and we have
 now  developed a noise abatement plan-
 ning  methodology  which will help  air-
 port proprietors and communities assess
 the relative effectiveness of a number of
 available  abatement  actions which  we
 have  identified.
 Q: It htis  been recommended that  the
 airlines spend  $1 billion to  help  nuijtlc
jet engine  noise.  What is your reaction
 to this proposal!
 A: The FAA's proposal  is that $1
 billion be spent to  retrofit their aircraft.
 FAA studies have shown that  this
 amount of money  would be very  wel!
 spent.
                  Continued on pu^e 4
                                                                                                            PAGE 3

-------
    Very little  has  been  done  to  abate aviation
         noise,  despite  all  the furor about  it..."
Continued from page 3

   For instance the 707's and the DC-
8's now  flying are  ten to  12 decibels
noisier than  the 1969 standard for new
aircraft, which itself is way out of date.
These aircraft are  contributing  a great
deal to the  noise around our airports,
and  our  airport  proprietors today are
being sued  for hundreds of millions of
dollars because of noise, and these suits
represent only the tip of the iceberg.
The $1 billion, in our opinion, would be
well  spent  because  it will  solve  a
substantial portion of this problem.
Q: Is a  major reduction  in aviation
noise dependent upon the development
of the new,  superquiet jets?
A: Definitely not. We believe the FAA
can  promulgate standards today to re-
quire the production of quieter aircraft
with  technology  which  is  already
known.
   Secondly, there  are steps which the
airport proprietors  can take to  reduce
noise very effectively. Let me give you
an example:
   The Oakland  Airport is one  of the
pilot  projects for our airport planning
program. We went out to speak to them
about their doing a plan  and looking at
various noise abatement options.
   We suggested  to  them the very sim-
ple idea  of  moving their noisy  aircraft
from  the north runway  to their south
runway,  so that  the noisiest aircraft
would be taking off across  the bay
instead of over a  residential neighbor-
hood.
   As simple as  that  may sound, the
airport proprietor  had  not  considered
doing that in the  past, partly, I believe,
because the  FAA had told him that he
did not have authority to  do anything
about  noise.  Without even waiting for
the development  of an airport plan, the
Oakland  Airport  authority held  a press
conference,  and  announced they were
moving all  their noisy  traffic  to the
south runway and thereby substantially
abated the  noise over the residential
area.  We  feel that this  experience
would be duplicated all over the coun-
try if airports were to develop the
systematic  abatement  plans recom-
mended by  EPA.
Q: Can  you comment on the  magni-
tude of the  hazard that noise poses to
the  general public?  Is  it true that
approximately 15 million people in the
United States are  exposed to  noise
levels  in the workplace which could
result in hearing loss for example?
A:  Yes, hearing loss  resulting from
exposure to noise is a very widespread
problem; it is an important  basis for
claims  under Workmen's Compensation
in this  country, and we find that people
are  not as aware  of this  problem as you
might  expect. Hearing loss has one
similarity to  another health problem
with which EPA is grappling—cancer.
Both have long latency periods, which
means that the  adverse health effect
often becomes apparent only after  a
long period of time.  Often,  by the time
someone realizes that he is  losing his
hearing it may well be too late  to do
anything about it.
Q:  //  has been  said that  by defining
noise levels on  the  intensity  of sound
only, EPA has ignored other scientific
findings about hearing loss—that the
intermittency of sound and the purity of
tone influence human response as  well.
A: These factors  were considered in the
levels established in the "Levels Docu-
ment"  and a very thorough analysis of
the  scientific data was done  in writing
that document.
  Of course,  we have a great deal yet
to learn about intermittency, and the
influence of tones, and as this informa-
tion is  developed we will  be revising
our "Levels Document" to incorporate
such new data.
Q:  Will the passion of teenagers and
other young people for hi-fi and ampli-
fied rock music,  motorcycles, snowmo-
biles, and other gadgets with high noise
potential contribute to an early onset of
hearing loss?
A: Yes, definitely.
  Almost no  meeting 1  speak to goes
by  without someone in the audience
asking  me to do something about dis-
cotheque music and stereo headphones.
This is a very unusual kind of problem
for  EPA to have to deal with, and we
have not determined  whether and how
it would be appropriate for the Federal
government to intervene. However, one
possibility  would be  providing more
information to people through an educa-
tional program.
Q:  What appreciable progress has been
made  in controlling noise  levels from
heavy equipment?
A:  Specifically, we  have established
standards for  in-use interstate  motor
carriers and railroads.  We have also
established standards for new  heavy
and medium  trucks  and portable air
compressors, with standards on six ad-
ditional  new products, including buses
and motorcycles, coming out in pro-
posed form early next year.
  The difficulty we  face of course  is
that these standards  on  new products
will not begin to pay off in terms of
making  the country  quieter until the
new quieter products begin to  replace
the  older noisier  products in  larger
numbers.
  For this reason,  State  and local pro-
grams which control the use and  opera-
tion of  older  and noisier products are
essential.
Q:  How effective has new jet. engine
technology been in reducing noise?
A: The wide-bodied jets such as the 747
are significantly quieter for their weight
class than the  older 707's and DC-8's.
Unfortunately  the economic downturn
in the airline business has  slowed the
introduction of these quieter planes into
the commercial fleet.
  Remarkably, these noise reductions
are accompanied by  improvements in
fuel efficiency for these aircraft. This  is
understandable since  noise is, in many
cases, an indication of inefficiency.
  The new truck regulation which we
promulgated in March of this year will
save the country half a billion dollars a
year because  of the fuel efficiencies
brought about  by  the use of quieter
components.
Q:  //; lowering industrial noise,  which
way should we  go?  Emphasize  engi-
neering  controls or individual hearing
.protection, requiring workers  to use
earplugs?
A:  Well, generally, we have taken the
position that  one should utilize  engi-
neering changes and not depend on
individual  hearing protectors.
  Many people do  not  like to wear
hearing protectors because they may
become uncomfortable when worn for
long periods of time. In addition, it  is
sometimes difficult to get them to fit
correctly.  Depending on  the job, hear-
ing protectors  may interfere with some
peoples' work, because  they may not
be able  to hear instructions as well.
  The engineering  changes, of course,
PAGE 4

-------
          ;New  truck regulations...will save  the
          country half a  billion  dollars  a  year..."
provide for abatement independently of
any actions by the workers. However,
these  changes are more expensive than
hearing protectors, and  there is  ob-
viously a desire on the part of industry
to substitute individual  hearing protec-
tors for engineering controls.
   Despite  the drawbacks of hearing
protectors, they  can  be used as  an
interim  measure  until  engineering
changes are made.  There is no need to
keep  exposing workers to  hazardous
levels simply because it may take sev-
eral   years  to  get the  engineering
changes made.
   In the long term,  however, we believe
that engineering changes are the most
appropriate way to proceed.
Q: With present  and foreseeable tech-
nology,  how much quieter can indus-
trial equipment be made in the next ten
years?
A: We do not have a good fix on that.
We do know that it  is technically
feasible for most  industries to bring the
levels of noise down to  at least the 85-
decibel  level  which we have recom-
mended to the  Department ,of Labor.
Hearing damage will still occur  to  a
percentage  of the  population  even at
those  levels, and so we must continue
to look at  the feasibility of reducing
these  levels even further in the future.
Q: The 1972 Noise Act gives EPA the
authority to require manufacturers to
label products as to their noise generat-
ing characteristics. Does your  office
plan to require such labeling?
A: Yes, we do.  We see this potentially
as a very effective tool to enable con-
sumers themselves to make the decision
about how noisy  the products they  buy
should be. There  are many products
where the noise created affects primar-
ily the purchaser of the product,  and
those  products seem particularly suita-
ble for labeling.
Q: How about  heavy trucks? Is  it
possible to make  a significant reduction
in the amount of noise from  these
vehicles?
A: Yes. The standards which we set in
March will bring about dramatic  im-
provement in these trucks.
   The trucks being manufactured today
are producing about 86 decibels and our
standard calls for a reduction  to 83
decibels in  1978, and to 80 decibels in
1982.
   We believe that it will be possible to
bring these  trucks down to about 75
decibels sometime around  1985,  al-
though  we have  not  established  that
lower  level  as  yet.  Should  these
changes in levels seem  small to you,
keep in mind  that decibels are  calcu-
lated on a logarithmic basis  and  three
decibels  represents a  doubling of the
actual noise energy.
Q: Have  these  new  standards  been
fairly well received by industry?
A: We have been sued by 5 members
of the  truck industry concerning  these
standards. Only one of the companies,
however, is  challenging the actual lev-
els.  The rest are  concerned  about the
testing and enforcement provisions of
the regulation or about certain technical
details.
Q: How does EPA plan to enforce
these truck standards  and  regulations?
A: The manufacturer of these products
must test a representative  number of
his products, and'EPA has the  author-
ity to require further testing if we have
reason to  believe  that  his products are
not meeting the  standards. The  Noise
Enforcement  Division  has  recently es-
tablished a testing facility at Sandusky,
Ohio, which will be a  site at which we
can  bring these products for testing if
we want to verify that  the testing  going
on at  the  manufacturer's facility is
accurate.
Q: Will EPA  eventually  regulate  noise
from motorcycles and recreational vehi-
cles?
A: We have under way now a standard-
setting process on motorcycles and we
hope to have a proposal  in the Federal
Register sometime in the  early spring of
1977.
   We are considering  setting standards
on snowmobiles  and motorboats. The
snowmobile  case  is interesting,  how-
ever, because a number of States have
already  established levels for snowmo-
biles, and  the industry  has  reduced the
noise levels  of their product substan-
tially.  Whether these levels are  low
enough or not is  a subject  we are now
investigating.
Q: There  has  been some  controversy
about  the limit  for maximum  noise
exposure necessary to protect  health
and welfare in  the workplace. Can you
comment on this?
A: We  have the  statutory  mandate
under the  Noise Control Act to review
regulations of other  Federal agencies
and to provide them our comments and
recommendations  where we feel  that
they are not  sufficiently protective of
public health and welfare.
  This is what we did in the case of the
Occupational Safety  and Health  Ad-
ministration standard and  as a result
EPA testified extensively at  the OSHA
public  hearings. These hearings pro-
duced  a great  deal of new data for
OSHA  about the inadequacies of the
90-decibel  standards. Essentially, the
85-decibeI  standard which we proposed
would  be  about twice as protective of
public  health  as the 90-decibel one. In
this case,  the 85-decibel standard  costs
more  money,  and  economic  studies are
being done now to see how much  more
industry would have to pay.
Q: / understand that all  Federally-aided
highway projects must provide for  noise
abatement measures. What  are  they,
and what  role is  EPA  playing in this
area?
A:  Major  highway projects do have to
have environmental' impact  statements
written and the Department of Trans-
portation  has noise criteria by which
they judge whether the  noise produced
by a highway is acceptable or not. The
major noise abatement  technique  used
by  the  Department is  the  building of
barriers along the  sides  of highways in
order  to try  to keep the noise away
from surrounding developments.
  Of course,  noise abatement is  often
most effectively accomplished by  plan-
ning for the  location of highways in
areas  where the noise  impact will be
minimal, and  we hope to work closely
with the Department of Transportation
to improve this aspect of the  noise
abatement  program.
Q: Who are the beneficiaries of noise
regulation?
A:  The beneficiaries  come from all
walks  of  life.  They include the 15
million people exposed  to levels which
endanger their hearing in their job; the
13 million  people exposed  to  similar
levels  outside  of their occupation,  such
as snowmobile and motorcycle opera-
tions;  the  97  million people  potentially
affected by traffic noise;  over 30 million
exposed to aviation noise and 36 million
people living in  areas impacted by
construction, rail,and industrial noise.•
                                                                                                    PAGE 5

