United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 4
Number 1
January 1978
EPA JOURNAL
Industry and EPA
-------
In this issue EPA Journal takes a look
at some of the problems involved in
the massive effort being made to
clean up industrial wastes.
Administrator Douglas M. Costle
outlines plans to achieve industrial
pollution control more effectively and
efficiently.
The Administrator also discusses in
an interview in the magazine where
he believes EPA is heading in the new
year.
One of the articles on the maga-
zine's main theme of industry and the
environment is a report on the resolu-
tion of the Reserve Mining Co. case
after the longest and most expensive
environmental trial prosecuted by the
^deral Government. The article
riews this epic struggle be-
tween environmental and economic
values.
The magazine also carries articles
i the viewpoints of representatives
Working
with
Industry
of major industrial and environmental
organizations about the environ-
mental cleanup effort.
A new approach using "the rule of
reason" to reconcile differences
between industry and environment-
alists is discussed in another article.
The prospects and costs of clean
up in two major American industries,
steel and paper, are reviewed.
The magazine also reports on
several business-industry meetings
sponsored by EPA to exchange in-
formation on a variety of pollution
control technologies. Also discussed
is the Environmental Industry Council
established in Washington by the
growing national industry which
produces pollution control equipment.
In addition, programs financed by
the Small Business Administration to
help companies get low-rate loans for
pollution clean up expenditures are
reviewed.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 4
Number 1
January 1978
?/EPA JOURNAL
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
Joan Martin Nicholson, Director Office of Public Awareness
Charles D. Pierce, Editor
Truman Temple, Associate Editor
Dave Cohen, Chris Perham, Assistant Editors
Articles
With this issue, EPA Journal is
using for the first time process
color and new design and
typography based on a graphics
system developed by Chermay-
eff & Geismar Associates of
New York.
Industry and EPA 2
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle writes about the benefits
of pollution control to industry.
Protecting Lake 4
Superior
A review of the settlement of
the epic Reserve Mining Co.
Case.
Forum 10
Representatives of an industry
association and an environ-
mental group offer their
solutions.
Using The Rule of 12
Reason'
A search for environmental
solutions in coal mining.
The Path Ahead 14
An interview with Administrator
Costle on the future of EPA and
the environmental movement.
Industry Guide to EPA 16
Measuring Social 17
Performance
Secretary of Commerce Juanita
Kreps calls for an index to
appraise the social effects of
business operations.
Return to Hopewell 18
Report from Region 1 21
Dealing with Toxics 22
Verdict on EIS 24
Environmental 27
Industrial Council
Scrubbing Coal 28
Loans for Industry 32
Paper and Steel 33
Meeting with 39
Business
Departments
Almanac
Update
20 People
29 Nation
30
34
News Briefs
38
EPA'S PURPOSE: To formulate and implement actions which lead to a com-
patible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life.
Text printed on recycled paper.
COVER: A New York City
power plant.
ILLUSTRATIONS:
Susan Foster
PHOTO CREDITS:
Bob Jones, Ernest Bucci,
Documerica
The EPA Journal is published
monthly, with combined issues
July-August and November-
December, by the U.S. Environ-
mental 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: SlO.OOa
year, $1.00 for single copy, domestic;
S12.50 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.
-------
Environmentally Speaking
Industry
and
EPA
By Administrator Douglas M. Costle
I was pleased to be asked to make the opening remarks
for the business/industry issue of the EPA Journal
because there are two messages I want to convey not
only to the American corporate community but to the
general public as well.
The first message is that the Environmental Protection
Agency's preeminent mission as a health-protective
regulatory body is as strong as it has ever been. I am
firmly committed to that mission. In fact, I believe it is
more necessary now than ever before. As we begin to
control more effectively what are considered the "con-
ventional" pollutants, we are becoming increasingly
aware of the problems of toxic pollutants dispersed
throughout the environment—although we often have
little understanding of their effects and the pathways they
follow.
Our learning curve regarding these toxic substances
will be very steep, and we are only beginning to climb that
slope now. I am convinced that in the next ten years this
agency will be driven by the need to control toxic materials
in the environment. With that concern in mind, I am
determined that there will be no relaxation of health
standards nor of our enforcement efforts.
There is no denying that cleanup costs. But we need to
rethink the old notion that environmental expenditures
are nonproductive; that is, that capital used for pollution
control is not used to generate more products or demand.
I would challenge that notion and argue that we must
start viewing these expenditures in a different and more
fundamentally realistic way. We must consider not only
corporate economic growth stimulated by jobs and
expenditures for pollution control, but also by the in-
creased productivity of a healthier workplace and, there-
fore, a healthier outside environment.
In addition, although I realize that such calculations are
difficult, a more appropriate determination of the costs of
pollution control would balance those costs with the
social and economic benefits of a healthier environment.
For example, when natural systems become so contam-
inated that higher local and State taxes must be spent to
clean them up, people have less to spend as consumers.
Furthermore, corporations and consumers must pay
higher health insurance premiums, greater production
time is lost due to illness, more energy is needed to make
water safe for drinking, community income from recrea-
tional activities is lost—these are just a few of the con-
siderations overlooked when the plea is made that
environmental controls are unproductive corporate costs.
The second message I want to stress is that while
relaxation of environmental standards and enforcement is
unacceptable, I believe that we have to look openly and
pragmatically at ways in which pollution control can be
achieved equitably, effectively and efficiently.
President Carter's determination to introduce maxi-
mum efficiency in the regulatory process is one which I
share. Over the last nine months, EPA has established a
regulatory reform agenda applicable to all industries it
regulates. Instituting a number of major, generically im-
portant reforms is one of the great opportunities I have
while here. My goal is to make our programs as reason-
able and rational as we can. I want the business community
to have more confidence in the regulations that are set;
that means that our standards should be defensible and
that the business community should know with certainty
that these regulations will be enforced sensibly and fairly.
I also want to encourage creativity and innovation in the
regulatory process—as well as simplicity. !f standards can
be met by using unconventional technologies or tech-
niques, I would welcome their use.
With these objectives in mind, EPA is taking some new
initiatives to develop more efficient environmental
regulations:
• Openness and access. We want to create new oppor-
tunities for dialogue with the public, including those whom
we regulate. Our goal is to have "open-air" decision-
making, taking advantage of the expertise of and listen-
ing to the concerns of those affected by our programs.
We have been working constructively with industry,
particularly on implementation of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) and on effluent guidelines under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. We hope to increase
those opportunities for participation in the future by:
(1) funding public participation under the Toxic Substances
Control Act; (2) listing semi-annually an agenda of up-
coming regulatory actions—with a designated EPA con-
tact person for each; (3) uniformly extending to 60 days
the comment period for proposed regulations; (4) issuing
proposed guidelines for public participation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in order for an
agency to receive public assistance; (5) holding nation-
wide public hearings in formulating product labeling re-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
quirements of the Noise Control Act; (6) starting a pro-
cedure of having Regional Offices elicit public comment
on their activities; and (7) instituting an intra-EPA group
to determine ways to further increase public access to the
rule-making process.
• Procedural reform. I want to see that the regulatory
process is streamlined and coordinated internally. We
want to eliminate duplication, unexpected and unwelcome
side-effects, and we want to look at the whole problem—
not at piecemeal parts of it. Programs will be integrated
to address comprehensively and appropriately the various
media by which specific pollutants move and their total
impact on man and the environment. Some of the specific
areas we will address are: (1) Reducing both internal and
external reporting requirements; (2) reducing reporting
burdens for new regulations, and providing "sunset"
provisions in all new regulations calling for automatic
expiration of the regulation after 4-5 years; (3) simplify-
ing and reducing the reporting burden on effluent dis-
chargers under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Amendments; (4) using plain English, which is compre-
hensible to the lay person; (5) considering revision of the
adjutiicatory hearing process to address more appro-
priately the decision at issue without endangering due
process rights; (6) reducing delays in granting permits;
(7) consolidating grants to states and localities, now
allocated separately by programs, into one statewide
grant to be allocated as the State determines; (8) com-
prehensive industry studies of the cumulative economic
impacts of EPA's air and water pollution control regula-
tions on major polluting industries; and (9) addressing the
impacts of EPA's regulations on small businesses and
trying to mitigate adverse impacts of those regulations.
• Coordination with other agencies. In addition, we will
be working with other government agencies to eliminate
duplication and streamline the regulatory process. EPA
has pioneered along with the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and the Food and Drug Administration in a
major agreement to work together on regulating toxic
chemicals. We will be developing common approaches to
testing, methodologies, risk assessment, research and
development, and enforcement. The principals of the four
agencies have been meeting regularly to coordinate
policy and exchange information as have several groups
of counterparts from these agencies {e.g. general
counsels, budget officers, Regional Administrators). A
major objective has been to act together now, rather than
studying the need to act together in the future. Some of
the joint actions which have already taken place are a
hearing on the regulation of chlorofluorocarbons, regula-
tion of DBCP and consultation on EPA's proposed lead
standard.
In addition, we will be coordinating with the Depart-
ment of Transportation on Clean Air Act-related matters,
with the Small Business Administration on ways to reduce
any adverse impacts of our regulations on small enter-
prises and with the Council of Economic Advisers and the
Council on Wage and Price Stability on optimal formula-
tion of our standards.
We will also be working in appropriate areas with the
Department of Energy in order to ensure that environ-
mental and energy development considerations—es-
pecially increased use of coal—are addressed appro-
priately; early, and, therefore, more effectively, in the
policy process.
• Economic incentives. We are exploring a number of
alternatives to the direct regulatory approach. There
ought to be a range of options available to achieve our
environmental goals so that we can provide opportunities
to use the marketplace—which is a very effective mech-
anism—advantageously. The marketplace options we are
examining include: (1) An "offset" policy for nonattain-
ment areas, affirmed by the 1977 Clean Air Act amend-
ments. This policy, which allows growth in areas not
meeting the health standards if it can be shown that new
emissions are more than offset by a reduction in emis-
sions from existing sources in the area, could result in
the establishment of local markets for potential emission
reduction. (2) Marketable permits for chlorofluorocarbons,
which would allow permits or quotas to be allocated—
perhaps by auction—to producers or users and then
traded. (3) Product charges for solid wastes, which would
consist of levying a charge on the material content of
products that enter the municipal solid waste stream. We
are only in the preliminary stages of assessing this scheme
now, but its objective—if adopted—would be to provide
an economic, rather than administrative correction for
the failure of market prices to adequately reflect the costs
of solid waste management. (4) Federal procurement
incentives, to encourage the development of environ-
mentally superior products, are being used in the noise
control program. (5) Non-compliance penalties, which
represent an enforcement approach that assesses pen-
alties against violators in order to recover any economic
savings that they might have realized by virtue of failing
to meet emissions regulations. The non-compliance
penalty is intended to supplement, rather than supplant,
the present regulatory scheme by eliminating the com-
petitive advantage non-complying sources have had over
those that have met the requirements of the law.
Overall, I think that this set of regulatory reform initi-
atives we have begun will go a long way toward achieving
one of rny primary objectives during my time at EPA: that
is, eliminating the uncertainty and confusion that tends
to develop in the regulatory process. I want to be able to
give the corporate community a green light or red light.
