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.•
------- |