-------
THE  ROAR  FROM  ABOVE
"l-'or some 25 years now. communities
around the major airports of this coun-
try have experienced an ever increasing
exposure to noise.  Day in anil day out.
millions of people in this' countrv are
deluded by the din of airplanes landing
and taking off over their homes. Many
of these people are  subjected to noise
levels so high that according to the best
scientific  evidence now available they
run a very real risk  of actually having
their hearing affected. Opening a win-
dow to enjo\ a warm, spring bree~.e,
using the  patio in  comfort /or a har-
hetjiie, relaxing in  front  of a 'YV set
without being disturbed, or carrying on
an uninterrupted conversation with a
friend in  the comfort of our homes:
these  ordinary, everyday  activities
which the rest of us lake for granted.
they cannot enjov.  We can.  with some
assurance, estimate the physical effects
on those  people of prolonged exposure
to airport  noise levels. 'I here is no way
we can measure the profound mental
and emotional distress thcv  must en-
dure.
   "7he problem is compounded by the
sense of utter hopelessness and  help-
lessness that  overwhelms them.  They
have often given up  hope that they can
do anything themselves to  avoid this'
misery except to move. "I hey doubt that
an\ governmental agency or private
group will do anything about it. When
they have  tried to gel things done, they
have experienced only a most cli--yin}>
and disheartening  round of 'buck-pass-
ing.' No one seems to have the author-
its", or the power,  or the will to give
them an\  real help. No one seems to
be in charge. At least no one will admit
to it."
 —Administrator  Russell H. Train in
 remarks to the Inter-Noise "76 Confer-
 ence, Shoreham  Hotel, Washington,
 D.C.. April 5. 1976.
The Concorde supersonic transport lands at Dulles Airport.
PACK 6

-------
   Damage  suits totalling hundreds  of
 millions  of dollars have  been filed  in
 courts around  the  country  against air-
 ports because of the noise disturbances
 caused by airplanes.
   In addition to threatening airport pro-
 prietors  with huge financial burdens.
 the  suits, along  with  other concerns,
 have nearly  halted the construction  of
 new airports and  the expansion  and
 modernization of existing airports.
   Commercial  air travel has been avail-
 able to the public since the i920's, and
 complaints  about airplane  noise  have
 been around for just about as long.  It
 was not  until the postwar boom in civil
 aviation, though, that  the  problem  of
 aircraft  noise  reached major propor-
 tions.
   In 1959 commercial jet  travel  was
 introduced,  and  air transportation  was
 never to be  the same. The American
 public  flocked  to the  skies in record
 numbers. As airports and  airlines grew,
 the noise became louder and louder.
   The growth  of air  travel demanded
 more airports  and runways, meaning
 more of the take-offs and landings
 which  cause noise  problems. Boeing
 707's have been  measured at 120 deci-
 bels on  take-off,  roughly the equivalent
 of the sound heard when  one stands  in
 front of a stereo turned up  to near top
 volume.  Currently there are  more than
 2(K)0 commercial jet aircraft operating  in
 the  United  States, serving  nearly  500
 major terminals. And  every day  this
 overpowering noise assaults the ears of
 millions of Americans.
   Why  aren't airports  and  their noisy
 planes moved away from people? Well.
 that has  been  tried many  times.  For
 instance,  the Seattle/Tacoma  Airport
 was built several  years ago in a remote,
 undeveloped  site. But today,  new hous-
 ing development  in the vicinity of the
 airport has attracted many who appar-
ently did not understand  initially  the
 magnitude of the noise  at  this location.
   Problems  similar to Seattle's have
occurred  at major airports  around  the
 Nation because for  many  people,  and
especially for land speculators  and de-
velopers, modern airports  are  exciting
and attractive places.

 Land  Values
 Land values usually increase rapidly
 near an airport, and the transportation
 links with  the  urban area  the airport
 serves  make  it  an inviting location for
housing,  and other  kinds of develop-
 ment.
   There  are also many  cases where
        pntli.\ a! man\  airports  arc
 close to residential areas.
older airports have  long since been
surrounded  by urban growth.  Airports
like  Chicago's Midway,  Washington's
National, and  La Guardia in New York
were designed  to handle the noise  and
air traffic of an earlier day.
   Each  airport's  noise  problem   is
unique.  And every airport's noise-im-
pact will  depend on a  multiplicity of
factors  other  than just land-use:  the
airport's size and location, flight opera-
tions (international  and  cargo flights
may cause  nighttime noise problems.)
operating  hours, types  of aircraft,  air-
port ownership  and government  in-
volvement.
   The solution may be  as complex as
the  problem  itself.  The parties who
have a stake in any aviation noise issue
are  as  varied  as the  characters in  a
play. They include the  Federal and
State governments,  airport proprietors,
homeowners near the  airport,  airline
 pilots, aircraft  manufacturers,  local
 planning and  zoning  bodies, city coun-
 cils of communities which both benefit
 from the airport and suffer because  of
 it,  air  carriers, owners of private air-
 craft,  and  land developers. Because  of
 this diversity  and the ensuing legal and
 jurisdictional conflicts, there is no single
 private or  governmental entity with suf-
 ficient legal clout  or  technical expeiti.se
 to  remedy the matter  alone.  Histori-
 cally,  each faction has  blamed the
 other, or has  claimed an inability to act
 alone.
   Since air transportation  comes under
 the heading  of  interstate  commerce.
 most  regulatory  action affecting the
 industry arises at the  Federal  level.
 Congress  has  vested  this authority  in
 the  Department of Transportation,  spe-
 cifically in  the  Federal Aviation Admin-
 istration (FAA).  Recognizing the grow-
 ing problem of aviation noise, the FAA
 set national noise  standards in  1969 for
 new type aircraft designs. A new gener-
 ation of quieter, more efficient commer-
 cial jet aircraft has evolved from these
 standards.  Not only arc  the  L-1011.
 DC-10. and  Boeing 747 quieter  than
 the jets  of the sixties,  but they carry
 greater payloads as well.

 Noise  Act
To  further protect  the  environment
 from the adverse effects of noise pollu-
 tion,  Congress passed the Noise Con-
 trol Act of 1972 which requires HPA to
 study  the  aviation noise problem  and
 propose  appropriate regulations to  the
 FAA.  Using  this authority, FPA  has
 proposed  a number of regulations  and
 will soon  propose an  airport noise
 abatement  and planning process.  The
 most promising aspects  of this process
 are participation of the affected patties
 in the  development of any noise abate-
 ment plan, and. for  the first  time,  a
 methodology for comparing the  benefits
 of  alternative  abatement actions  that
 can be comprehended  and effectively
 used by planners  and the general pub-
 lic.
   Surprisingly, there arc many reasona-
 ble cost  measures which can be taken
 by  airport  proprietors, and  some local
 governments to effectively  reduce  the
 impact of aviation noise. Some  airports
 such as Washington's National  Airport
 have imposed curfews which ban flights
 during certain  night hours. The airport
 in  Minneapolis/St, Paul has  substan-
 tially  reduced  its noise  complaints
 through such steps as the use of differ-
ent take off and landing  procedures. •
                                                                                                           PAGE 7

-------
 HOME   NOISES
 Due  to an often unrecognized form of
 pollution, more and  more  Americans
 are being deprived of a time-honored
 amenity—the peace and  quiet of their
 homes.
   This pollutant is the drone of kitchen
 appliances, the  racket of an over-ampli-
 fied stereo, the sound of street  noise
 through  poorly-constructed  walls and
 windows and  the roar of overhead
 aircraft.
   Noise  in the  home  is reaching levels
 that can cause more than irritation and
 emotional disquiet. In extreme cases, it
 can begin  to rob us of our precious
 ability to hear the  sounds of the world.
   Home-grown  noise can be  grouped
 under two general headings—that which
 is emitted from appliances and that
 which comes from flimsy building mate-
 rials  and  home-siting  problems.  With
 regard to the first category, a 1972 EPA
 report to Congress specifically exam-
 ined noise levels produced by a number
 of household appliances.  According to
 the study,  those appliances  which fall
 into the below-6()-decibel range, a rela-
 tively  low level of noise,  include refrig-
 erators, floor fans and clothes dryers.
 Still,  these  modern conveniences pro-
 duce  enough  noise to interfere  with
 both communication and sleep.
   Noise-producers registering in the
 (S5-75  decibel range include sewing ma-
 chines, dishwashers, and food  mixers.
 Since  exposure  time  to these sources
 tends  to be  brief and infrequent, the
 risk of hearing damage is negligible. But
 the level of the noise produced can
 cause annoyance.
   Noise Around the Home
   Noine Source
   Refrigerator
   Floor Fan
   Clothes Dryer
   Washing Machine
   Dishwasher
   Vacuum Cleaner
   Electric Shaver
   Food Disposal
   Electric Lawn Edger
   Home Shop Tools
   Gasoline Power Mower
   Gasoline Riding Mower
   Chain Saw
   Snowmobile
   Stereo
Simml l.evel for Op-
erator of Ki|uipment
   (m ik-iilH-U)
      40
      51
      55
      60
      64
      67
      75
      76
      81
      85
   87 to 92
   90 to 95
     no
     112
   Up to 136
                This vont/i is no! deaf; he's left the power mower running.
  Decibel  levels between  75 and 85
were recorded for such appliances as
vacuum cleaners, electric  razors and
food grinders. The risk of hearing dam-
age associated with  the  use  of these
noise sources is small  but increases
with continuous or cumulative  use.
  The  last class of noisy household
items involved is those with a level of
above 85 decibels. Some scientific opin-
ion  has  it  that continuous exposure for
eight hours per  day  over an  extended
period of time to noise levels of about
85 decibels can cause permanent hear-
ing  loss, although  the  degree  of  such
damage will  vary  among individuals.
The appliances which fall  into this
group are  woodwork and  shop tools.
gasoline-powered  lawn  mowers and
(ledgers,  snowmobiles,  chainsaws, and
blaring stereo equipment.
  Under  the  Noise  Control  Act of
1972, EPA has the authority to require
labels on  products that may generate
noise capable of adversely affecting
public health or welfare. By  1977 EPA
will  be  implementing  this program  to
ensure that consumers are provided
with such  information. The  new policy
should also encourage product  manu-
facturers to produce quieter gadgets and
appliances.
  There is much that homeowners
themselves can presently do to help.
For instance, by placing  foam pads
under blenders and mixers, the noise
level of the machines  can be apprecia-
bly  reduced. Power mowers should be
checked to see  if they are equipped
with good  mufflers  and sharp blades.
They should also be run at low speeds.
Vibration  mounts and  proper insulation
should be  used  when installing dish-
washers. Noise can also be  reduced by
keeping washing  machines  in  an  en-
closed place.
PAC.K 8