I will signal a green light when I can, and a red light when
I must, but I will do my best to minimize the flashing yellow
lights which are, understandably, anathema to a business-
man. In a world of scientific uncertainty, it is difficult to
keep those flashing yellow lights to a minimum, but I am
determined to try to do so. D
JANUARY 1978
-------
EPAJOURNAL
-------
By Truman Temple
Protecting
Lake
Superior
After a six-year struggle between
Reserve Mining Company and Federal
and State agencies, dumping of pol-
luting taconite wastes is being shifted
from Lake Superior to a lonely site
seven miles inland.
The move, preceded by seemingly
endless court battles, is being greeted
with sighs of relief throughout the
Lake Superior region,
Not only will the change in waste
disposal halt an environmental threat
that brought a cancer scare to the
1 00,000 residents of Duiuth, Minne-
sota, but it also promises to spur the
economy of northern Minnesota
where jobs are scarce.
As EPA Journal reported in 1 976,
the Reserve case even then was the
longest and most expensive environ-
mental trial ever prosecuted by the
Federal Government. Before it was
over, Reserve had briefly shut down
operations at its plant in Silver Bay,
and the spectre of 3,000 employees
there being thrown out of work had
turned the case into a classic environ-
ment-versus-jobs conflict.
Now, construction of the new dis-
posal method not only will keep
Reserve's operations going but will
add some 1,600 temporary new jobs
and a smaller number of permanent
new employees to the company's
payroll.
Carving the new disposal site out of
a birch and aspen forest valley is a
major construction project involving
not only special dam-building technol-
ogy but a transportation network to
serve it. In addition, Reserve is modi-
fying its Silver Bay plant to separate
w of discharge of l;u:omtt> tailinqs
into Lake Sup<"
•imovers de-army dam si
Minimi's Milepost 7, wh>
will b(:
Truman Temple is Associate Editor of
the EPA Journal.
fine particles of waste so that this
material can be pumped in a water
slurry up to the new site, instead of
being dumped into the lake.
Since health officials also have
worried about airborne particles from
the plant, Reserve is installing electro-
static precipitators and other equip-
ment to prevent dust from escaping
into the atmosphere. Various types of
grasses also have been successfully
grown on existing taconite wastes at
the dumping site to make sure they
can be planted to hold down fugitive
dust. The State also has required
Reserve to cover all fine and most
coarse tailings with water throughout
the life of the tailings basin inland.
When the project is all in place and
operating by April 1 5, 1 980, Reserve
will have spent more than a third of a
billion dollars to solve the environ-
mental problems associated with
extracting taconite needed for steel-
making. The expense and worry have
not been limited to the company,
however. A unique new filtration
plant, designed specifically to remove
asbestos-like fibers from drinking
water, has been built with Federal,
State, and local money in Duiuth to
protect the health of residents. One
nearby community, Cloquet, doesn't
have any filtration plant and still
depends on well water several days a
week for its drinking water. Citizens
use water from Lake Superior for
other household purposes. But the
level in the wells is dropping, and
some believe Cloquet ultimately will
have to find several million dollars
somewhere for a plant to remove the
fibers from fake water.
How did the Lake Superior region
ever get into such an expensive mess?
Why is it that other taconite producers
managed to avoid the problem? And
how could Minnesota, so clean and
healthy a State compared with other
industrialized areas, let itself be
polluted with such a hazardous
substance?
The story began almost exactly 30
years ago when State agencies grant-
ed Reserve permission to discharge
taconite "tailings"—the waste left
after extracting taconite—into the
lake. At that time it was believed the
tailings would create a dense current
in the lake that would carry all the
tailings to the bottom where they
would do no harm.
Lake Superior is a peculiar body of
water in many ways. Although it
appears to the visitor as a beautiful
recreational resource, swimming is a
rare occurrence along its shores.
The reason is that the lake is dread-
fully cold. Because of its extreme
depth — 1,300 feet in places —it never
warms up much above 40 degrees
Fahrenheit and the swift currents
around Duiuth make the lake even
more hazardous. This writer was told
by a commercial fisherman that a man
whose boat capsizes in the lake can-
not expect to live more than a few
minutes in the water because it is so
cold. The bodies of those who do
drown are preserved underwater for
a long period for the same reason,
since the cold inhibits decay.
The lake's depth and the principle
of a dense turbidity current were
therefore factors in the decision to
permit Reserve to dump its wastes,
and nine years after the permits
were issued, the company began com-
mercial operations at Silver Bay,
some 65 miles northeast of Duiuth.
Initially, residents welcomed the
industry, as jobs were scarce. Over
the years, State permits were
amended to allow larger volumes of
JANUARY 1978
-------
Students at the Duluth campus, University
of Minnesota, sampling filtered water during
period when new filtration plant was under
construct t
dumping until Reserve was pouring
67,000 tons of solid tailings a day
into the lake
In 1 969, 1 3 years after full opera-
tions began, the Department of
Interior disclosed that fine tailings
were not sinking to the lake bottom
as originally believed but were
drifting some distance from the dis-
charge point. Interior's report con-
cluded that Reserve should be given
three years to build another disposal
site on land. The battle was joined.
The problem was not limited to
nearby towns using Lake Superior for
drinking water. Five communities in
Minnesota including Duluth, two in
Wisconsin, and one in Michigan
used the lake water for drinking. By
May 1 969, Interior Secretary Walter
J. Hickel convened the Lake Superior
Enforcement Conference to consider
inter-State pollution of the lake.
Location of Milepost 7 where tailings will be
deposited inland.
Conferees included representatives of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
the U.S. Government.
In September of that year the
Conference determined that based on
the evidence, the discharge from
Reserve potentially endangered the
health and welfare of persons in
States other than Minnesota. In the
meantime, the company had begun a
study of on-land disposal sites.
A complex series of claims and coun-
tercharges began in the courts, and
among other things a proposal to
pump the tailings 1 50 feet below the
surface of the lake was considered.
The Conference rejected this idea.
EPA in January 1 972, asked the
Justice Department to sue Reserve
Continued on page 8
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Taconite pellet in form used for shipment to
blast furnaces.
Highlights of the
Reserve Case
December, 1947 — Minne-
sota State agencies grant
permission to Reserve Mining
Co. to take 130,000 gallons
per minute from Lake Supe-
rior and discharge it with
taconite tailings in suspension
back into the lake. The per-
mits specify this must not
result in any adverse effects
on public water supplies.
1956 — Reserve begins first
full year of commercial opera-
tions at Silver Bay. Permits
amended to permit 260,000
gallons per minute discharge.
1960—Permits amended
again to permit discharge of
502,000 gallons per minute.
April, 1 969— Department of
Interior reports that some
fine tailings are not carried to
the bottom of the lake by the
heavy density current, as
originally believed. Report
says Reserve should be given
three years to study and con-
struct on-land waste disposal
facilities.
February 3, 1 971 — Reserve
report rejects on-land dis-
posal and proposes deep-pipe
discharge 1 50 feet below
surface into lake.
April 23, 1971-Lake Supe-
rior Enforcement Conference
Technical Committee rejects
deep pipe proposal as not
complying with pollution
abatement regulations.
April 28, 1971—EPA noti-
fies Reserve it is in violation
of Federal and State water
quality standards.
February 18,1972—U.S.,
at request of EPA, brings suit
against Reserve in U.S. Dis-
trict Court in Minnesota seek-
ing abatement of discharges
into lake.
June 15,1973—EPA issues
a statement that Duluth's
drinking water contains large
quantities of asbestos-like
fibers believed to originate
from Reserve's discharge.
July 3, 1973—Duluth mayor
announces that discount cou-
pons under a Federal grant
are available for purchase of
bottled water by local low-
income families.
August 24,1973 — EPA
recommends building a pilot
plant to determine needs and
costs of filtration of Duluth's
drinking water.
January, 1974 —Duluth
begins distributing filtered
drinking water at fire stations.
March 13, 1974—Filtration
units supplied to all Duluth
schools.
April, 1974— EPA rules that
Duluth water is unfit for inter-
state use as drinking water.
April 21, 1974—U S. Dis-
trict Court Judge Miles Lord
orders Reserve to cease
dumping tailings into lake.
Reserve shuts down. Three
days later Lord's order is
stayed by 8th Circuit Court
of Appeals.
May 8, 1974 —Duluth
approves ordinance requiring
restaurants to post whether
their water is filtered.
January 23,1975-EPA
and Corps of Engineers
release studies recommend-
ing unique water filtration
plant in Duluth.
May, 1975—Congress and
Minnesota apprpve S4 million
and $2.5 million respectively
to build Duluth plant.
December, 1975— Duluth
Mayor announces S3 million
program to provide free
drinking water in cartons at
grocery stores until filtration
plant is operating.
November 29, 1976—
Duluth water filtration plant
formally opened, the only
facility of its kind in the
United States.
April. 1976- Minnesota
Supreme Court affirms lower
court ruling that Reserve
can use on-land disposal of
wastes at Milepost 7.
June, 1976—Reserve
begins three-year project to
phase out dumping of waste
rock in lake and deposit it 7
miles inland.
JANUARY 1978
-------
•i to
because the company's discharge ot
tailings "endangers a unique natural
resource'/ and Justice filed suit a
month later.
Then in 1 973, after scientists at
EPA's National Water Quality Labora-
tory in Duluth began measurements,
they noticed a doubling of the tailings
concentration in the Duluth water
supply. At the same time, they found
the tailings contained large amounts
of fibrous material. They sought the
advice of an asbestos specialist,
Dr Irving J. Selikoff, head of the
Environmental Sciences Laboratory
at New York City's Mount Sinai
Hospital. He warned that the amosite
variety of asbestos in question could
be a health hazard if ingested. Since
the cancer rate is high among asbestos
workers, the findings alarmed
scientists.
On June 1 5, 1 973, EPA issued a
brief statement that Duluth's drinking
water contained large quantities of
asbestos-like fibers. Within a week,
prompted by rising public concern
the mayor of Duluth announced the
location of various well and spring
supplies where people coutd get
drinking water free of the fibers.
But what about shut-ins and people
without cars who had no way of
getting pure water? Within another
ten days the city was making discount
coupons available under a Federal
grant for low income families to buy
bottled water. Six months later filtered
water was being distributed free at
city fire halls, and in 1 974, filters were
installed in schools, restaurants, and
hospitals.
In December 1 975, a citizen's
group, "Families for Safe Drinking
Water," demanded that the city pro-
vide filtered water to anyone who
wanted it, after one couple refused to
pay its water bills on the grounds that
the water was contaminated by fibers
The city announced a S3 million
Corps of Engineers program to pro-
vide pure water in cartons free at
grocery stores.
What was it like for Duluth resi-
dents to suddenly find their tap water
might be carrying carcinogens?
"I was concerned," says Mrs.
Donald Pfeiffer, now a cashier at a
Duluth restaurant "I was pregnant at
the time. I'd been drinking Dututh
water all my life and wondered why
they suddenly decided it was unsafe.
So we all began drinking water that
had been brought in. The stores had
it in half-gallon cartons, labelled in big
red letters. It was free, and you could
take a case home if you needed it. But
it was a hassle."
Mrs. Pfeiffer said her family is all
healthy today, adding with a smile,
"so far as we know."
Barbara Beckrich, a senior at the
Duluth campus of the University of
Minnesota, commented, "One shock
to me was that alt the spigots on
campus were suddenly labelled. There
was an orange sign above some that
said "Not filtered," and a blue sign
at drinking fountains that said
"Filtered." So you would at least
have knowledge of what kind of
water you were drinking."
For some time there was doubt that
anyone could prove the fibers in the
Duluth water system actually came
from Reserve's operations far up the
lake. But by a sophisticated bit of
detective work, scientists at the EPA
Laboratory were able to show through
x-ray diffraction that a unique mineral
tracer in the water called cumming-
tonite grunerite could only have come
from the company's tailings.
Trucking in water cartons was
never considered more than a stop-
gap measure in Duluth. Responding
to pressure from the entire Minne-
sota delegation, including Senator
Humphrey, Congress voted $4 million
and the State legislature $2.5 million
to help build a unique filtration plant
capable of removing virtually all the
fibers from Duluth's water. Formal
8
EPA JOURNAL
-------
dedication of the plant took place
November 29, 1 976. Gradually the
cartons and signs began disappearing
and citizens breathed easier.
The problem is not yet solved,
however, for residents of nearby
Cloquet. The community has switched
from pumping Lake Superior water to
well water several days a week so
that residents can fill containers to
tide them over. But according to Paul
Wagtskjold, a member of the com-
munity's citizens advisory committee
for drinking water, the water table for
the wells is dropping.
"We still use lake water three eve-
nings a week so we don't over-pump
our wells,"he explains "We have filters
furnished by the Corps of Engineers
at all schools and the fire station."
Cloquet is now seeking some way to
finance a filtration plant like Duluth's
because the wells can't fill future
needs. "It will cost $4 million," he
says, "and we can get $1.3 million of
that from the State, but we don't
know where we can get the rest.
Cloquet only has 10,000 people and it
would bankrupt us."
Meanwhile, Reserve Mining is
pushing ahead with work at its Mile-
post 7 site to meet the court-ordered
1 980 deadline for ending its dumping
in the Lake
The company already has added
320 personnel and expects the con-
struction payroll will hit 1,600 next
year in addition to the 3,000 normally
employed at the plant. About 65 per-
manent employees will be be needed
to run the on-land operations over
and above the present 3,000.
Reserve is spending nearly $41 mil-
lion on the waste dump itself and $51
million on pipelines, railroad tracks
and roads to serve it. The company
also is investing more than $200 mil-
lion to modify the Silver Bay plant so
that coarse dry wastes can be sepa-
rated from the fine particles that will
be pumped in water to Milepost 7.
Finally, Reserve is adding $72 mil-
lion worth of electrostatic precipita-
tors and other equipment to prevent
dust and fibers from escaping into the
atmosphere during processing. At
the insistence of the State, the dis-
posal plan has been modified to pro-
vide for covering all fine and most
coarse tailings with several feet of
water to prevent fugitive dust
emissions.
The decision to build at Milepost 7
is the final result of a prolonged court
battle after a U.S. appeals court found
that lake dumping was incompatible
with environmental standards and
ordered it halted.
Today the bulldozers and trucks are
busy constructing two dams at either
Reserve's Silver Bay plant where ore vessels
are loaded
end of a valley where the taconite
wastes will be stored permanently.
The company is using sand for the
dam bases and packing it with diesel
rollers. Special lines extending
through the base are attached to
instruments that will monitor any
movement of the dam as well as
water pressure and angular displace-
ment. Later coarse tailings from the
plant will be carried in rail cars to
build the dams to their projected
height of 180 feet. A layer of 10 feet
of water will cover wastes dumped in
the basin at all times to prevent as-
bestos dust from blowing into the
atmosphere.
"Basically the basin is like a bath-
tub," says Clinton Maxwell, supervis-
ing engineer for the Milepost project.
"We've got the sides already there and
now we're building the two ends."
And so, after an estimated $370
million for pollution control and many
years of costly litigation, Reserve Min-
ing seems to have its worst troubles
behind it.
During a recent visit to Silver Bay,
this writer asked Reserve's president,
Merlyn Woodle: In hindsight, would
you have done anything differently,
knowing what you do now?
"No, I don't think so," he replied
Reserve officials have consistently
denied that the plant created a cancer
hazard
Nevertheless, the Minnesota De-
partment of Health, under a grant
from the EPA Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory in Cin-
cinnati, is doing a continuing study of
the Duluth area population to see if
any rise in the cancer rate has oc-
curred. So far, no increase has been
detected. These studies will have to
continue for many years, since the
lapse time from initial exposure to
observation of cancer can range from
20 to 40 years. D
JANUARY 1978
-------
Forum
One of the healthy characteristics of a
democracy is full dialogue and review
of the many options we as a society
possess. This is a luxury guarded by
the First Amendment.
In the best American tradition as
we face our painful environment/
economic/energy trade-offs, to cite a
few, it is useful to pause and consider
Environmental
Journey
By Richard P. Nalesnik
A look at the environmental map
indicates that we have come far, far
enough to justify stopping to ask
questions about which direction to
now take.
Some of the emotionalism that has
clouded our journey appears to have
been tempered. We must now view
the balanced approach not as an
option but rather an imperative.
Unfortunately, our national environ-
mental laws do not give very good
clues as to just where "balance" is.
As a result, we seem to be confronted
by an unending series of crises with
no ready or easy formula for their
resolution. To the extent that we have
an articulated national environmental
policy, it appears to be replete with
inconsistencies.
The purpose of national environ-
mental policy should be to provide a
framework which encourages rational
solutions to our environmental
problems.
Since these problems are
fundamentally engineering ones, the
solutions ought to be rational from
the standpoint of sound engineering
practice. That is, the solutions ought
to employ practical means which will
truly be effective in the technical
sense in eliminating or minimizing
some real problems.
Since the costs of pollution control
enter into our national accounts and
affect our international trade position
Richard P. Nalesnik, Ph.D., is Vice
President, Resources and Technology,
National Association of
Manufacturers.
and balance of payments, solutions
should also be rational from the stand-
point of being cost-effective. Such
costs are ultimately borne by the
purchasers and consumers of
products. Thus, the producer has a
trustee-like responsibility to resist
pollution control proposals which
would impose costs that are excessive
in contrast to the environmental
benefits which would be achieved or
in contrast to alternative methods of
achieving the same environmental
benefits.
Costs may be so high that they
threaten social and economic dis-
location. If a single-plant producer
finds that his costs of production will
exceed the value which he will re-
ceive from his production, he faces a
decision to cease production. In a
free society, he has this option. In a
totalitarian society, a producer may
be forced to continue production
until his physical and financial re-
sources are reduced to zero. This may
provide'a temporary solution to an
employment problem, but it does not
contribute to the long-term efficiency
and prosperity of a society. A multi-
plant producer may be confronted
with the same problem at one or more
of his plants. If he is forced to cease
production at the plants, unemploy-
ment problems will be created for
individuals and economic problems
for dependent businesses and govern-
ments. Sometimes, but far from
always, the multi-plant producer may
be able to offer employment at his
other operating plants. This will help
the unemployment problems of some
individuals, but does not help the
dependent businesses and govern-
ments at the original location.
These observations are made while
keeping in mind the fundamental
principle that no producer should be
permitted to operate in such a manner
that his operations will impair public
health.
On the other hand, forcing a pro-
ducer to use up capital resources so
that he may discharge clean water
into a dirty stream does not make
sense.
One may also question the entire
departure from the regional confer-
ence approach under the Water
Quality Act of 1 965 to an approach
under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1 972
characterized by criminal penalties.
The conferences resulted in expendi-
tures of millions of dollars under
regional cooperative efforts based on
the water quality needs of particular
water basins. Today, the regulators
take pride in the size of fine levied
against individual dischargers. The
Continued on page 36
10
EPAJOURNAL
-------
other points of view. In this issue we
report the viewpoints of Richard P.
Nalesnik, a Vice President of the
National Association of Manufacturers
as well as those of a well known
environmentalist and former Presi-
dent of the Sierra Club, Laurence I.
Moss.
Pulling
Together
By Laurence 1. Moss
This issue of the EPA Journal con-
tains several heartening examples of
what can be accomplished when
man's ingenuity is brought to bear
in solving problems. I believe, how-
ever, that as a Nation we have not
done a satisfactory job of encour-
aging similar ingenuity in the solu-
tion of some of our most important
environmental and energy problems.
This is because the institutional
mechanisms we select often fail to
properly motivate those whose
performance is crucial to success.
It is as though we hitched up a wagon
with two teams—at one end the
"public policy" team, at the other the
"private sector" team, yelled
"giddyap," and expected to get to
our destination! How much more
likely we would be to get there if the
teams were hitched to pull together!
Let's say that as a society we have
decided on certain environmental
quality standards and goals. Examples
for air quality would include the
national ambient air quality standards,
prevention of significant deteriora-
tion, allowable increments, and
protection of visibility in certain
areas. The institutional mechanism
almost inevitably chosen to imple-
ment such goals is that of a "limits"
system. That is, a limit is specified,
in regulations such as those embodied
(Laurence /.Moss is an energy-
environmental consultant and former
president of the Sierra Club, who
serves as chairman of the Environ-
mental Caucus of the National Coal
Policy Project.)
in the State Implementation Plans,
beyond which each emitter must not
go. If present emissions are in excess
of the limit, then reductions are
required, as in a compliance plan.
If the limit can be achieved with
technology that is obviously avail-
able, and at a cost that is low, then
this system will work rather well.
But consider the case when the re-
verse is true.
Remember that, despite lots of
talk about social responsibility, the
primary motivation of the corpora-
tion is to make money.' (I am not at
all sure that it can or should be
otherwise. It is the job of the govern-
ment, not the corporation, to set
limits on certain actions and intervene
in the market so that social goals
are met.)
The corporate manager, in the
'This is not meant to imply that a government
agency organized to perform a similar function
would act differently. The policies of Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) and American Electric
Power Company are not appreciably different
regarding the environmental impact of hydro
facilities or the use of scrubbers.
case of uncertain technology and
prospective high costs, generally
has two strategic options. One
would be to invest in the desired
research, development, demonstra-
tion, and then the major new facil-
ities needed to solve the problem.
The benefits of this option include
reducing the adverse environmental
impact (which, however, the cor-
porate manager often thinks is
exaggerated by society) and getting
the regulators off his back. The costs
include a definite short-term re-
duction in profit, and a likely long-
term reduction as well, because
even with the new technology the
reduction in emissions will usually
require some net increase in the
the costs of production. Conse-
quently, the industry leader in
pollution control is likely to be at
a competitive disadvantage. (The
non-compliance penalty provision
of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments will help with this problem,
but will not fully solve it.)
The second option, the one it
seems is more often taken in such
cases, is a strategy of delay. Every
doubt (reasonable and unreasonable)
about the availability of the tech-
nology is exploited, investments to
resolve the doubts are put off, and
a battery of lawyers and lobbyists
is employed to exhaust every possible
administrative, legal, and legislative
remedy. The cost of this option to
the company is low compared with
the cost of the first option. Thus,
man's ingenuity is brought to bear
in a way that frustrates solution of
Con tin ued on page 3 7
JANUARY 1978
I 1
-------
Using
'The Rule of
Reason'
By Francis X. Murray
The large red and white charter bus
pitched and bounced along the rutted
dirt road, winding its way down into
the strip mine at Big Sky, Montana.
As it reached the bottom of the mine
next to a large coal-loading shovel,
the bus stopped, and out poured
some 30 passengers in every
conceivable form of dress—from
suits and ties, to jeans and torn
T-shirts.