-------
  Such efforts to quiet appliances are
essential, but they are  not  the  total
answer.  Household noise  created by
the construction and siting of the home
itself is becoming an increasing national
problem. New types of thinner building
materials tend to  transmit noise  vibra-
tion  and in some cases  may even
amplify them. Houses built  in airport
flight paths or along superhighways are
also  subjected to high  levels of un-
wanted sound, which, in  addition to
creating  a  health  hazard, may vibrate
walls and pipes until they crack.
  EPA is currently preparing a  model
building code for various types of struc-
tures. The code, which can be adopted
by communities,  spells  out  extensive
acoustical requirements.  Cities  and
towns will be able to  regulate construc-
tion  in a comprehensive  manner to
produce quieter  local  environments in
the future.
  Moreover, the  U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban  Development has
developed  "Noise Assessment Guide-
lines" to  help evaluate the  availability
of their funds for aiding  community
planning.  Likewise, the  Veterans  Ad-
ministration  requires information re-
garding the  exposure of V. A.-financed
houses to  noise from nearby airports.
The  V.A.  also has directed  its offices
to take  noise considerations into ac-
count regarding  development  of prop-
erty acceptable for G.I. loans.
  Through  zoning, land use planning,
and building regulations, many control
agencies are  working to abate noise
pollution created  by  poor construction
and siting problems. The homeowners'
opportunity for  battling noise can be
more than just  insistence on quieter
appliances.  Noise-absorbing materials
should be  used wherever  possible.
Thick carpeting, heavy drapes, padded
furniture, and acoustical  ceiling tile are
all means to this end. When choosing a
new house or apartment,  one should
look for sturdy walls, non-hollow doors,
wall-to-wall  carpeting,  and insulated
heating and air conditioning ducts.
Time should be invested in learning the
noise sources in any neighborhood
where one might be planning to reside.
   A  current  EPA public service  an-
 nouncement for  television includes a
 view of the  Washington  Monument,
 over which a solemn voice intones,
 "Two centuries of freedom of speech."
 Interrupted by the roar of jet aircraft,
 the narrator is forced to conclude in a
 near scream, "So don't we have a legal
 right to hear one another?" •
TESTING, TESTING
A new EPA facility for testing the noise
made by  vehicles and machinery will
open this  month at Sandusky, Ohio.
  Called the Noise Enforcement Facil-
ity, it consists of a building and test pads
completed last month and two van-
mounted  mobile  testing units. William
Heglund  is director of the 11-person
staff of engineers, technicians, and sup-
porting personnel. The facility's capital
cost is about $750.000. It reports to Dr.
Norman D. Shutler, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Mobile  Source and
Noise  Enforcement.
  The Sandusky center serves as an
EPA checkpoint for assuring that newly
manufactured medium- and heavy-duty
trucks and portable air compressors
conform to the noise limits promulgated
last March.
  Later it will also serve to back up the
enforcement  of  noise regulations  for
other  types of noisy  vehicles and
machines — motorcycles,  buses,
bulldozers, loaders, compactors, and
truck-mounted  refrigeration  units—as
rules are adopted for them.
  Under  the  Noise Abatement Act,
    Noise meter measures truck sound

EPA will  require manufacturers to tesi
their products" noise outputs and see
that they  conform to regulations, Dr.
Shutler said. The Sandusky facility  is
designed to assure by periodic checkups
that the manufacturers'  tests are effec-
tive. This  will be done  in a variety  of
ways: by  requiring manufacturers  to
ship sample products to Sandusky for
testing, by conducting EPA tests at the
manufacturer's plant using the  mobile
testing units, and by simply monitoring a
manufacturer's testing through EPA
personnel  at the manufacturer's test
facility.
  If a manufacturer cannot afford his
own noise testing and no private acous-
tical test laboratory is available to him.
he may, for afee, use the Sandusky facil-
ity for his production testing. The facil-
ity will also be available for the training
of Regional, State, and  local noise en-
forcement personnel. The site in north-
western Ohio was chosen because of its
proximity to truck and machinery mak-
ers,  its "reasonable weather  condi-
tions" for outdoor testing, and  its low
ambient noise levels. •
                                                                                                 PAGE

-------
             LIBERTY PARK PLANNED
             FOR JERSEY SHORELINE
 Statue of Liberty seen through weather-worn piers of the New Jersey waterfront.
PAGH 10

-------
Work has started on a massive
project to remove the derelict
vessels and rotting piers along
the Jersey City, N.J., waterfront
across New York Bay from the
Statue of  Liberty so the area
can  be developed as Liberty
Park. Plans for this program to
turn a marine graveyard into a
superb park  attracting millions
of people annually have been
developed by the State of New
Jersey. The State, with the
assistance of the Federal
Government, hopes to provide
exhibition halls, museums,
theaters, and  restaurants as well
as several different types of
park facilities. An Environmental
Park, where visitors can study
tidal marshes,  is included in the
plans. Also proposed are
pedestrian passageways to
both Liberty and Ellis Islands.
Old tug boats and scows mouldering in Black Tom Channel.

In the foreground are several hundred acres of a Jersey City, N.J., wasteland which has been used as a dumping ground for
derelict boats. The Statue of Liberty is at the right and the towers of Manhattan loom at left.
                                                                                            PAGE

-------
SOLVING  AN  OILY DILEMMA
With more and more car owners chang-
ing their own engine oil for economy
reasons,  a valuable and non-renewable
energy  resource  is  being  wasted
through  the indiscriminate  disposal of
the used  crankcase oil.
   Although there is no  accurate data on
how much used crankcase oil is poured
down  the  drain,  the toilet, the  storm
sewer  or out  into the backyard,  an
HP A  official  estimated  that approxi-
mately 100 million gallons of waste oil
are disposed of annually by  car owners.
l^arry  McEwen. an analyst  in the  Re-
source Recovery Division of KPA's
Office of Solid  Waste  Management
Programs, said this oil contains a number
of contaminants among which lead is the
most prevalent  and  potentially harmful.
Automobile oil drainings contain approxi-
mately one percent lead  particulates
which  originate from the  lead additives
in gasoline.
   The problem  of  how to  control the
disposal of waste lubricating oil is not a
new one. In the past,  service stations
gave  large quantities  of the used  oil
they drained  from cars to collectors
who either sold it to various industries
for re-use or dumped it anywhere they
could.  Today.    however,   with   the
rise of the do-it-yourself oil  changer the
source of the  control  problem  has
shifted.
   Now in addition to the service station
owner trying to decide  how  to get rid of
large  quantities  of used oil. the car
owner, standing in his driveway holding
a gallon tub of dirty crankcase oil, must
also decide what to  do  with  it.
   Where  should  you dump your used
oil?  According to Mr.  McKwen, "ide-
ally, our  solution  is to recommend to
the car owner that he take  his waste
crankcase oil to an approved collection
site or designated service station. From
there  the waste oil  could he picked up
in targe quantities and  either re-refined.
used as a dust suppressant or in asphalt
production, or  burned by  utilities or
institutions which use oil as fuel and tire
equipped with controls  capable of keep-
ing lead  particulates out  of the atmos-
phere.

 Collection
   "We are currently attempting to get
together  with the service station associ-
ations  and the Federal  Hnergy Adminis-
tration to  designate suitable collection
points for used oil.  Right now, our best
recommendation  is for citizens  to  en-
courage  their local  governments  to
make such collection  sites  available.
  "For example, the  Continental  Oil
Company has been  experimenting  in
the  Midwest  with a  system  to  collect
used oil in these  service station holding
tanks for recycling. We enthusiastically
support this type  of action."
  The  Federal  Energy Administration
has followed  up this initiative  and is
developing a national  waste oil recovery
program. FF.A's  current efforts include
a model law  for State  legislatures out-
lining an approach to used oil recycling
as well  as a  Citizens'  Group Commu-
nity  Kit with instructions  to  the local
community on  how  to organize and
conduct a local oil recycling program.
  Barring any success  at these  efforts
in the local community, Mr.  McEwen
says  that the least hazardous disposal
around the  home is  probably to pour
the used oil into a container  and place
it in a  garbage  can. "Although this
option is wasteful of the  resource,  the
possibility of groundwater contamina-
tion  is  hopefully small in  a  municipal
landfill.  The storm sewer is  the  worst
option because from there the oil might
run directly into waterways  where it
can be  toxic  to water organisms.  To
pour it  down your drain  or  toilet can
cause problems  with  waste treatment,"
he said.
  The  question  of how to dispose of
used crankcase oil  is a complex one
and  there  are  currently  several ap-
proaches by which EPA is attacking  it.
First of all. since lead is the major toxic
material  involved,  if it could  be  re-
moved from gasoline, and  therefore
from the lubricating oil which collects
it, a large  part  of the  health problem
would  be  eliminated. EPA regulations
to reduce  the lead content of gasoline
have been enacted and  are now in the
process of re-promulgation after being
upheld  in  the courts following a chal-
lenge by the gasoline additive  manufac-
turers.  In  addition,  by requiring the
availability of lead-free gasoline for cars
equipped  with  catalytic  converters,
EPA has further reduced the amount  of
lead in  waste oil.