In the group were nationally
known environmentalists, coal
company presidents, Montana
State officials, academicians, local
ranchers and mine operators,
members of the press, and Indian
representatives. This meeting of
the Mining Task Force of the National
Coal Policy Project was held in the
Northern Great Plains to provide a
first-hand look at mining problems
in that region as well as an oppor-
tunity to talk with local ranchers,
(Francis X. Murray is project director.
National Coal Policy Project, Center
for Strategic and International
Studies. Georgetown University.)
Representatives of industry and environ-
mental interests touring a coal strip-mine
site, under the auspices of the Georgetown
University Center for Strategic and Inter-
national Studies,are: (I to r) Mike McCloskey,
president of the Sierra Club; Dale Shelly of
Georgetown University; John Corcoran,
former Chairman of the Board, Consoli-
dated Coal Co.; and Larry Moss, former
president of the Sierra Club.
county managers, businessmen,
environmentalists, and mine opera-
tors.
During their two-day trip through
parts of Wyoming and Montana, the
Task Force covered 350 miles,
inspected five strip mining opera-
tions, spent time in several alluvial
valleys and rail junctions, and met
with scores of local citizens. From
these discussions and experiences,
the 1 4 members of the Mining Task
Force (seven industrialists and seven
environmentalists) will seek to reach
a consensus as to how the mining
problems peculiar to this area can
best be addressed. Their agreed-to
positions will then be reviewed and
incorporated as part of the Project's
overall recommendations.
The Mining Task Force is one of
five Task Forces which constitute
the basic working units of the
National Coal Policy Project. This
is an attempt to bring together
leading industrialists and to discuss
the environmental issues surrounding
the use of coal. The meetings and
discussions are low key, problem-
solving working sessions, devoid of
the rhetoric and public pronounce-
ments which so often receive
maximum media coverage. The
participants are employing a tech-
nique or code of behavior referred
to as the "rule of reason." Under
the guidelines of this rule, the
parties first seek to develop relevant
facts and data, then proceed to
search for resolution of the issue or
problem.
This Project was formally initiated
on January 18, 1 977, with an
official chartering meeting of the
26 members of the Project's Plenary
Group. In fact, the National Coal
Policy Project had been germinating
for almost a year prior to this meet-
12
EPAJOURNAL
-------
ing. The idea for a dialogue on coal
issues was first conceived by Gerald
Decker, Corporate Energy Manager
of the Dow Chemical Company.
Gerald Decker's interest in finding
a better way for industry and
environmental groups to resolve
their differences grew out of the
frustrating experiences which Dow
has had with the Midland Nuclear
Plant. This plant, a joint venture by
Dow and Consumers Power, was
designed to meet Dow's expanding
needs for electricity and steam as
•A/el! as Consumers' expanding needs
for electricity. However, after more
than ten years of continual court
battles and the expenditure of
hundreds of millions of dollars, the
facility is scarcely half completed.
The latest forecast calls for the plant
to be on line in 1983, at three to
four times its original estimated
cost (assuming that there are no
further delays).
With this experience so vividly
etched in his mind, Gerald Decker
sought to find a better way to re-
solve these types of problems. Sub-
sequently, two important events
occurred which were instrumental
to the inception of the idea for a
National Coal Policy Project.
The first event was the publication
of a book by Milton Wessel, entitled
The Rule of Reason, which proposed
an alternative to the adversary
process widely used in legal and
legislative proceedings. The book
called for a reasoned approach
whereby both parties would openly
present and weigh all the facts
prior to seeking agreement on how
best to resolve an issue. The approach
required complete openness and
willingness to search for the best
solution—although this could be
significantly different from either
party's initial position. The concept
of the rule of reason had a very
strong appeal to Decker.
A second instrumental event was
the decision by Gerald Decker to
serve on the FEA Environmental
Advisory Committee which was
chaired by Laurence I. Moss (former
president of the Sierra Club). At
one of the Advisory Committee
meetings, Decker approached
Moss and presented his ideas on
the rule of reason approach and its
potential as a method for resolving
coal-related issues before disagree-
ments over coal development degen-
erated to the emotional level of the
nuclear debate. Laurence Moss was
interested in the proposal, although
he was uncertain that such dis-
cussions could prove fruitful.
Shortly thereafter. Decker and
Moss approached the Georgetown
University Center for Strategic and
International Studies to serve as
the institutional home for the National
Coal Policy Project. The Center's
role was to coordinate and administer
the Project's activities, and to provide
whatever support was needed to
make the process work.
Before launching a full-scale
effort, all parties to the process
felt a test or demonstration meeting
was essential. In July 1976 at Airlie
House, Virginia, T4 industry repre-
sentatives and 11 environmentalists
met for two days to discuss two very
specific topics—namely, energy
pricing policy and the prevention of
significant deterioration. The discus-
sions were forthright and open, and
some general points of agreement
were reached. At the conclusion of
the meeting, both sides decided over-
whelmingly to continue the effort and
expand it to cover a broad range of
issues.
Following the July meeting, a
series of informal organizational
meetings were held by both sides to
expand membership in the Project
and fill the Task Force positions.
The Task Force leaders then met to
determine which issues should be
addressed by each of their groups
which include: Mining, Coal Trans-
portation, Air Pollution, Fuel Utiliza-
tion and Conservation, and Energy
Pricing. At the Project's charter
meeting, the Task Forces presented
their lists for discussion and approval
by the Plenary, and the Project was
officially underway. Envisioned as a
one-year effort, the National Coal
Policy Project will conclude with
publication of the Project's findings
in March 1978.
The objective of the National Coal
Policy Project is to bring together
leaders of industry and the environ-
mental community in an effort to
reach consensus on the key issues
surrounding the use of coal in an
environmentally and economically
acceptable manner. When the
Project was first initiated, it was
realized that coal was likely to be a
much more important fuel in our
energy future. As a result of Presi-
dent Carter's Energy Plan, the
Project has taken on increased
importance and some sense of
urgency.
For many years the adversary
approach has been used by both
sides as the primary method of
resolving environmental disputes,
be it in legislative hearings or court
rooms. It is generally conceded
(even by many business leaders)
that adversary tactics were very
necessary in the early phases of
the environmental movement to
achieve environmental goals and
attract public awareness and support.
Given the success of this effort, a
general awareness and sensitivity
to environmental problems now exist
in our social and political institutions.
This changing situation calls for a
thoughtful review of the methods
and tactics which should be employed
to solve environmental problems.
The belief (among many of those
not firmly anchored in either camp)
that there must be a better way is
widespread and growing. Disen-
chantment with current methods
of conflict resolution is based on
the feeling that the adversary
approach often does not serve the
the public interest, but rather
serves only the objectives of the
victorious party.
The National Coal Policy Project
is attempting to develop a process
which will be an alternative to the
adversary method. In many respects
it is a first step with many limitations
and short-comings. This process
involves only two elements of our
social-economic-political structure,
namely industry and environmental
organizations. Many other important
groups do not have representatives
in this effort. Moreover, the Project
does not address all environmental
coal issues, but has concentrated
on those which are believed to be
important and at the same time
amenable to the rule of reason
method. Nevertheless, despite these
limitations, the process is meeting
with much success. With luck,
patience, and hard work, it may
well provide a viable alternative for
solving some of our difficult environ-
mental problems. D
JANUARY 1978
13
-------
The
Path
Ahead
An interview with Administrator
Douglas M. Costle
What will be the future of EPA?
Is the jobs vs. environment issue
waning? Are EPA's town hall
meetings worth while? What
must EPA do to improve its
credibility? What were the
Agency's major accomplish-
ments during the past year?
What is your opinion of the
current mood in Washington?
In general, there is a more open,
problem-solving orientation.
The new Cabinet
and other Administration
leaders are asking basic ques-
tions about what we're doing as
a government. It means that
fresh perspectives are being
brought to the whole debate
on major issues. And I think
the approach is basically quite
pragmatic.
Do you think this is helpful
to EPA and its cause, then?
Very definitely. And we share
our experience with our col-
leagues in other agencies. Solv-
ing water pollution problems
in municipalities, for example,
has given us insight into ques-
tions of urban planning, urban
policy and growth management
This makes us a credible par-
ticipant within the Administra-
tion in the debate about our
overall urban policy.
What were EPA's major ac-
complishments during the
past year?
We found that more than 85
percent of major industrial dis-
chargers in the United States
met water quality treatment
deadlines under the Water
Act.
Of those that didn't, a large
percentage came very close to
meeting the requirements. In
fact, they were so close that
many would probably be in com-
pliance before we could ever
bring litigation.
Some industries, of course,
couldn't comply for reasons
completely beyond their con-
trol. A number are scheduled to
discharge their wastes into
municipal systems which still
have not been completed.
Finally, about 300 industries
could be classfied as essentially
non-performing. We are pre-
paring to move against these
companies in a very aggressive
enforcement program
Another major accomplish-
ment in the water area is that we
14
have successfully obligated S1 8
billion, the original appropria-
tion, for construction of muni-
cipal waste treatment plants.
In addition, we have begun
to crack down on Federal in-
stallations which are polluting
rivers and lakes. We have to be
as hard on the Federal estab-
lishment as we are prepared
to be on private industry or
municipalities. We have an
obligation to set an example.
And what about our record in
air pollution?
In air, three years of congres-
sional debate have led to a set
of amendments to the Clean
Air Act. We have a major new
charter in air which provides a
basis for us to move ahead.
The basic strategy of the
original act was preserved. In
fact, many of the policies that
EPA had formulated, such as
the emissions offset policy,
were written into law.
I think it's especially signifi-
cant that the President asked
me to release the Administra-
tion's position on the Clean Air
Act two days before the energy
program was sent to Congress.
And he asked me to do it
from the White House so that
it would be clear it had the
Presidential imprimatur. In
effect, the message he was con-
veying was that we must make
certain that—as we try to solve
our energy problems —we are
not going to sacrifice public
health protection embodied
in the Act.
What about the toxics area?
In the toxics area, we pushed
through the regulation of PCB's.
We have over 100 pesticide
compounds whose registration
we are questioning. Twenty of
these inquiries are far enough
aiong that a decision may soon
be made on whether their re-
gistration should be continued.
We are rapidly building up
an inventory of chemicals pre-
sently in commercial production.
Originally, it was estimated that
our inventory would list 30,000
chemicals. However, we have
now learned that we will have
an inventory consisting of more
than 70,000 chemicals. And
that number is still climbing.
We've merged the pesticides
and the toxics program, under
one assistant administrator.
Have leadership appoint-
ments been completed?
In the Agency as a whole, we
have completed our recruiting:
the assistant administrators, the
regional administrators. We've
assembled a knowledgeable,
competent group of people
whom the professionals in EPA
can respect.
How is our relationship with
the White House?
We've been on the cutting edge
of two issues that are very im-
portant to the President: zero
base budgeting and regulatory
reform.
We have led the government
in developing effective zero
base budgeting techniques. At
a recent cabinet meeting, the
President singled out EPA's
staff for having done the best
job in zero base budgeting of
any agency within the Federal
Government.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Is EPA cooperating with
other regulatory agencies?
EPA—along with the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Ad-
ministration, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, and
the Food and Drug Admini-
stration—is pioneering in the
area of interagency coordina-
tion and policy formation.
We have a four-agency agree-
ment on regulating toxic chemi-
cals. Various work groups have
been set up to develop common
approaches to testing methodo-
logies, risk assessment, en-
forcement, and research and
development. We are proving
in tangible ways that inter-
agency cooperation and co-
ordination can be a reality.
EPA, OSHA, CPSC, and FDA
officials meet monthly. We are
developing plans for sharing of
facilities and equipment, shar-
ing of personnel, and coordina-
tion on a variety of day to day,
practical working levels.
I've been particularly pleased
with the implementation plans
for cooperation that have come
in from the Regions. They are
very practical. Some regional
offices of the four agencies are
working on plans to share
facilities, are joining together
on an enforcement effort to
curb coke oven emissions from
a steel company plant, and are
developing joint action programs
to deal with certain toxic and
environmentally destructive
chemicals.
1 think an increasing issue in
this country will be coordination
of the regulatory impact which
the Federal Government has
on our economy.
Are there signs that the "jobs
vs. environment" issue is
waning?
Yes. This argument, often used
by industry against EPA, isn't
being used by labor. The most
recent example is the steel-
workers.
Everybody is concerned
about shut-downs in the steel
industry. There is now over-
capacity in world steel pro-
duction. Every nation has built
its own steel making capacity,
and they have built more than
they need to serve their own
internal needs, so that they are
making products now which
they're willing to dump abroad.
JANUARY 1978
The U.S. steel industry has been
a victim. This has created real
economic problems for the steel
industry. It's a very complicated
situation.
The steel workers have been
strong proponents of govern-
mental action to help correct
the problem. At the same time
they have testified that they do
not believe that the steel in-
dustry should be granted relief
from OSHA or EPA require-
ments.
They realize that steel is a
hazardous industry and that
cancer rates are high in steel
towns. What they want is a
modernized, clean, competitive
steel industry which is a stable
employer. And they want that
steel industry to be a clean,
healthy neighbor in the com-
munities in which their families
live. And they recognize that
OSHA and EPA are critical to
bringing that about.
I think the steelworkers have
shown remarkable statesman-
ship. They and an increasing
number of other unions are be-
ginning to recognize that un-
willingness by industry to invest
in cleaning up the work place
is often a sign that the industry
is not willing to make a long
term commitment to provide a
stable employment base.
Put another way, willingness
by industry to clean up is a
signal that they intend to remain
a stable employer in that area.
As you know, the steel
workers were major supporters
of tough Clean Air Act require-
ments. And I think, generally,
you will find labor unwilling to
be boxed into the corner of
being told by industry that you
either have a job or your health,
but not both.
Labor is too smart for that:
they know better. In the past
they have sometimes felt they
didn't have anybody to talk to. I
think that's now changing. 1
think the message is getting
across that we're not trying to
put people out of work.
You've taken some hard
questions at the town hall
meetings. Are these sessions
really useful?
Yes. It is so easy sitting here in
Washington to get trapped by
the flow of paper coming in the
front door. As good as the
quality of that paper is, it is no
substitute for getting out and
seeing the problem for yourself.
I have found talking face to
face with people who live with
environmental problems very
stimulating. Town hall meetings
have been the fastest way I
know to get a shot of adrenalin,
and to bring me back to basics.
When you're working under
tremendous pressure, it's very
easy to have your perspective
distorted by the intensity of
that experience.
Yet it's important to remember
that the real problems lie be-
yond the Potomac River, and
we just cannot afford to let our-
selves be insulated from the
realities. And the only way you
can find those realities is to get
out of the office and go confront
them where they exist.
Do you think EPA may be
come part of a new Depart-
ment of the Environment
and Natural Resources?
Virtually every agency of the
Federal Government is being
studied to determine if it should
be included in reorganization
plans. And, of course, EPA is
connected with just about every-
thing else.
The plain fact is that, as you
know, we let two genies out of
the bottle in the early seventies.
One was called environment and
the other was called energy.
These are two themes that run
through everything we do in
our society, and they are forcing
us to think about the intercon-
nectedness of things. We'll
never be able to go back to the
conventional, compartment-
alized view of the world or of
government policy.
So this agency plugs in with
virtually every major policy
issue that the President is pre-
occupied with. It is very unique
in the organizational spectrum of
Washington.
It should come as no surprise
that we're involved in one way
or another with a large number
of reorganization plans. For
example, the OMB reorganiza-
tion team is looking at the logic
of merging EPA and some of
the Federal Government's
health-related functions, as
well as at the possibility you
mentioned.
What do you see as the big-
gest challenge ahead for
EPA?
I think there are a series of
challenges. One is to consolidate
our legislative gains. We must
find the means to manage the
tremendous diversity of tasks
that we have to do. We parti-
cularly need to develop a clear
sense of direction in our whole
toxics effort.
And that will affect every part
of this agency; air, water, re-
source recovery, drinking
water, research and develop-
ment activities. Toxics will be
a theme that helps weave us
together. We must see that this
program gets launched right.
I think also we must work
hard to build our credibility
with the many publics that we
serve. We are not a one con-
stituency agency. Our actions
must be shaped by a variety of
perspectives: health, urban con-
cerns, rural concerns, econo-
mics, just to name a few.
The whole public is our con-
stutuency, not just one part.
Finally, I think we need to
firmly establish our growing
reputation for professionalism,
effective performance, tangible
accomplishment, sensitivity
and fairness.
And above all, common sense.
D
15
-------
Industry Guide
Keeping up with EPA
activity, as well as with Rr
and D'
can be difficult , ; know
availar,
desigri.
,
Environmental Research
Information Center (ERIC)
Since its inception, EPA has
been active in development and
demonstration of industrial
pollution control systems, and
has fulfilled its responsibility
for disseminating the results.
The Office of Research and
Development, which designs
pollution control systems and
assessment methods, works
closely with industry to promote
their acceptance and use
The EPA Technology Transfer
program was established to
Fe
Federal Register System
The Federal Register system is
contained primarily in two pub-
publications. The CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS is a
codification of current regula-
tions of various Federal agencies.
It is divided into 50 Titles which
represent broad areas subject
to regulatory action. Title 40 is
"Protection of the Environment."
It may be purchased from
Superintendent of Documents,
U.S.Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C, 20402, for
$4.50 Subscription price of all
titles is S 350 per year.
The CODE is kept up-to-date
by daily issues of the FEDERAL
REGISTER. Regulations properly
issued and published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER have the
bridge the gap between tech-
nology development and appli-
cation. The results of EPA's
Industrial Pollution Control
Program are advertised by way
of a Technology Transfer News-
letter, available upon request.
In 1977, the Technology
Transfer Program was incorpor-
ated into the Environmental
Research Information Center
(ERIC), Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
This new center is the focal
point for all technical informa-
tion dissemination activities
within the EPA's Office of
Research and Development.
Process Design Manuals
force and effect of law. Pub-
lished Monday through Friday,
it makes available to the public
recently issued regulations and
legal notices from Federal
agencies.
EPA documents that appear
in the FEDERAL REGISTER are:
(1) Environmental Rulemaking,
such as Advance Notice of
Proposed Regulations, Final
Regulations, and Standards, and
(2) Policy Statements, such as
Environmental Decision State-
ments signed by the Adminis-
trator.
The FEDERAL REGISTER is
$5.00 per month or $50 per
year, payable in advance. Remit
check or money order, made
payable to the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
ERIC's process design manuals
bring together comprehensive
technical information contained
in many scientific reports on
environmental technology pro-
cesses. Manuals are available
covering processes such as
Nitrogen Control, Phosphorus
Removal, Carbon Adsorption
and Land Treatment of Waste-
water
Seminars
The agency has conducted 130
seminars that were presented to
more than 30,000 attendees on
a variety of municipal and
industrial pollution control
subjects, including:
• Upgrading Wastewater
Treatment
• Flow equalization
• Physical/Chemical Treatment
• Metal Finishing
• Erosion Control
• Filtration
Contacts for Regulatory
Information
For information about specific
EPA regulations, the following
EPA personnel can help direct
you to appropriate Agency
contacts. Write any of these
sources, other than AIR, at EPA,
Washington, D.C. 20460. For
Air. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711. Please use
mail codes.
Program
Air
Effluent
Guidelines
Other Water
Pollution Areas
Drinking Water
Pesticides
Noise
Toxic
Substances
Solid Waste
Radiation
Contact Phone
D.Kent Berry 919541-5343
William Cogger 202 426-2522
Albert Erickson
Ervin Bellack
Sandy Fuller
202 755-6867
202755^5643
202 755-4854
Henry E.Thomas 202557-7743
John B. Ritch
Jerri Wyer
R. J. Augustine
202 755-0535
202755-9157
703557-9710
Mail Code
(MD-11)
(WH-554)
(WH-551)
(WH-550)
(WH-569)
(AW-471)
(TS-788)
(WH-562)
(AW-458)
Research Reports
Hundreds of research reports
are produced annually by ERIC.
Many represent work in which
the Agency has cooperated
with industrial groups. Some
examples include:
« Mine Drainage Abatement
• Activated Carbon Treatment
• Chromate Removal
• Aerated Lagoons for Food
Waste
• Sulfur oxides control
• Incinerator Design and
Control
• Feedlot Waste Management
Research and
Development
Activities
To find the answers
to questions
regarding EPA Research and
Development activities, a good
starting point is the Agency's
Technical Information Division.
Call (202) 245-3018
or write to
the Division at EPA (RD-680),
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Technical Information
The National Technical
Information Service (NTIS)
of the U.S. Department
of Commerce
operates the largest publicly-
available scientific and techni-
cal information facility in the
Nation.Nearly one million titles
are available through this
service. For further
information, write:
National Technical
Information Service
U.S. Department of
Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
or call (202) 724-3382
16
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Measuring
Social
Performance
Development of a Social Performance
Index to give American business a
way of appraising the social effects of
its operations, including pollution
control, has been proposed by the
Department of Commerce.
Commerce Secretary Juanita M
Kreps has said that her Department
intends to take "whatever steps it can
to enhance business leadership in
corporate social performance."
In a recent speech to a conference
of industrial leaders in Durham, N.C.,
Kreps said that "working with the
Business Roundtable and other
business leaders, we intend to de-
velop and publish a Social Perform-
ance Index that will give business a
way of appraising the social effects
of its business operations.
"Businesses can use this index, for
example, to provide data on environ-
mental controls, affirmative action,
minority purchasing, consumer com-
plaint resolution, and product testing.
The Commerce Department will then
compile the data and publish it in
order to make it widely available to
the public and the press. By assist-
ing businesses in evaluating their own
performance, we can help to ensure
that corporations get credit for the
constructive things they are doing.
"This index would also allow those
companies who are leaders in pro-
moting the public interest to bring
about an improvement in the behavior
of less progressive firms. For the latter
companies not to join the former is, I
fear, to continue to invite Govern-
mental regulations of both."
Kreps said that in addition to the
publication of a social index her
Department wilt take other steps to
encourage social performance such
as working with EPA to expand the
regional business-industry seminars
sponsored by EPA and Commerce.
The theme of these conferences is
"Pollution Prevention Pays." This
concept, Kreps said, was pioneered
Juanita M. KIT;
by 3M and Dow. She added that "it
demonstrates the cost-effectiveness
of approaching pollution control by
minimizing the creation of pollutants
in the production process, rather than
by placing a box at the end of the
production process to scrub out
pollutants."