Market
However,  regardless of these actions
the problem of disposing of used  oil will
still  remain. In this  area the  major
thrust of EPA's  efforts has  been  toward
stimulating the  reestablishment of an
active  market for  used oil in the  re-
fining industry.
   It  is  hoped an increased demand for
waste  oil  by re-refiners will  stimulate
natural  market forces enough  to  enable
citizens to return used oil to designated
collection  points.  These forces  should
help  reduce the dumping  of  oil  in the
larger metropolitan areas where  a mar-
ket exists. However, the  economical
recycling of used oil in the  more  remote
areas remains a problem. •
PAGE 12

-------
NAVY  CLEANS  UP
 The largest single  organization  to  be
 affected by ship sewage regulations  re-
 cently  promulgated  by EPA is  the
 United States Navy.
   The Navy  has had  a program under-
 way for several years  to  convert  its
 ships so that  wastes  can be  properly
 controlled.  The new rules ban  the dis-
 charge  of  untreated  or inadequately
 treated  sewage  in  coastal  and inland
 waters  or  require  on-board treatment
 and  disinfection  before discharge. Ap-
 proximately 400  ships of the Fleet and |
 about  200  smaller  ships and service
 craft have been or are being converted.
   To help stimulate  the Navy's conver-
 sion program.  Secretary  of the  Navy J.
 William Middenorf II  offers annual En-
 vironmental Protection  Awards. At a
 recent  presentation.  Mr.  Middenorf
 said:  "I wanted to  personally present
 the awards  to this year's winners in my
 office to demonstrate  my  interest and
 continued support of this important pro-
 gram to enhance and  protect our envi-
 ronment."
   Total cost of  the  waste control con-
 versions through fiscal  1975 has been
 about $106 million.  The  cost  of com-
 pleting the  conversions  is expected  to
 be $205 million.  The Navy  is confident
 it will meet  the 1981  deadline.
   Shipboard toilets  constitute only part
 of the Navy's environmental  program.
 Pier sewer lines must be installed at the
 Navy's  shore bases  to handle the sew-
 age pumped from ships' holding tanks.
 A total  of $77 million  has already been
 provided for the  necessary pier sewers.
 An additional  $28  million is recom-
 mended  to complete  the pier equip-
 ment.
  Extensive  ship  modifications and
shore facilities  are also needed to prop-
erly  handle waste  oil and  oily bilge-
water that used to be routinely  pumped
overboard. The Navy has been  working
on these shipboard pollution abatement
measures since  October,  1970, when
the Chief of  Naval  Operations estab-
lished an Environmental  Protection Di-
vision  to direct and  coordinate the
work.
  The  Navy's total  environmental pro-
gram  now covers water pollution,  air
pollution, noise  abatement, and solid
waste  management.  The  total cost
through  1981  is  estimated  at  $1.7 bil-
lion.
  From the traditional ship designer's
 This destroyer,  the USS Spriiance, is one of 30 .v/»/>.v that are being fitted with
 collection and incineration systems for x,

point of view, prior to national pollution
standards, there was no requirement for
sewage  holding  tanks or treatment de-
vices.  But  design requirements have
changed, and space is now being found
in  existing ships and designed into new
construction.
   All large  ships of the Fleet will have
holding  tanks installed and pump their
sewage  to  shore-based treatment  sys-
tems when  they come  to  port. As  of
mid-1976, 122 ships and  53 submarines
should be equipped with  holding and
pump-out systems, with  205  ships and
64  submarines  remaining  to  be  so
equipped. The  work  is  being done  in
conjunction with regularly scheduled
ship overhaul  periods  which occur
about every four years.
   The  Naval Station in Mayport, Flor-
ida, has complete  pier sewer line instal-
lations.  Comparable installations at San
 Diego, Calif., and Norfolk, Va., are  to
be completed soon.  All  Navy-owned
ports will be equipped with pier sewer
and waste handling facilities by 1980 or
1981.  In most cases sewage  treatment
will be  done by  a nearby  municipal
plant.
   Many  small ships, gunboats, mine-
sweepers, and small service craft are to
be fitted with marine sanitation devices.
These will be  systems which either
incinerate the sewage to a sterile ash or
evaporate  it to  a sterile residue. Very
small  craft  may have airplane-type  toi-
lets installed.
  Navy ships on the high seas, beyond
territorial waters, will continue to pump
sewage overboard as they  have in  the
past.  There  are  advantages to this,
marine  scientists  have pointed out:
"The  sea requires basic plant nutrients,
and residues from man,  shrimp, tlsh, or
whales constitute such fertilizer:  or
even a direct source of food."
  Although the Navy is moving stead-
ily  to equip  its ships  and ports  with
better sewage handling systems, much
remains to be  done by others, espe-
cially  in providing shore pump-out facil-
ities in  commercial and foreign ports
where Navy ships may call.
  The  Intergovernmental  Maritime
Consultative Organization,  of which the
United States is  a  member,  has  pro-
posed regulations that are  very  similar
to the measures now being  taken by the
U.S. Navy, although the United States
and most other members have not  yet
ratified them.
  In summary, a major effort is being
made to control  discharge of  human
wastes from naval vessels. •
                                                                                                      PAGE  13

-------
time  saving
The Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection and Region I
have entered into a coordination agree-
ment for the processing of applications
for Federal funding of municipal waste-
water treatment facilities. The agree-
ment is expected to reduce processing
time and to accelerate the flow of funds
for Connecticut's sewage treatment
construction program.

treatment award
Region 1 has selected a water pollution
control facility in Sturbridge, Mass., as
the recipient of its  "Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant Award." Operators at this
secondary treatment  plant have
achieved outstanding success in the
removal of pollutants. The award is
designed to recognize the important role
properly operated and maintained treat-
ment plants are playing in the effort to
eliminate water pollution in New Eng-
land.
13
^     NEW YORK      J

dumping deadline
Sewage sludge dumping in the Atlantic
Ocean off New York and New Jersey
must end by December, 1981, under the
terms of dumping permits  recently issued
by Region II Administrator Gerald M.
Hansler.
Other disposal methods can be put into
practice by that date, Mr. Hansler said,
and the new interim permits require the
applicants to develop specific schedules
for changing over to meet the deadline.
Among the methods that can be used, he
said, are pyrolysis (heat treatment) and
composting (mixing the sludge with
organic materials and allowing it to
decompose into a harmless soil
improver.) The permits cover New York
City,  Yonkers, four municipalities in
Nassau County, Long Island, and six
major sewage authorities and 35 smaller
municipalities in. New Jersey.
Dumping permits covering 93 New
Jersey communities were denied,
because, Mr. Hansler said, alternate
disposal facilities are now available or the
applicant failed to provide  information to
justify ocean dumping.

nuclear study
EPA has announced funding of the
second phase of a four-year $425,000
in-depth study of the low level nuclear
waste disposal site at West Valley,
New York. Leakages have been
detected at the site,  which  is  now
closed. The goal of the over-all study is
twofold. In addition to assisting New
York State in determining  the health
implications of the West Valley burial
site both as it now exists and for the
future, EPA hopes to use information
gathered by this study to develop
environmentally acceptable criteria and
standards for future burial  sites.
dumping slashed
Region III has issued a new one-year
Interim Ocean Dumping Permit to the
City of Philadelphia requiring a
substantial reduction in the amount of
sewage sludge to be dumped during the
next year. The permit reduces the
amount of sludge the city can dispose
of in the ocean from 141 million pounds-
to 116 million pounds per year. Further
reductions are required in succeeding
years until  1981  when all dumping is  to
end. The city is also being required to
meet a rigorous time schedule for
developing alternate means of sludge
disposal.

pesticide fines
Fines totaling over $16,000 were
recently collected from five pesticide
manufacturing firms for violating the
Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act. The companies are:
N. Jonas Co., Inc., Philadelphia;
                                                                               Alcatraz Co.,  Inc.,  Richmond, Va.;
                                                                               Emge Aviation Marine Products, Inc.,
                                                                               Langhorne,  Penn,; Lincoln Industrial
                                                                               Chemical Co., Reading, Penn., and the
                                                                               Laco Corp., Baltimore, Md.
 air plans
 Six of the eight States in Region IV
 have been asked by the Regional Office
 to revise portions of their air pollution
 control plans to assure the attainment
 and maintenance of national air quality
 standards. The States were asked to
 develop specific additional control
 measures.  Metropolitan areas which
 will be affected by these changes are:
 Birmingham, Ala.; Atlanta, Ga.;
 Louisville, Ky.; Charlotte, N.C.;
Charleston, S.C.; and  Nashville, Tenn.

 lead content
 The lead content of gasoline supplies in
 the capitals of Region IV's eight States
 is now being tested. Regional
 Administrator Jack Ravan said that
 technicians will collect and analyze
 nearly 1 ,000 samples of low-lead
 gasoline to insure that lead content does
 not exceed Federally established limits.
 On Oct. 1, the Regional Office will
 resume enforcement of its previously
 promulgated  regulations for reducing
 lead in gasoline as a public health
 protection measure. This regulation,
 issued in 1973 but tied up in court
 challenges until recently, limits the
 average amount of lead in gasoline to a
 maximum 1.4 grams per gallon in 1976.
 The level  will be gradually dropped in
 succeeding years until a low of .5 grams
 is reached by January  1, 1979.
steel plea denied
A motion by U.S. Steel asking for
postponement of the effective date of
an E PA permit requiring the company
to reduce chemical discharges from its
Gary, Ind., plant by July  I, 1977, has
been denied. The permit,  issued June
PAGE 14

-------
 25 under the 1972 Amendments to the
 Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
 calls for U.S. Steel to cut discharges of
 ammonia, cyanide,  and phenols to
 levels necessary for the improvement
 and protection of water quality. The
 primary sources of  these  pollutants are
 the blast furnaces and the coke plant.
 The Gary Works discharges about 750
 million gallons of polluted water each
 day to the Grand Calumet River and
 Lake Michigan. Regional Administrator
 George Alexander said the cleanup
 order was the result of a long
 administrative proceeding which began
 in September, 1974. Efforts to require
 U.S. Steel to control its water pollution
 at the Gary  Works go back to
 enforcement conferences  held in the
 late 1%0's.
deepwater ports
Regional officials have been reviewing
Coast Guard draft environmental im-
pact statements on the requests for
licenses for two deepwater ports, one
off the shore of Texas and the other in
waters off the Louisiana coast. EPA is
expected to  make a recommendation
soon to the Secretary of Transportation
on whether the licenses should be
granted and, if so, under what condi-
tions. The questions being considered
by EPA are whether the proposed
deepwater ports will comply with the
requirements of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, the Clean Air Act,
the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act and other major envi-
ronmental laws. The proposed ports
would be used to  receive  large imports
of crude oil from supertankers. The
Texas Seadock port would be located 26
miles south of Freeport, Tex., in about
100 feet of water and would be connected
by pipelines  to a shoreside storage
facility.  Louisiana's Loop deepwater
terminal would be located approximately
18 miles off the coast in international
waters,  from  105 to 115 feet deep.
Despite conservation efforts and search
for alternate  fuels, the United States'
dependency on foreign oil is expected to
increase substantially by 1980, thus
requiring improved transportation and
distribution systems to handle the
mounting volume  of imported oil.
 quiet  in sioux city
 A noise control ordinance adopted by
 Sioux City, Iowa, approximately one
 year ago has proved effective, city
 officials report. Following consultation
 with representatives of Englewood,
 Colo., Sioux City adopted the first local
 noise abatement regulation in Iowa.
 After the  ordinance was adopted, the
 police department began an educational
 program which included talks to civic
 groups, newspaper articles and radio
 and TV appearances. The department
 also conducted a one-week course to
 train its officers in the use of sound
 metering equipment. Three District
 Court judges were given demonstra-
 tions  of how the sound metering equip-
 ment worked. Before the use of scien-
 tific equipment, many of the officers'
 noise offense citations were thrown out
 of court because judges complained that
 the actions were not based upon con-
 crete  regulation. Recently all persons
 arrested for noise violations have paid
 fines  rather than go to court  and the
 number of violations has dropped drast-
 ically. Education  has been the key
 factor in the decrease, Sioux City offi-
 cials report. Police officials anticipate
 passage of a statewide noise  pollution
 law in Iowa.
steel  company  sued
CFl Steel Corporation of Pueblo,
Colo.,  has been charged in U.S.
District Court in Denver with violation
of the  Federal Clean Air Act. The suit
alleges the corporation's basic oxygen
furnace and coke plants have violated
Federal particulate emission regulations
since late 1974. The suit notes that
Regional Administrator John Green
issued  abatement orders to the
company in 1974.  Company officials
have said that their firm is engaged in
an air-quality  control program. The
U.S. Attorney's office has asked the
                                        Federal court to enjoin CFI from
                                        violating or refusing to comply with the
                                        Clean Air Act and  to require the
                                        corporation to adhere to a schedule for
                                        achieving compliance with emission
                                        regulations or to "cease all operations
                                        not in compliance."
 citizen forums
 Region IX has contracted with the
 California League of Women Voters to
 hold Citizen  Forums on varying  envi-
 ronmental topics throughout the  State.
 The forums which begin this month will
 deal with local issues involving EPA
 and other Federal, State or local offi-
 cials. Proposed topics include such is-
 sues as offshore oil and its onshore
 impacts, preservation of agricultural
 land, air pollution and transportation
 and long term effects of ground water
 pumping. The Region hopes these for-
 ums will help EPA and other agencies
 understand what citizens think are the
 most important issues and will help
 citizens understand what the agencies
 can and can't do  about these problems.
halt  ordered
Regional Administrator Donald P. Du-
bois has ordered the City of Twin
Falls, Idaho, to stop discharging munic-
ipal and industrial sewage into  Rock
Creek, a tributary of the Snake River.
The order followed a report by the
Idaho Department of Health and Wel-
fare that Twin Falls was discharging
untreated wastes into the creek at  the
rate of a half-million gallons a day.
EPA said the discharge was from a
bypass around a pumping station that
had broken down.
This order emphasized the city's re-
sponsibility for prompt and effective
action to  stop polluting Rock Creek and
set the stage for possible further action
by the Government to enforce  the
Federal Water Pollution  Control Act,
Mr. Dubois said. •
                                                                                                          PAGE 15

-------
 William D. Dickerson has been
 appointed Assistant Director for
 Resource Development Liaison in the
 Office of Federal Activities. The
 Resource Development staff is
 responsible for liaison with those
 Federal agencies which are principally
 engaged in natural resource and energy
 development such as the Departments
 of Interior and Agriculture, the Corps
 of Engineers, and the energy agencies.
 Mr. Dickerson is a graduate of Kansas
 State University and holds an M.S.
 degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics
 from the University of Washington.  He
 has been employed in the Office of
 Federal Activities since 1972 as
 technical coordinator for the
 development of environmental impact
 statement review guidelines.
                                     PEOPLE
William T. Wisniewski was recently
appointed Director of the Personnel
Division in EPA's Region III.
Before his EPA appointment, Mr.
Wisniewski served as personnel officer
for the Philadelphia District Office of
the U.S. Internal  Revenue Service.
Mr. Wisniewski had spent eight years
at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of
the Internal Revenue Service in a
variety of capacities ranging from
management intern to personnel officer.
A native of Philadelphia, Mr.
Wisniewski received a B.S. in
Management from Temple University
in 1965.
                                     W. Jan Chong has been appointed
                                     Chief of Region II's Support Services
                                     Branch.
                                     A Brooklyn resident, Mr. Chong is a
                                     native of Honolulu. He is a 1941 hon-
                                     ors graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic
                                     Institute (N.Y.) in chemical engineer-
                                     ing.
                                     His most recent position was manager
                                     of Facilities Engineering and Adminis-
                                     tration Services at Seatrain Lines in
                                     Weehawken, N. J. He had previously
                                     been Executive  Director of Yon-
                                     kers(N.Y.) Urban Renewal  Agency
                                     and project manager with the N.Y.
                                     State  Urban Development Corp. He
                                     has also worked with private planning
                                     firms and taught graduate courses in
                                     urban planning.
John Bonine, an EPA Deputy Associ-
ate General Counsel, has been named
Associate General Counsel in charge of
the Air Quality and Noise Control
Division. Before serving as Deputy
Associate for the  Pesticides, Toxic
Substances and Solid Waste Division,
Mr. Bonine was a senior staff attorney
in  the Air Division of the General
Counsel's office for three years. During
those years, he helped develop EPA's
transportation control plans and later
helped defend them in the courts. Mr.
Bonine is a graduate of the  Yale Law
School and a member of the California
Bar.
                                     Dr. J. David Yount, an environmental
                                     chemist in EPA's Ecological Effects
                                     Office in Washington, D.C., has been
                                     appointed Deputy  Director of EPA's
                                     Environmental Research Laboratory in
                                     Duluth, Minnesota. He was named to
                                     this post by  Dr. Donald I. Mount,
                                     Director of the laboratory.
                                     Dr. Yount will act as liaison between
                                     the Duluth Laboratory and EPA
                                     headquarters in Washington, D.C. as
                                     well as assume responsibility for
                                     managing research programs at the lab.
                                     Dr.  Yount has served as scientific
                                     specialist for the freshwater pollution
                                     ecological effects program  including
                                     eutrophication and lake restoration
                                     Great Lakes research, and the effects
                                     of environmental stress on freshwater
                                     organisms and ecosystems.
PAGE 16

-------
G. William Prick's selection by Ad-
ministrator Russell E. Train for the po-
sition of EPA General Counsel has
been approved by the U.S. Civil Ser-
vice Commission. Mr. Frick succeeds
Robert V. Zener, who left to join a
private law firm.  Having served in the
General Counsel's office for three
years, first as Associate General
Counsel, Water Quality Division, and
then as Deputy General Counsel, Mr.
Frick has extensive knowledge of the
range of legal matters relating to EPA
activities.
Mr. Frick was born and educated in
the Midwest, receiving his B.A. and
law degree from the  University of
Kansas. After working in a private
Missouri law firm for two years, he
joined the EPA as an attorney in the
Air Quality and Radiation Division in
August  1971.
James R. Marshall has been appointed
 Director of Public Affairs for EPA's
 Region  II Office in New York City.
 He succeeds  Donald R. Bliss, Jr., who
is now Public Affairs  Director in the
 Agency's Region X Office in Seattle.
 Mr. Marshall served with New  York
City's Environmental  Protection
Administration for four years, ending
up as assistant administrator for
communications  with responsibility for
all the Agency's  public affairs and press
information activities.  He has had long
experience as a technical and
environmental journalist.  A native of
Canada. Mr.  Marshall is  a chemical
engineering graduate of Queens
University in Kingston, Ontario. He
worked  as a chemical  engineer for
Union Carbide Canada for four  years in
 Montreal East before moving to New
York in 1960. He is now a U.S.
citizen.

Robert Schaffer,  formerly an Associate
 Deputy  Assistant Administrator in the
Office of Research and Development.
has been appointed Director of the
Effluent Guidelines Division in the
Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials. Before assuming his research
post,  Mr. Schaffer had been  Director of
Permit Assistance and Evaluation.
Office of Enforcement, for two years,
and had previously served in several
water pollution control positions in
EPA and its predecessor  agencies.
Charles Mooney, Jr., son of Dorothy
Cotton and Charles Mooney. both
EPA employees, was a member of the
U.S. Olympic boxing team
and  won a Silver Medal
in the recent games at Montreal.
A native of Washington, D.C., Mr.
Mooney is the Armed Forces bantam-
weight titleholder.  He won 56 out 61
amateur fights in his career before
winning a place on the Olympic team.
His mother is a secretary in EPA's
Office of Planning  and Management
and his father, Charles Mooney,  Sr., is
a public information specialist in  EPA's
Public  Information Center.

Six researchers of the Environmental
Research Laboratory in  Duluth.
Minnesota have been cited for their
contributions to the reference book
used by water chemists and
bacteriologists throughout the world:
Mirko D. Lubratouich, Director of the
Laboratory's Office of Engineering and
Administration, chaired the committee
of scientists  responsible for rewriting
one often sections in "Standard  Meth-
ods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater."
Mr.  Lubratouich. former national direc-
tor of the American Water Works As-
sociation, was selected for the chair-
manship because of his long standing
interest and experience in water pollu-
tion control.
All of the researchers involved in re-
writing the book were commended by
William McBeath,  Director of the
American Public Health Association.
They are Richard L. Anderson, John
W. Arthur, Kenneth E. Biesinger, James
M. McKim and Charles E. Stephan.
                                                                                                         PAGE  17