Kreps warned that some action is
necessary to halt the slide in public
confidence in most institutions, both
public and private.
"Business can no longer think
exclusively in terms of economic out-
puts— indeed, most businesses have
not had so limited a view for some
time," she said.
A corporation that is concerned
with social performance, as well as
its profit margin, takes into account in
everyday decision-making the ways in
which its activities affect its range of
constituents: employees, customers,
shareholders, neighbors.
"To the extent that corporate
activities consistently reflect a sensi-
tivity to the legitimate interests of
these groups, public perception of the
corporation will be improved," she
stated.
Contending that a broadening of
corporate objectives is likely to im-
prove profits, Kreps said that there is
good evidence that disregard for
social performance "translates,
sooner or later, into significant dollar
costs.
"As corporations have grown, so
has the public clamor for public
accountability on one hand and in-
creased public regulations on the
other," she declared.
Kreps said that at present the
question of whether corporations are
meeting their public responsibilities
is receiving a lot of attention in the
press and in the public sector.
"No fewer than three Govern-
mental agencies—the SEC, the FTC
and Commerce—are examining the
question at the moment; other efforts
are currently underway in Congress,
by the American Bar Association and
among business leaders. But while
the concern is current, the acknowl-
edged obligation of corporations to
the public interest is not new. It is
inherent in the historical jurisprudence
and development of the corporation
in this country."
She noted that even prior to the
advent of the modern corporation,
"its predecessors were widely
thought to have some obligation to
the public. History is littered with the
phrases of those who have tried to
describe this concept. Noblesse
oblige, the social contract, phil-
anthropy, enlightened self-interest,
the gospel of wealth, social conscious-
ness, corporate responsibility—these
are just a few."
Kreps said that while some of these
terms are still used, many have be-
come obsolete or devalued.
"But," she continued, "I do not
want to be detoured by debates
about the proper terminology to
describe a corporation's public
obligation. Nor do I want to describe
how the corporate reputation became
tarnished. Rather, I want to talk about
how the corporate reputation is now
being shaped, and how we might
set about changing that process." Q
JANUARY 1978
17
-------
Return
To
Hopewell
By Rembert Brown
In September 1975, the City of Hope-
well in Tidewater Virginia, joined
the ranks of cities that have
suffered headline-making chemical
disasters. In Minamata, Japan, it was
mercury. In Seveso, Italy, it was
dioxin. In Hopewell, it was Kepone.
What has been the financial and
social effect of pollution, two-and-a-
half years after the disaster was dis-
covered, on a company, the people
who work in the community and the
businessmen who rely on income de-
rived from local industry? The answer
depends on whom you talk to around
Hopewell, if they are willing at all to
talk to an outsider. From blue-collar
worker to banker you hear what al-
most amounts to the town slogan:
It's not theKepone that's hurting
Hopewell, it's the headlines.
Allied Chemical, fined $13 million
for its part in the Kepone affair, will
have spent $169 million for pollution
controls in the period from 1974
through 1980.
The old Life Sciences building,
where Kepone was manufactured
near the Hopewell News, has been
taken apart piece by piece and the
poisoned matter buried in a sealed
container fenced off from the world
and marked with a suitable headstone.
But Kepone and other industrial
chemicals in the Hopewell environ-
mental area may have effects more
far reaching than the single incident
at Life Sciences.
There are nine thousand industrial
employees in Hopewell alone, another
thousand in surrounding Prince
George County, still others com-
muting from Richmond and adjoining
cities.
(Rembert Brown is an EPA Head-
quarters Public Affairs Officer.)
Earle Ferguson, Jr., vice president
of Hopewell's United Virginia Bank,
reported this to have been one of the
best years financially. Across from the
bank on Main and Poythress Streets
downtown, a new shopping mall is
going up. Gary Worth, director of
urban renewal in Hopewell, reports
new support from local businessmen
and ordinary citizens to upgrade the
downtown and areas adjacent. One
hundred forty-six new building per-
mits were issued in Hopewell last year.
Many of Hopewell's residents are
older than the city itself. The town
was born as a chemical boom town in
1916, on the outskirts of a DuPont
munitions plant. Almost overnight it
grew from forests and farms to a
population of 40,000 living in tents
and shanties. In some ways this aura
of the temporary and expedient has
lingered.
Allied Chemical arrived on the
scene in 1928. It was followed by
Hercules, Firestone and Continental
Can, all heavy users or makers of
industrial chemicals, and potential
polluters. Allied now has four facilities
and about 4,000 workers.
In large measure, the 1 974-75 busi-
ness depression passed over the
Hopewell chemical complex. The
workforce remained intact and most
workers held on to their jobs. The men
appreciate this fact. Union activity
ranges largely from being inactive to
nonexistent in the area, and workers
relate this to Virginia's right-to-work
law. These same men are distant or
even mildly derisive to reporters,
attorneys, and others they see as a
threat to their daily bread. They point
out that while Kepone caused some
illness, it did not kill anyone. As Ralph
Harris, a production worker at Allied
put it, "Sure, there's Kepone in the
James River, been there for years.
But I still go fishing and eat what I
catch. This pack of cigarettes here has
more harm in it than what I get from
out there." As Richard Koot puts it,
"We're all going to die from some-
thing. If you reporters—especially
Dan Rather—will leave this town
alone, I'll die with a full belly instead of
an empty one."
Most local officials and business-
men are eager to tell the "other side
of the Hopewell story," and indicated
to this visitor positive evidence of
overcoming a bad press. But one offi-
cial, after keeping his caller on hold
for a time, began his phone interview
with, "What new way has EPA found
to punish the city of Hopewell?"
But Hopewell's attractive and ener-
getic Mayor, Hilda Traina, is quick to
put aside other business and escort
the out-of-towner to places that aid
her case for Hopewell.
One local environmental item is the
drinking water treatment plant owned
and operated by Virginia-American
Water Company. Morton Simon, the
manager, is quite proud of what he
calls the Nation's first charcoal-filtered
water system which was installed in
the late 1950's. His water comes from
the tidal Appomatox River just above
where it meets the James, and some
distance above the heavily polluted
Bailey's Creek that enters the James,
below Allied Chemical. The ebb and
flow of the tides makes charcoal filter-
ing more a necessity than choice.
Simon's major customers are not
the citizens of Hopewell but Allied
and the other chemical operations
that require pure water for efficient
operation. The water from his plant
looks and tastes as if it might have
come from a spring.
Charcoal-filtered water was not
enough to overcome the stigma of
Kepone that lingers over Hopewell. A
brewery that was considering the
town as a site decided instead on
Eden, North Carolina, which it may
have considered a prettier name to
have on its label,
Another point of civic pride is a
$50 million wastewater treatment
plant due to begin operating this
spring. Like the drinking water plant,
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
it seems unusually large for a town of
26,000, capable of treating 70 million
gallons of waste a day, according to
Ray Hodell, the Yale engineer who
is Director. Only 1 5 percent of input,
it turns out, is human waste. Eighty-
five percent comes from industry.
Homeowners pay $4.60 per month.
Industry pays according to gallonage
and percent of solids. Hodell says
his plant receives an exotic mix of
chemicals from Continental Forest
Industries, Hercules, Allied Chemical,
and Firestone. He also accepts the
chemical and organic waste that
Virginia-American Waterworks
intercepts from Hopewell's drinking
water. This too is waste to be
disposed of.
"Each of these customers produces
very interesting wastes. The prospect
of the interaction of those wastes is
intriguing," he declares.
In fact, the final sludge product is
so "interesting" it will be incinerated
at 1400 degrees or higher and the
stack gas scrubbed by 1 700 gallons
of water a minute to reduce air
pollution. Where most city sewage
plants have an excess of nitrogen and
phosphorus, these ingredients must
be added in Hopewell to counteract
the chemical input. As part of the
complex, Hodell has his own oxygen
factory feeding into the system to
keep working bacteria alive so they
may attack and break down the exotic
mix of waste water his plant must
treat. This chemo-biological process
may be the most sophisticated and
advanced in Hopewell, possibly even
more so than the processes at the
chemical factories that are his
customers. When the plant goes on-
stream in 1 978 a great deal of James
River pollution may come to an end.
Commercial fishermen of the James
River have a different story to tell.
Near Hopewell in Claremont, water-
men are on food stamps and selling
their nets. They may legally catch
and sell only catfish and female
crabs now. In the spring they may
also catch for market herring and
shad that move in from the sea to
spawn in this estuary of Chesapeake
Bay. Kepone makes other fish un-
salable under Virginia's law. W.D.
Melver and W.E. Wyatt will talk about
it frankly. They are resigned to selling
their nets and painting their boats
and waiting for word from the State
about when it is safe and legal to
fish again. For a waterman to sell
his nets is equivalent to a Nebraska
farmer selling his tractor, so it seems.
Melver and Wyatt find it painful
as independent businessmen to be
told they cannot fish anymore in the
James. An alert law firm in Virginia
has filed a class action on their
behalf. They and Allied Chemcial
will not speculate on its outcome.
Meanwhile both sides await state-
ments from a Kepone Mitigation
Task Force composed of scientists
from several schools.
Current evidence indicates that
Kepone becomes an ingredient of the
sediment in the Jarnes River with
Industrial scent- ;it t ,vith James
River in tl-
relatively little suspended in the water
itself. However, Kepone is a very
stable pesticide compound and does
not break down readily even when
exposed on a farm field to sun, air
and soil bacteria.
It may be that the James River will
eventually cover Kepone in the
bottom sediment with natural soil
run-off and detritus. However long
that process may take, and it is un-
known today, watermen on the James
are effectively forbidden by the State
to follow their trade.
Watermen like Melver consider
these scientific strictures unduly
harmful and unrealistic. Melver de-
scribes in detail how croaker, blue-
fish, striped bass, mullet, herring and
shad migrate in and out of the James
like waterfowl.
"The State of Virginia won't let
us catch or sell these fish. Tomorrow
a man can be catching these same
fish legally from Montauk to Jackson-
ville. Because fish migrate, they would
be the same fish swimming out there
in the James right now. Catch them
anywhere else and they are perfectly
legal. Not in the James"
As yet, scientists have no way to
predict when the Kepone level in
the James River will be within safe
tolerance levels. There is even
reasonable doubt about what level
is safe, or, indeed, if any level of
Kepone is safe. Scientists at EPA and
other government agencies, State
and Federal, have joined the Kepone
Mitigation Task Force to attack the
problem.
Other citizens of Hopewell move
about their daily work undismayed,
with a maximum of optimism and
trust in the future One may only hope
their optimism will turn out to be
realistic.
Meanwhile, Mayor Traina said that
since the Kepone incident "I feel that
there has been a change in the
attitude of both industry and the
community.
"We are more aware of each
other's problems and there is a
stronger sense of cohesiveness. We
are working together now as a team
for the economic and cultural growth
of our community'.' Q
JANUARY 1978
19
-------
Environmental Almanac: January, 1978
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
<^i^;%fc
Bird
Watching
Once the derision of many businessmen was aimed at a
particular segment of the environmental community—
the bird watchers.
The assumption was often made that anyone foolish
enough to waste valuable time observing birds was either
simple-minded or kooky, or both.
"They're nothing but bird and bunny watchers," the
practical types used to say in dismissing objections to
"progress" raised by environmentalists.