-------
COUNCIL  SAYS  IMPACT
STUDY  WORKS  WELL
 The environmental impact  statement
 requirement of the National Environ-
 mental Policy  Act (NEPA) is working
 well and  fulfilling its  objective  of im-
 proving government decisions that  af-
 fect the environment.  This is the con-
 clusion of a recent Council on Environ-
 mental Quality report  to  the President
 and Congress,  which analyzes the expe-
 rience of 70 Federal agencies in prepar-
 ing  environmental impact statements
 over the past six years.
   In releasing the report, CEQ Chair-
 man Russell W. Peterson  noted that the
 environmental  impact  statement proce-
 dures have become increasingly routine
 and effective parts  of planning  and
 decision-making. Nevertheless,  there  is
 need on the part of top management for
 greater sensitivity  to the value of using
 the  EIS process  as  a tool  for better
 program and policy analysis,  he said.  A
 major goal of  NEPA  is to make envi-
 ronmental analysis as  integral a part  of
 agency operations as economic  and
 technical analyses.
   Originally, there was great concern
 that the  EIS requirement would cause
 crippling red tape and needless delays
 in  federal  decision-making thai would
 adversely affect   the  economy. The
 Council  found that  although NEPA
 delays occurred in years past, these are
 now becoming rare as  agencies improve
 their environmental expertise and begin
 EIS preparation earlier.
   There are three points in the  EIS
 process when delays can occur—in pre-
 paring the draft,  in preparing the final
 statement after comments are  in, and
 after issuance of the  final  statement.
 The time  required to  prepare a draft
 EIS differs  from agency to agency and
 from project to project. The  scope, of a
 project, the experience of the  people
 preparing  the statement, the relationship
 of the  EIS process  to  the decision-
 making process,  and the priority ac-
 corded  by the agency management  to
 the  statement  and the project itself are
 all critical.
   "As part of our survey of NEPA,"
 Dr. Peterson  said, "we checked  into
 the amount of litigation that  has arisen
 in connection with the EIS process and
 concluded the claim that  NEPA-related
 suits interfere with the timely execution
 of a substantial   number of Federal
actions simply does not wash.
  "In the five arid a half years between
January 1,  1970, and June 30,  1975, a
total of 654 actions has  been  brought,
alleging an  NEPA issue.  During that
same period, Federal agencies initiated
tens of thousands of projects;  in 1975
alone,  agencies assessed more than
30,000  projects  for environmental im-
pacts.  Since 1970,  about 6,000 draft
EIS's have  been submitted. Only 291—
less than 5  percent—were challenged in
court as being  inadequate," Dr. Peter-
son pointed out.
  "Our analysis indicated," he contin-
ued, "that,  of 332  cases completed  by
June 30, 1975,  about one-third  were
dismissed  at  the  trial  court  level.
Roughly 60 resulted  in  temporary  in-
junctions,  which  ranged from  a few
weeks  to the time  required to  prepare
an  adequate impact  statement.  Only
four cases  resulted in 'permanent'  in-
junctions—and not even  in these was
the  agency  precluded from  proceeding
with its project or program after  it
complied with NEPA."
  The  agencies most affected  by com-
pleted  NEPA  litigation,  according to
the report,  have been the U.S.  Depart-
ment of Transportation (26 percent of
the cases), the  U.S. Department  of
Housing and Urban  Development (14
percent), and the Corps  of Engineers
and  the  U.S.  Department of Agricul-
ture (approximately 10 percent each).
  One of the appendices of the  CEQ
report  gives a rundown  of some of the
more notable effects of the EIS process
on  Federal  decisions. Among them are:
  Department of the Interior—The final
EIS on the  800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipe-.
line prompted important design changes
and other improvements  in routing and
construction techniques.
  An  EIS  prepared by  the Bureau of
Land  Management  and  the  Forest
Services on proposed phosphate leasing
on 25,000 acres of the Osceola National
Forest, Fla., prompted  the decision in
1975 to defer a leasing decision pending
completion  of a two-year study by the
U.S. Geological Survey.
  Atomic Energy  Commission—Two
major  radioactive waste  disposal pro-
posals  of the  former Atomic  Energy
Commission, one at Lyons, Kans., and
the other at the Savannah River, S.C.,
were  cancelled because  of uncertain
environmental  impacts,  identified
through the EIS process.
  Nuclear Regulatory Commission—The
Nuclear  Regulatory Commission used
the Atomic Energy Commission EIS on
the breeder reactor and its own on the
plutonium recycle  proposal as definitive
bases on which  to develop  stronger
measures to safeguard against misuse of
nuclear materials.
  Corps  of Engineers—The Corps of
Engineers decided  to cancel or stop
work  on  over a dozen proposed proj-
ects because  its  NEPA  process—not
litigation—revealed that significant envi-
ronmental damage would result. Eleven
other  projects  have been  stopped until
environmental  analyses  are completed.
  Department of Transportation—DOT
estimates that since  1970 scores of
major highway and airport  projects
have  been modified or  dropped as a
result of  the EIS process. The decision
of Secretary Coleman to reject the 1-66
extension into Washington, D.C.,  is a
recent example.
  General Services Administration—In
1974 the  Kennedy Library Corporation
proposed  construction of  the Kennedy
Library and Museum just below  Har-
vard Square in Cambridge,  Mass. The
General Services Administration, which
was to maintain the structure, issued a
draft EIS which focused on traffic  and
other  impacts.  Because of local contro-
versy, the Library Corporation decided
against the Cambridge location and is
now proposing Columbia Point in Bos-
ton for the Library site.  As a result,
GSA  is planning a new draft EIS.
  Department  of Agriculture—The  Soil
Conservation  Service has  successfully
used preliminary draft EIS's to broaden
the  scope of project alternatives, partic-
ularly those  involving  non-structural
measures.
  Perhaps the most far-reaching use of
the  EIS process has been  the work of
the  Forest Service to develop a long-
range  program for  forest lands pursuant
to the Resources Planning Act of 1974.
The draft EIS addressed the alternative
programs that best reflected public  and
other  agency perceptions of realistic
program  choices.  After circulation of
the  draft  statement and evaluation of
comments on it,  the Forest Service
submitted its  final program recommen-
dations to the President in December
1975.  He sent them along with his
statement of policy to the  Congress in
March I976.B
 PAGE  18

-------
By  Rich  Lathrop
Mention Colorado.  Montana.  North
and South Dakota,  Utah  and Wyo-
ming  and  most  people conjure  up
images  of mountains, skiing, vast
wheatfields, cattle herds and cowboys.
seemingly endless plains, deserts, wil-
derness, national parks, forests.
  Fewer people think of cities in
these Region  VIII States violating
national air standards or of raw sew-
age degrading streams. Nor is  there
general  recognition of incredible pres-
sures  being felt in  those  states as a
result of the Nation's increasing de-
mand for fuels.
  In fact, spokesmen for the Regional
office in Denver, familiar  with  other
parts of the nation, often found solace
in the idea that they  had the relatively
easy job of preventing  environmental
degradation rather  than the difficult
task of correcting past abuses. That
bubble burst about the same time the
flow of Arab  oil stopped. Suddenly.
prevention  became a challenging task
indeed.
  Because under the plains lay thick
seams of coal.  In  the  mountains of
Colorado.  Utah and  Wyoming billions
of barrels of oil lay  trapped in shale.
An upsurge in demand for uranium
opened  new mines,  expanded others.
  Whether the new resource  activity
was in fact feverish or only perceived
that way by beleaguered planners and
decision makers throughout the region
is  still uncertain. What  is  certain is
that almost nobody was prepared  for
it.
  Plans, proposals and  rumors flew
about the area like a startled covey of
quail. They included coal-fired  power
plants,   strip  mines,  underground
mines, plants to liquefy or gasify coal,
transmission lines to transport power,
slurry pipelines to  move  coal, new
railroad lines, even new  towns to
handle the expected influx of people.
  But the  Federal  government  owns
nearly a third of the  region's land and
decisions about how  it would be used
involved the  National Environmental
Policy Act. Impact statements  would
have  to be prepared,  and some of
them  would grow to more than a foot
in thickness.
  Literally hundreds of  regulatory
bodies would become involved in the
decisions,  promoting  developers'
charges  that multiple layers of bu-
Rich Lathrop is a Region VIII  Public
 Affairs Officer
Colorado Stale Capital in Denver
reaucracy  were hampering develop-
ment  of resources  at a moment when
the Nation desperately  needed them.
   The proposals keep coming  and  the
decisions  must  be made sufficiently
well to stand  the  test  of technology.
law. economics, politics,  human  and
social needs.
   Speechwritcrs term that "the awe-
some  task of balancing conflicting
needs of society." Nobody's dead
sure it can be done.
   But coping with  energy develop-
ment  is only one  pail of the  Region
VIII task.

 Air
 In the Denver and  Salt  Lake City
metropolitan  regions auto-related  air
pollution  has  produced  problems  fa-
miliar to city dwellers.  Denver, it now
appears, will continue to exceed  pri-
mary standards  for carbon monoxide
and  oxidants into the  1980's. Salt
Lake City's revised  transportation
control plan should help achieve those
standards by  1978.
   Auto emission  control equipment
largely designed  and  tested at or near
sea level does not perform as well at
these mile-high  cities, thus reducing
the effectiveness  of  the  Federal new
car emissions control program.
   So a heavier burden  falls  on the
cities to devise controls to reduce  air
contaminants. Traffic and mass  transit
improvements, along with the new car
program, have  helped  the cities hold
their  own against  increases in  pollu-
tion.  Achieving reductions will require
tougher measures.
   There are bright spots in the picture
though. Thousands of tons per year of
               Continued on pci^e 20

                           PAGE 19

-------
Continued from page 19
reactive  hydrocarbons, for instance.
will be kept out of Denver's air under
a vapor recovery  program.  The fumes
which evaporate when gasoline  is
transferred from tanks into  trucks and
from  trucks into  service station stor-
age tanks  will  be captured and con-
densed into gasoline.
   A  second phase  in  that program
would capture hydrocarbons at service
station pumps  themselves.  Problems
of safety and  economics  will make
that more difficult to implement but an
additional 2.500-3.000 tons  of hydro-
carbons  would  be  kept  out  of the
smog production cycle.
   Ninety-eight percent of the major
stationary  sources of air pollution  in
the Region are either meeting slandards
or  are  in  compliance  with  their
cleanup schedules.
   New facilities  will  come  under new
source performance  standards  and.  in
many parts of the  Region, will fall
under the new  significant deterioration
rules. Those  rules  are designed  to
protect air quality that  is already bet-
ter than required  by the  National
standards.

Water
All major  industrial and  municipal
dischargers  in the  Region  are  under
the permit  system,  and Colorado.
Montana, North Dakota and  Wyo-
ming have all taken  over  that program
as the approved  permit-issuing agen-
cies.
   A vigorous Regional  enforcement
program, which  has collected  nearly
$250,000  in  fines from violators,  has
convinced  area   dischargers  the
Agency is serious about cleaning  up
water pollution.  And voluntary com-
pliance has improved considerably.
   A major water problem  still  facing
the Region is pollution from  non-point
sources (diffuse run-off) and  from  irri-
gation  return flows. Hopefully some
answers to these  questions will come
from  the  22 "208" agencies in  the
Region.
   Those  local agencies,  with 100 per-
cent Federal funding totalling $12.5
million, are  developing plans to man-
PAGE 20
age wastewater in their areas well into
the future.
  Water quality continues  to  be im-
proved  as  construction  grant  funds
awarded  by EPA aid communities in
building or improving  their waste
treatment works. As in other parts of
the country,  fish  are  returning to
streams thought to  be  "dead" just  a
few years ago  . . .  boaters and  swim-
mers are returning  to areas formerly
posted  as dangerously contaminated.
  All Regional States have received
grant funds under the Drinking Water
Act and are now  preparing program
plans aimed at implementation of the
law.
Noise
Regional noise control  programs have
enjoyed remarkable  success  because
of their reliance  on a community ap-
proach, aerial  monitoring and a  com-
munity  noise  control workbook that
has received  international attention
and Agency acclaim.
  With EPA assistance, effective
noise control  programs continue  to
proliferate in  the  Region where  quiet
is  an  important  personal value that
figures  prominently in the  western
lifestyle.
   Air  and water programs require a
Regional or basin approach, but  noise
is largely a community problem, and it
was within the communities that  EPA
found the people, the energy  and the
resources to control noise.

Radiation
As the Nation seems  to  be moving
toward increasing reliance on nuclear
power  to generate electricity,  uranium
mining and milling is  increasing tre-
mendously in  the  Region. Something
like 70 percent of the Nation's known
uranium reserves are  located here.
  EPA,  the  Energy  Research and
Development Administration, and
State health departments are still  grap-
pling  with problems from  a 195()'s
uranium  boom.  Radioactive  sands-
tailings—left after  milling  of  uranium
bearing ores have  been implicated  as
health  hazards in various parts of the
Region, most notably in Grand Junc-
tion, Colo., where  they  were often
used as a backfill  material in excava-
tions for buildings.
   Ongoing research is yielding an-
swers to some of the  questions of how
to dispose of tailings and  how  to
protect unborn generations from their
radioactivity.

-------
Pesticides
Montana and Wyoming plans  to cer-
tify applicators of restricted use pesti-
cides  have been approved and  their
programs are beginning. Certification
plans  from North and South  Dakota
are currently being reviewed. Plans
are being developed in  Colorado and
Utah  but  problems  of  legislative au-
thority remain to be worked  out  in
those  States.
   Colorado has received approval
from EPA to use a limited amount of
DDT to control  a plague outbreak in
groundsquirrels and similar rodents in
six Colorado counties.  The plague is
transmitted by fleas.  The sheer size of
the area needing treatment, the short-
age of personnel and  the need for
more  lasting control than is provided
by carbaryl led to Agency approval.

Solid Waste
Region  VIII solid  waste highlights
include the successful  implementation
and spread  of the Waste Not  high-
grade  white paper recycling project. In
less than  a year some 361  tons  of
paper have been reclaimed in  partici-
pating Federal agencies in the  Denver
area.
   Through  the  coordination  of the
Federal Regional Council in  Denver
and with  technical assistance  from
EPA's solid waste staff, the program
is  mushrooming  through  Federal and
State  agencies  and  the Region esti-
mates a thousand tons of paper may
be reclaimed by year's  end.
   Since about  17  mature pulp  trees
are required  to produce a  ton  of
paper, the  Denver program will help
stretch forest resources.
   Also with EPA technical assistance.
the State  of Montana  has collected,
crushed  and recycled  some  20,000
junked  or abandoned  automobiles
since  1973. Placed bumper to bumper,
those cars would  stretch something
like 56 miles.
   "We are proud of the environmental
achievements that have  come about in
this Region  as  a direct outgrowth of
excellent cooperation of all sectors,"
Region  VIII Administrator John  A.
Green said.
   "Most importantly.  I  think  environ-
mental considerations have now  become
an integral  part of nearly any  kind of
planning  or development decision.
rather than a  'tack-on' item.  That
should help us anticipate and deal with
environmental aspects of change before
problem areas develop."•
Re
's
LEADERSHIP  TMM
                  Regional Administrator
                  John A. Green
                   David A. Wagoner
                   Director,
                   Air & Hazardous
                   Materials Division
                  David D. Emery
                  Director.
                  Management Division
                  Charles W. Murray
                  Director.
                  Water  Division
                  Charles C. Gomez
                  Director,
                  Office of Civil Rights &
                   Urban Affairs
                   Samuel H. Landis
                   Federal Regional
                   C'otmcil Liaison
                    Dr. Cooper H. Wayman
                    Director.
                    Office of
                    Energy Activities
                    Irwin L. Dickstein
                    Director,
                    Enforcement Division
                    Dean E. Norris
                    Director,
                    Office of
                    Congressional &
                    Intergovernmental
                    Relations
                    Keith O. Schwab
                    Director,
                    Surveillance &
                    Analysis Division
                    James W. Sanderson
                    Regional Counsel
                    Howard W. Kayner
                    Director,
                    Office of Public Affairs
                                                                                                    PAGE 21

-------
 PROTECTING  THE  NEW FRONTIER
The  Great  Divide forms  the very
backbone of the North American con-
tinent. Here, the towering peaks of
the  Rocky  Mountain range separate
Atlantic-bound waters from those des-
tined to reach the Pacific Ocean, Here
too  the headwaters of such rivers as
the  mighty  Colorado and the Rio
Grande gather in the melting mountain
snows and course down past the un-
paralleled  splendor of the  canyons,
farmlands,  forests, plains, salt and
mud flats, and vast deserts below.
  The Slate of Colorado is part of this
natural grandeur. With a mean eleva-
tion  of 6,8(X) feet,  it  has been called
the  "top of the world."  But  other
residents of Region VIII could  make
the same figurative claim about their
States—  Montana,  North  Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
  Montana, for instance, is a Spanish
word meaning mountain country. The
State is the fourth largest in America
in geographical size, and yet it is so
thinly populated that it retains the
quality of the remote wilderness which
distinguished it in the  early twentieth
century. Montana is the home of
some of nature's most spectacular
attractions such  as the granite  peaks
and mountain lakes of Glacier Na-
tional Park and  the geysers, hot
springs  and  volcanic  topography
within its three entrances to Yellow-
stone National Park.
  The western boundary of the State
is crowned by the lofty Bitterroot
range, a part of the Rocky  Mountain
system. The Great Plains extend over
the eastern landscape, and although
the high  grass which  once covered
them is gone,  sheep and cattle still
graze on the  remaining  short grass.
Below the plains,  the earth holds
petroleum, natural gas and a wealth of
mineral deposits, including coal.
  Since the admission of Alaska and
Hawaii  to the Union, the Dakotas
constitute  the  geographical  center of
the  United States. The ancient rock
formations of the  Black Hills and  the
Badlands can be observed here, as
well as the colorful, deeply eroded
clay gullies and the marine and land
fossils they hold.  The Missouri river
rolls southward through the States"
rugged terrain.
  Constant winds and a continental
climate  cause the Dakotas to have
severe winters and short,  hot sum-
mers, but several crops including corn
thrive in the rich soil. Only Kansas
PAGE 22

-------
produces more wheat than North Da-
kota, which is the most rural of the 50
States  with  90  percent  farmland.
South  Dakota has more sheep than
humans, plus  large numbers  of cattle
and  hogs.  The western  part  of the
Dakotas is a  semi-arid, treeless plain
where  cattle and  sheep  graze above
coal, gold and other mineral deposits.
  Signs  of America's westward ex-
pansion flourish in these two  States.
In South Dakota  the stone  faces of
four Presidents  gaze out over the
Badlands  from  Mount  Rushmore.
Theodore  Roosevelt spent summers
ranching in  North  Dakota between
1883 and  1886 and the State now
contains three units  of  the National
Memorial Park in his honor.
  The  1876 defeat  of General Custer
by  Sitting  Bull and Crazy Horse  in
the battle  of the  Little  Bighorn oc-
curred  here. So  did the massacre
which  terminated Indian  resistance to
the white man's relentless invasion—
Wounded Knee.  Presently, there are
more  Native Americans  living in the
West than  ever before in history, but
most are living on  reservations in the
Dakotas and other States.
   Utah is "the State the  Saints built."
Its capital and largest city is Salt Lake
City-
  Of the American States, only Ne-
vada receives  less  rainfall than Utah.
It is a geologist's paradise, rich in the
natural resources which have  become
the life-blood of the technological soci-
ety  we live  in. The Bingham  Canyon
open-pit copper mine is the largest
man-made  excavation in the world.
measuring more than two-and-one-half
miles across and one-half mile down.
  Massive  mountains rise up in the
eastern portion of the  State, while
farther  west  the land levels  out  into
the  Great  Basin.  To the  south, red
sandstone  throbs  through the can-
yons. . .  cut by wind and the Colo-
rado river.  Remnants of ancient In-
dian cliff dwellings  can  be found in
these  parts. Bryce Canyon National
Park  and  Zion National Park (70
percent  of the State's total acreage  is
federally owned or  administered) help
to  preserve the area's natural  beauty.
  At  one  time western  Utah was
submerged  beneath  a huge Pleistocene
lake. Lake  Bonnevifle.  During many
thousands  of years the  water fluc-
tuated, and  then subsided.  leaving
behind  a  desert of salt, alkaline soil
and  a  number  of lakes,  including the
Great  Salt Lake. Gulls,  pelicans, and
blue herons skim over  the  sand flats
and  mud  shores of the  water, which
through evaporation has  reached con-
centrations  of mineral  salts  several
times greater than the  oceans.
  The  word Wyoming  is  of  Indian
origin  and thought  to mean  "large
plains," although the State actually
marks  the end of the plains.  In the
west, the tall  grass gives way  to the
wooded slopes of the Bighorn  Moun-
tains, the one time  hunting  ground  of
the Crow and  Sioux.  But only in the
central  section,  where it is dissected
by the  Great  Divide, is  the sweep  of
the Wyoming plains broken. It  was  in
this  area  that chains  of covered wa-
gons rolled westward  over the Oregon
Trail.
  The  Grand Teton and Yellowstone
National  Parks are  here,  the latter
area being  where  the Snake River
begins  its long and winding journey  to
the Missouri. The production of petro-
leum and petroleum-related  products
boosts the State's economy, as does
its  production of sodium carbonate
from its resource-rich underground re-
serves.
  If there ever were  any real cow-
boys, they were surely to be found  in
Wyoming. In addition  to the livestock.
several crops are farmed, including the
beets which yield  much  of our sugar.
Large scale  irrigation has  permitted
the cultivation of diversified crops.
   Most  of the land that comprises
Region  VIII  was acquired  by  the
Union as part of the  Louisiana  Pur-
chase of 1803; most of the  territories
achieved Statehood toward the end of
the I9th century. Colorado was one of
the first in  the territory to be admitted
to the  Union.  The date was  1876,
winning it the  name  "Centennial
State." This  year Colorado  is cele-
brating its own centennial.
   In  the east,  parts  of Colorado's
Great  Plains  still retain the character-
istics of the tidal flats they once were.
The plains  eventually turn into breath-
taking  mountains,  the most famous of
which is  Pike's  Peak.  Toward  the
west, beyond  the  Great Divide,  lie
some  of the most  scenic spots in the
United States, including Rocky  Moun-
tain National  Park, Mesa Verde Na-
tional  Park  and  The  Great  Sand
Dunes Monument.
   The Basket Makers,  the earliest-
known  Indians, settled  in the  mesa
country before  the beginning  of the
Christian era.  In  southern Colorado.
one can still see the rock-ledge homes
of the Indian cliff dwellings.
   Due to  low rainfall. Colorado  has
been forced to irrigate its land to such
an extent that  it  is  now second only to
California in  acres of  irrigated  farm-
land.  Below are ores of silver, lead.
copper, zinc and uranium.
   Famous  cultural festivals are staged
at Aspen  and  Central  City,  where
John Gregory  struck gold in 1859 and
attracted hordes of settlers. To this
day, tourism  remains a chief cash crop
of Colorado and the other Rocky Moun-
tain States.
   As  in  the old West,  a frontier  has
suddenly been formed,  this time in the
new  West. The stniggle  is no  longer
for land, but  for  what  is underneath
the land. The resources  to  be found
there are unquestionably of  economic
value,  but  hanging in  the balance is
the awesome  threat  of   the  gradual
destruction of this magnificent  land.
The degree of beauty which exists in
Region  VIII  must now be matched
with an equal degree of high-minded
environmental  protection, lest we lose
that which is so precious  its like could
never be had again. •