Yet there is now a growing appreciation of the obvious
truth that studying birds and other animals can provide
information vital to people.
For example, as part of a study of the impact of a huge
coal-burning power plant on the Montana plains, EPA
scientists conducted a periodic census of bird life in the
immediate area.
Beginning a half hour before dawn the field project
manager stopped at stations every half mile along a 30-
mile route around the plant to record either by sight or
song the number and variety of birds present.
Birds are living computers and monitors, a fact recog-
nized long ago by coal miners who took canary birds into
the mines with them. If poisonous gases were present, the
collapse of the sensitive birds gave the miners early
warning of danger.
An important advantage in using birds and other
creatures to detect harmful substances in the environ-
ment is that unlike the limited manmade computers, they
cost nothing.
Yet if he were given all the gold in Fort Knox even the
most practical and hardheaded industrialist could not
manufacture a single living bird.
Birds have often played a significant role in helping us
to understand our world. Darwin gained new insights for
his theory of evolution by studying how a single finch
species on the Galapagos islands developed new food
sources and ways of life to escape competition with
fellow finches.
In her book "Silent Spring," Rachel Carson warned of
the perils of misuse of pesticides by describing a world
where bird life had been snuffed out by chemicals.
In addition to birds, many other creatures are now used
to detect injurious presences in the environment.
Even a species of the lowly clam may prove useful in
detecting pollution. This tiny oval-shaped clarn, "Macoma
balthica," lives in the intertidal mud flats off the Alaskan
Coast where oil tanker traffic is constant.
The University of Alaska's Institute of Marine Science
found that the spillage of low levels of oil stimulates this
clam to rise to the surface from its burrow in the mud.
Higher levels of oil eventually kill this clam.
The upward movement of the clam in oil-polluted mud
and its death could be more effective indicators of the
presence of oil pollution than many chemical methods of
detection, scientists at EPA's laboratory in Corvallis, Ore.,
believe.
With the aid of EPA funds, the University of Alaska
scientists are continuing studies in Alaskan oil pollution
problems and the ability of this clam to indicate possibly
harmful pollution in regions where oil production and
transportation are likely.
The Council on Environmental Quality is working with
other Federal agencies to improve wildlife monitoring
which can be used as an environmental indicator.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Audubon Society with the collaboration of the Canadian
Wildlife Service conduct annual monitoring of bird
species. Computers are used to check State, regional and
continental bird population trends.
Starlings, the Council on Environmental Quality re-
ports, are considered important indicators "for garbage
and filth contamination, crop damage, and urban
degradation."
Apart from the role played by birds and other living
monitors in protecting us, the study of these creatures is
helpful in understanding real world truths.
Too many residents of our major cities are so divorced
from nature that they think food grows in grocery stores
and that fire wood is manufactured by lumber companies.
Yet these same urban areas are also producing an
expanding army of bird watchers, people living in concrete
canyons who are trying to find nature to help relieve their
sense of alienation.
Fortune Magazine carried an article in a recent issue
about some of the Nation's leading bankers and other
business leaders who have joined the search in urban
parks and surrounding countryside for such treasures as
blue birds and pileated woodpeckers. Some of these
industrialists, the magazine reported, take their binoculars
when traveling abroad to spot such rarities as the shoe-
billed stork in a Ugandan swamp.
Birds also have attracted the admiration of such master
spirits of literature as Keats, Wordsworth, and Shelley.
In his "Ode to the Skylark," Shelley wrote that if this
gifted singer could "teach me half the gladness that thy
brain must know," he could catch the attention of the
world.
In fact, birds are worth the world's attention if for no
other reason than that their singing gives us hope that our
environment can be saved.—C.D.P. D
20
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Report
By
William R. Adams, Jr.
I have been with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for a
little more than six months. As
you can well imagine, these first
few months have been taken up
with the herculean task of famil-
iarizing myself with all the envi-
ronmental issues that the New
England region faces.
Although the issues I deal with
as Regional Administrator are
different from those I dealt with
as Commissioner of the Maine
Department of Environmental
Protection, my basic goals are
the same and my basic philoso-
phy of managing an environ-
mental program is similar.
I come to this Agency with a
definite environmental bias. I
think we owe a great debt of
gratitude to environmental
groups in New England who
have struggled tong and hard —
and usually without recompense
—to protect New England's
natural resources and natural
beauty. In fact, I would say that
the single most important factor
in the battles that have been
won to date has been citizen
awareness, citizen concern, and
citizen participation. It was an
aroused public opinion that
brought action by politicians in
the form of tough new anti-
pollution laws, and it has been
the continuing pressure by public
interest groups on bureaucrats
like me that has assured us of
strong, vigorous administration
of those laws.
I intend during my tenure as
Regional Administrator to work
very closely with the environ-
mental community in New
England. I will seek their advice.
I will support their efforts with
a vigorous public information,
education, and participation
program. We are, after all,
interested in the same goal: a
high quality environment for all
New Englanders.
While I am committed to
doing what I can to further the
environmental movement, I do
not intend to ignore the business
community or economic inter-
ests. Unfortunately, the only
relationship that the regional
office has had with the New
England business community in
recent years has been an adver-
sary one. There have been a
number of issues — the Boston
transportation control plan, the
Seabrook nuclear power plant,
and mandatory deposits on bev-
erage containers—over which
EPA and the business commu-
nity have locked horns. I hope
as Regional Administrator to
reverse this trend and establish
an effective working relation-
ship between this Agency and
business interests.
1 can remember in Maine one
of the slogans that was quite
popular: "pickerels or payrolls"
—the implication being that
environmental integrity and a
healthy economy are mutually
exclusive goals. The irony of
the situation was that after
the business community warned
that the costs of strong environ-
mental laws would jeopardize
jobs and slow down the
economy, industry, and the
paper industry in particular, not
only spent over 1 00 million
dollars on pollution abatement
but financed the largest
production facility expansion
in its history,
I do not use this example to
suggest that the business
community has cried wolf and
that we should not heed them
in the future. On the contrary,
I believe that we must work
very closely with business and
industry to find mutually
acceptable solutions to our
environmental and economic
problems. Environmentalists do
not really want to freeze in the
dark, any more than industry
wants to destroy the national
beauty of New England or create
a public health hazard. So we
must work together. The world
just is not big enough for us
not to cooperate. Neither side
really wants to waste its
energy bickering and sniping
when that time and energy
could be put to productive
use. We can and must learn
to co-exist peaceably to our
mutual advantage.
The general feeling that
environmental and economic
Continum;.
JANUARY 1978
-------
Dealing
with
Toxics
By Steven D. Jellinek
It is fitting that this is one of the first
major groups I have addressed since
becoming EPA's Assistant Admini-
strator for Toxic Substances. The
Manufacturing Chemists Association
worked closely with Congress last
year in developing the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act. Your support
was crucial to its passage. I am here
today to ask for a continuation of
that support as we move through
the initial stages of the Act's imple-
mentation. Industry's active coopera-
tion is essential if we, as a Nation,
are to reach the goals that the Toxics
Act places before us.
This morning I want to talk about
the Toxics Act's mandate for govern-
ment and industry. In doing so I
pledge that EPA's actions will place
the highest priority on protecting
our people and our environment
from the unreasonable risks of toxic
chemicals. I also hope to leave you
with the impression that EPA is
committed to taking a responsible
approach to implementing the Act.
We will not lose sight of the need
Excerpted from a speech given by
Steven D. Jellinek, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Toxic Substances,
to the Manufacturing Chemists
Association in New York City,
November 22, 1977.
for an economically strong and
technologically innovative U.S.
chemical industry.
As is often the case with human
nature, we sometimes become so
involved in solving individual problems
that we temporarily forget the
broader issues that brought them to
our attention in the first place. Let
me review briefly some of the reasons
we are now faced with implementing
this complex and important law.
The problem of toxic chemicals
is not new. We know that lead poison-
ing was widespread in ancient Greece
and Rome and resulted in high infant
mortality, mental retardation, and
sterility. Some historians believe that
lead poisoning among the ruling
class may have contributed to the
fall of the Roman Empire.
Other examples are evident from
more recent times, A hormone
deficiency among children has been
linked to coal smog hanging over
1 9th century factory towns. And the
"mad hatters" of the 1 9th century
fur and felt trades are thought to
have suffered neurological disorders
caused by mercury inhalation.
But while past encounters with
hazardous chemicals in the environ-
ment affected only certain classes or
segments of societies, today there
are signs of much more widespread—
and quite possibly long-term—effects.
Some people, of course, argue that
human life bears no warranty—that
our bodies just have to wear out and
die sometime, and that we have
achieved our "maximum life expect-
ancy." But most experts disagree.
Indeed, there are groups of people
who live much longer than we do and
some of the diseases killing Americans
are practically unheard of in certain
countries.
One thing is clear. Most people in
the United States today suffer and
die from different diseases than they
did at the turn of the century, when
tuberculosis, pneumonia, and other
infectious diseases were the leading
causes of death. Today's leading
causes of death are heart disease
and cancer. Experts believe that the
incidence of cancer certainly is re-
lated to such environmental factors
as smoking, diet, and exposure to
industrial chemicals at work, in the
air, and in the water. Many suspect
that heart disease, miscarriages,
stroke, neurological problems, birth
defects, and other maladies may also
be influenced by environmental
factors.
It is in this context that the Toxics
Act is a major new development in
our national strategy to promote
health and to prevent disease.
As President Carter noted last May
in his Environmental Message to
Congress: "The presence of toxic
chemicals in our environment is one
of the grimmest discoveries of the
industrial era. Rather than coping
with these hazards after they have
escaped into our environment, our
primary objective must be to prevent
them from entering in the first place."
The Toxics Act was created to meet
this broad objective by identifying
and preventing the unreasonable
risks presented by toxic chemicals
to health and the environment.
EPA intends to achieve this man-
22
EPAJOURNAL
-------
date and we are taking a number of
actions to assure that we do so:
• A strategy document for the Toxics
Act implementation is being drafted
and we expect to have a draft ready
for public comment soon.
• We are developing a system to
enable EPA to set priorities for
selecting chemicals for action under
the Toxics Act.
• We are evaluating the recommenda-
tion of the Interagency Testing Com-
mittee that priority consideration
be given to the issuance of Section
4 testing rules for four individual
chemicals and six categories of
chemicals, and we are reviewing
other chemicals for possible testing.
in this context we are developing
a regulation under Section 8(d) to
require industry to submit results
of relevant testing already conducted
on those chemicals identified by the
interagency Testing Committee.
• Work on development of testing
standards and rules for health and
environmental effects is under way—
these include standards for carcino-
genesis, mutagenesis, teratogenesis,
acute and subchronic toxicity,
chemical fate and transport, and
various environmental effects.
• Proposed guidance on Section 8(e)
— reporting of substantial risk infor-
mation—was published last Septem-
ber, and final guidance will be
promulgated early this year.
• We expect to promulgate regulations
for polychlorinated biphenyl marking
and disposal by the end of 1977
and, by mid-1978, for implementing
the first phase of the Act's ban on
polychlorinated biphenyls.
• We will run a pilot program to pro-
vide funds for public participation
in rulemaking in connection with the
proposed polychlorinated biphenyl
ban.
• We have begun the regulatory
process on polybrominated bi-
phenyls, with final action expected
late next year.