                          PAGE 23

-------
 INQUIRY
What kind of noise bothers you  most?
 l-.milin Kscaladas, Noise Branch
 Representative.  Region II.  New York
 City:
 "For me the most irritating noise
 comes from being involved  in the daily
 transportation cycle. The awesome
 subway  ride. The average New Yorker
 spends about a hour or hour and a half
 daily on  subways, though, of course,
 some people have longer rides. The
 trains get you to your job and home
 agaJn, but with accompanying pain
 rather than pleasure.
 "The problem is that the subway
 system is old. dilapidated and
 maintenance has been neglected for
 years. The wheels are mostly flat from
 long use so  they screech—and there are
 16 wheels for each car. Some effort is
 being made  to upgrade the system by
 'truing' the wheels (grinding them round
 again) but this is an enormous job. The
 Urban Mass Transit Authority and
 New York City  have $40 million to
 spend over the next ten years to
 improve the system and attempts are
 being made  to acoustically treat the
 stations. Sound absorbing materials are
 being put on the platforms facing the
 on-coming trains and barriers are  being
 put between the tracks to contain the
 noise. Tracks are being welded to
 reduce vibrations.
 "Levels of  noise inside the cars rise to
 86 to 88 decibels, and on the platforms
 the levels can reach 110-115; this is the
 threshold of pain. These levels cause
 temporary impairment  of hearing.
 Higher decibel levels can cause
 permanent damage.
 "In addition to  this kind of noise. New
 Yorkers living near major airports are
 bombarded with aircraft noise. In a
 busy airport like Kennedy,  traffic
 sometimes becomes so heavy that
 planes are going over every minute at
                I .(XX) ft. or lower. So these people are
               assaulted twice—by subway and by
               aircraft noise. For them, noise is a
               more real pollutant than those in the air
               or water. Maybe to be tense, irritable
               and half deaf is the price paid for
               modern life?"

               Jay Goldstein, Sanitary Engineer, Solid
               Waste Branch, Region V, Chicago, III.:
               "The general background level of noise
               in  a city may be high, but we've all
               become accustomed to it, and pretty
               much disregard it. It is the loud,
               unexpected, silence-shattering noise
               that troubles me most.
               "I live in mid-city Chicago on the north
               side, and it is a quiet neighborhood
               most of the time. But frequently  in the
               early morning hours hot-rodders drag-
               race through the streets with roaring
               engines. Loud and unnecessary noise is
               against the city's noise ordinances, but
               seemingly little is or can be done to
               enforce these rules. Certainly, this kind
               of noise is disruptive of the peace and
               quiet of whole neighborhoods."

                Mary Rhones, Secretary, Office of
                Planning and Management, Economic
                Analysis Division, Headquarters:
                "I live in Washington, D.C.. on a main
                thoroughfare, near the Maryland line.
                Every morning at about 5:30 the sound
                of concrete mixers and  loading vans
                barrelling down the street seems to jar
                the whole house. When we bought the
                house, although some trucks used the
                road, I thought we would get used to
                traffic noise, but it has become
                progressively louder and more frequent
                since more trucks now use the road.
                It's so bad at times that my children
                can't hear the radio or the TV even
                with all the windows closed. We really
                like our house and neighborhood but
                               the sound is getting so annoying that
                               we have considered moving.
                               "The other type of noise that bothers
                               me is inside my house. 1 have a
                               teenage son who is learning to play the
                               bass guitar in a five-man band. They
                               practice in our  basement but since
                               they're just learning to play together
                               they insist  on turning  up the amplifiers
                               so that each of them can hear his own
                               instrument. The result is that the sound
                               goes through the vents and reaches
                               every corner of the house and can even
                               be heard outdoors if the windows are
                               open.  It's the kind of sound that is so
                               loud it stuns you because you literally
                               can't hear  anything else. As long as
                               they're going to have  the band I don't
                               see anything that can  be done about the
                               noise except to soundproof the room
                               they practice in."

                               William Tripp,  Oil and Hazardous
                               Materials Section,  Region I. Boston,
                               Mass.:
                               "The steady, high  level of traffic noise
                               that surrounds me  as  I commute back
                               and forth to work bothers me most. I
                               travel about an  hour each way from my
                               home to  the EPA laboratory in
                               Lexington, Mass.,  on  Interstate 95.
                               This is a heavily travelled highway and
                               the noise from other cars and trucks is
                               unremitting."

                               Anthony  Wayne, Sanitary Engineer,
                               Environmental  Evaluation Branch,
                               Region VII, Kansas City, Mo.:
                               "Noise to me is unwanted sound.  I live
                               in the country but  I'm uncomfortably
                               aware of highway noises—roaring of
                               engines and the whining of heavy truck
                               tires. On quiet evenings  this sound
                               nuisance can  be heard for two miles.
                               Much of the noise  results, of course,
                               from breaking the speed limit."
  iMiiilio Kscaladas

PAGE 24
Jay Goldstein
Marv Rhones
Anthonv Wayne
                                              William Tripp

-------
                                iDriefs
ALLIED CHEMICAL INDICTED IN KEPONE CASE
Allied Chemical Corp., Life Science Products  Co.,  and  Life Science's
two owners have been indicted by a Federal  grand  jury  in Richmond,
Va.,  on a charge of conspiring to violate Federal  water pollution
control laws in the Kepone pesticide case.  The indictment asserted
that an unusually close relationship existed  between Allied and
Life Science whose sole business was manufacturing Kepone, the
persistent pesticide which poisoned production workers and led to
a fishing ban on the lower James River in Virginia.

CAMDEN ORDERED TO END POLLUTION
The United States District Court for New Jersey in a landmark
action has ordered the City of Camden, N. J., to repair two sewage
treatment plants that were discharging 40 million  gallons daily
of inadequately treated sewage into the Delaware River.  The
court action enforces the EPA plant discharge permits which require
maximum efficiency of operation.

CONSTRUCTION REVIEW TEAMS SET UP
Administrator Russell E. Train has announced  that  a financial-
technical review program is being established to help ensure the
integrity of EPA's multi-billion dollar construction grants
program.  Under this system, teams of EPA engineers and auditors
will conduct thorough on-site reviews of selected  waste treatment
plant projects throughout the Nation.

NATIONAL NOISE EXHIBIT PREPARED
A major EPA exhibit on noise pollution will be displayed at the
Franklin Institute in Philadelphia this fall.  The exhibit, which
blends the use of animated film, slide shows, and  sound recordings
to demonstrate the problems of environmental  noise, will be
displayed at the Chicago Museum of Science  and Industry starting
in January, 1977.
                                                                PACiK 25

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (A 107)
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                    POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
                   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                    '.PA-335
                                                    1 RATE
 Return this page if you do NOT wish to receive thirpntnicaTion (  ), or if change of address is needed (  ), list change, including zip code.
 SHARING THE  JOURNAL
  The EPA Journal, which has been an
  internal  publication  since it  was
  started a year and a half ago, is now
  available to the  general public on a
  subscription basis.
    Permission was sought  from and
  recently granted by  the  Office of
  Management and Budget to allow ex-
  ternal distribution of the Journal. Nu-
  merous requests for the magazine had
  been received from universities, civic
  and  environmental organizations, in-
  dustries and other government  agen-
  cies.
    The subscription  rates  for EPA
  Journal, which are set by the Govern-
  ment Printing Office, are $8.75 a year
  for subscribers residing in the United
  States and $11  annually  for  those
  living outside the country.  Subscrip-
  tion requests should  be sent to  the
  Superintendent  of  Documents, U.S.
  Government Printing Office, Washing-
  ton. D.C. 20402,
    Single copies can be obtained  for 75
  cents each at the same address. The
  magazine  will continue to  be distrib-
  uted  to  EPA   employees  without
  charge.
    The format and policy of the  maga-
  zine will remain  essentially the same
  since most of the subjects discussed in
  this  issue-oriented publication are of
  interest  to external as well  as internal
  audiences.
    When  the EPA Journal  was  estab-
  lished it was believed that its puipose
  would be best  served by  a  home
  distribution system intended to give
  each employee,  as well as  his or her
  family, more  leisure time to read the
  publication. A questionnaire on how
  the magazine was being received was
  carried in the June issue. Here are the
  highlights of the reader response about
  the Journal's usefulness, coverage and
  distribution system:
USEFULNESS
• 94 percent like reading the Journal
    at home
• 86 percent  said the Journal helps
    keep them posted about Agency
    activities
• 50 percent find  it useful to repro-
    duce Journal articles
COVERAGE
  More emphasis desired on:
  Laboratories            35 percent
  Regions               24 percent
  Headquarters            18 percent
Percent who always read the  following
Journal department sections:
  People                64 percent
  News  Briefs            63 percent
  Around the Nation      57 percent
  Inquiry                47 percent
DISTRIBUTION  SYSTEM
  The EPA Journal is currently dis-
tributed to the homes of the Agency's
10.(XX) employees by third class bulk
rate mail.
• 83 percent of Journal readers prefer
home over office delivery.
• 56  percent  indicated  that other
members  of their family read the
Journal  at  home. According to the
poll, home delivery more than doubles
the Journal's readership.
  Mail delivery  is  about  95  percent
effective in reaching Journal  readers"
homes.
  These percentage  figures are  tabu-
lated from  the responses  of  the 150
Journal  readers  who answered the
survey. Seventy-five percent of these
were  HPA professionals who read
every  issue.
  A  number  of  helpful  suggestions
were  submitted  in response to the
survey indicating additional  areas of
special reader interest as well as cur-
rent developments at EPA  which need
coverage.  These ideas should bear
fruit in future  issues of the Journal.•

-------