• We are about ready to promulgate
regulations on aerosol uses of
chlorofluorocarbons; the regulatory
process on other uses has just begun.
• We are preparing general rules to
implement Section 8(c), on keeping
. records of adverse health reactions,
and 8{d), on submitting health and
safety studies, and we are develop-
ing an approach to other reporting
under Section 8(a).
And, of course, we expect to pro-
mulgate soon the final regulations
establishing the inventory of chemical
substances under Section 8(b) of
TSCA.
I believe that the inventory regula-
tions represent a responsible compro-
mise between EPA's need for
information and our desire to limit
the reporting burden imposed on
industry.
With respect to production volume,
for example, the final regulations will
require reporting of production in
broad ranges rather than in specific
volumes. Similarly, we balanced
the costs of identifying and quantify-
ing certain chemical intermediates
against the value of including these
substances in the inventory. The final
regulations will not require reporting
of "isolatable intermediates," but only
of intermediates that are intentionally
removed from the equipment in
which they are manufactured. We
estimate this approach will result
in significant savings to the industry,
and especially to smaller manu-
facturers.
I know there has been much con-
cern about the confidentiality of
reported information. A number of
industry comments on the reproposed
inventory regulations suggested that
trade secret information might be
compromised. We believe that the
regulations we expect to promulgate
will provide adequate protection for
selected industry information when
confidentiality is requested. In addi-
tion, we are designing a system to
insure that confidential industry data
are stored in the most secure manner
possible; disclosure will be in strict
compliance with Section 14, which
sets criminal penalties for unlawful
disclosure of industry data by EPA
employees. The Agency will prosecute
any acts of wrongful disclosure to the
fullest extent of the law.
I know that many in industry are
concerned about "reasonability"
in the implementation of the Toxics
Act. Some fear that EPA is incapable
of pursuing its mandate in a respon-
sible and rational way. I hope that
they will be persuaded otherwise by
the results of the regulatory process
of the 8(b) inventory.
As a matter of fact, the Act itself
includes a number of provisions to
safeguard the industry from arbitrary
and capricious government action.
First, the law stipulates that EPA carry
out its authority under the Act in
a "... reasonable and prudent
manner, and that the Administrator
shall consider the environmental,
economic, and social impact of any
action . . . under this Act." Further-
more, except for cases of imminent
and unreasonable risk of serious or
widespread injury to health or the
environment, all major actions under
TSCA—including the collection of
information — must be carried out
by formal rulemaking, and all final
regulatory actions must be preceded
by opportunities for public comment
by interested parties.
EPA, too, has its own review,
justification, and approval process
that guides regulatory actions in-
ternally from inception to promulga-
tion. This process provides a
significant check on unreasonable
or poorly analyzed regulatory actions
under all of the Agency's authorities,
including the Toxic Substances
Control Act. D
JANUARY 1978
23
-------
Verdict
on
EIS
By Nan Stockholm
,' run
.(if the
It's not surprising that over one
hundred attorneys showed up
at the Second Annual Confer-
ence on NEPA (the National En-
Environmental Policy Act) spon-
sored by the Environmental Law
Institute November 7-8 in Wash-
ington, D.C. What is surprising
is that as many or more non-
lawyers attended: business-
people, Environmental Impact
Statement writers, State and
Federal officials from a variety
of agencies and commissions,
citizen group leaders, profes-
sors, and even a few students.
"Frankly, a lot more interest
was demonstrated in the Con-
ference than we had expected
. . . and the interest came from a
more diverse group than we had
anticipated," commented one of
the Conference's organizers.
The cross section of people
attending the Conference illus-
trates how NEPA and the EIS
process permeate many parts of
American life It was clear from
listening to participants in the
Conference that many people
are struggling with problems
raised by NEPA in many different
contexts:
. . the EIS writer who. within a
short time and under a heavy
workload, is trying to determine
the "social impact" of a pro-
posed Federal project, or to spell
out a range of alternatives, some
of which may not even be within
his agency's purview.
. . the Justice Department
lawyer who is attempting to de-
fend an agency's system for
determining whether or not an
EIS is required,
. . . the State utilities company
official who must determine
what the environmental impacts
are for a new 300 mile-long
power line stretching through
urban, suburban, rural and un-
developed areas.
. . . the citizen group leader who
is making an heroic effort to
wade through thousands of
pages of jargon and technical
data which comprise part of the
EIS for, say. a proposed nuclear
plant in his community.
The two-day Conference con-
sisted of six panels of experts
who deal with NEPA and EIS's
daily. Without going into detailed
analyses of court opinions, or
the various uses of the EIS in
particular agencies, it is useful to
review in general terms the main
issues which provided lively
debates, if no universal answers.
These issues were, first, the
attitudes of the courts and
Congress toward NEPA; and
second, the EIS process itself:
its predictability, timing, format,
and general efficacy. The CEQ
(Council on Environmental
Quality) has recently focused on
how the EIS process and the
implementation of NEPA in gen-
eral can be improved. Its actions
will have an important influence
on the impact of NEPA in the
future.
The Courts
In general, the courts have up-
held the applicability of NEPA to
a wide range of "proposals for
legislation and other major Fed-
eral actions significantly affect-
ing the quality of the human en-
vironment." Courts have not
been unanimous as to what tests
should be used to determine
"major Federal actions," but the
Environmental Law Reporter
notes that "often, only slight
Federal involvement is sufficient
to trigger the EIS mechanism."
Court opinions have also at-
tempted to define the term
"proposal." which creates the
need for an EIS. In general, how-
ever, this definition remains
ambiguous, raising serious prob-
lems as to when an agency is
merely contemplating a course
of action or making a proposal.
In situations where the envi-
ronmental impact of an action or
proposal is unclear, a preliminary
"environmental assessment"
may be required to determine
whether an EIS must be written.
This process varies widely from
agency to agency.
Courts have usually held that
the scope of the EIS must reflect
the scope of the proposed
action. Therefore programmatic,
regional or national impact
statements may be appropriate
in some cases, although the
agency is afforded a high degree
of judicial deference in deter-
mining how comprehensive an
EIS must be
Congress
As far as Congressional atti-
tudes, Richard Gutting, counsel
for the House Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Wildlife Conserva-
tion and the Environment, of the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee, reported that "NEPA
is alive and well, and perceived
by Congress to be on the right
track." Along with many other
panelists at the Conference,
Gutting mentioned that many
members of Congress would like
to see the EIS integrated earlier
and more fully into the decision
making process. Gutting be-
lieved that other areas which
Congress may soon focus on
include more oversight of
NEPA's procedural failings, the
rights of private litigants under
NEPA, the "heretofore ignored"
provision of NEPA which re-
quires an EIS as part of every
proposal or report for legislation,
and the need for additional train-
ing of EIS writers
The EIS Process
In addition to reviewing the in-
fluence of the courts and
Congress on NEPA, Conference
participants scrutinized the
EIS process itself. The inter-
related issues of predictability,
timing, format and general
efficiency of the EIS were raised
repeatedly by different parties
in the EIS process.
For example, an industry
representative stated that an
agency official had told his firm
that only an "environmental
assessment" would be required
for a certain project. Over a year
later, the agency official told
the firm that a more detailed
EIS would be required. This
created more delays and added
hundreds of thousands of dollars
of expense to the firm's project.
24
EPAJOURNAL
-------
This example points out the
need for predictability in the E1S
process. In the words of Ned
Cronin, director of the Environ-
mental Impact Study Group of
the Commission on Federal
Paperwork:
The Federal Government owes
to project applicants its best
judgment of how long the EIS
process wilt take, so that appli-
cants can plan accordingly.
Right now. once the process
starts, all the applicant really has
to go on is word-of-mouth
information.
Predictability is necessary
too, in regard to the kinds of
data which should be included
in the EIS, whether the EIS is
prepared by an applicant,
professional consultant, or the
agency itself. As Nicholas Yost,
general counsel for CEQ
observed,
Through the questionnaires and
hearings that CEQ has used to
solicit public opinion on new
guidelines for E/S's, an extra-
ordinary consensus has
emerged. NEPA is viewed as
beneficial for decisionmakers
and good for the public interest,
but everyone complained that
the EIS process is cumbersome,
and that it results in stacks of
paperwork which no one reads.
Yost went on to explain that one
of the objectives of the new EIS
regulations which CEQ is pre-
paring is to cut out so called
"dandelion counts" which con-
tribute nothing but length to
the EIS.
Attorney William Cohen of
the Justice Department and
others observed that dandelion
counts tend to pad statements,
and to dilute meaningful analy-
sis into pages of peripheral
comments. Cohen felt that
agency officials often include
trivial items in the EIS because
they fear that courts might
require consideration of min-
utiae, that some special interest
group might attack the EIS on a
small point which the agency
failed to cover specifically, or
that a shorter EIS might be
deemed inadequate per se.
Fred Anderson, executive
director of the Environmental
Law Institute, commented that
environmentalists who brought
suit in the early cases under
NEPA were responsible, at least
in part, for the idea that "bigger
environmental impact state-
ments are better," since courts
often commented in those early
cases on the "shocking brevity"
or "superficial analysis" of an
EIS. Anderson contends, how-
ever, that "There is ample room
in short impact statements for
courts to act in accordance with
NEPA. If the EIS is succinct and
analytical, in agreement with the
CEQ guidelines, then the way is
clear for discussion of the legal
issues. The last thing one wants
is for the Office of the General
Counsel in an agency to dump
everything but the kitchen sink
into the EIS."
The overall efficacy of the EIS
process in achieving the objec-
tives of NEPA remains an open
question. Sandra Rennie, former
president of a private consult-
ing firm, discussed the conflicts
of interest which may arise
when a government agency or
applicant retains a consultant to
prepare the EIS. The consultant
may be private, or in some
cases a State or local agency or
municipal government. Particu-
larly if the consultant has been
retained by the agency in the
past, or if the State or local
government must depend on the
federal agency in the future for
other projects, the consultant
may make a conscious or sub-
conscious effort to present the
project in the best possible
light. Also, Rennie pointed out
that unless consultants are in-
volved in early stages of plan-
ning, an EIS becomes merely an
afterthought tacked on to the
proposal. When the applicant
itself is preparing the EIS, this
creates problems, too. Rennie
stated,
I'm the last person in the world
to close out the developer of a
project who knows best about
many aspects of his project.
but we must recognize that most
often, the developer is exclu-
sively limited to discussing
alternatives within his power . . .
and that is too limited a discus-
sion in terms of NEPA.
Rennie and others at the
Conference observed a similar
conflict of interest under NEPA
which requires agencies to
consider alternatives not
necessarily under the agency's
own purview. Some agencies
like the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and Army Corps of
Engineers have developed fairly
good methods for doing this,
while other agencies have not.
Besides conflicts of interests,
another limitation on the efficacy
of NEPA may be the extent to
which NEPA and the EIS process
influence decisionmakers. Dr.
Helen Ingram, a political scien-
tist with Resources for the
Future, was pessimistic. "I am
skeptical about the EIS process,
because I don't believe that the
essential information is getting
to decisionmakers. Very often,
NEPA is not applied to funda-
mental, far-reaching decisions.
Instead, decisions are made by
private actors on the basis of
economic and engineering
criteria, and then preparation of
an EIS is contracted out to
consultants who merely justify
decisions. By that time the
decisions are irreversible."
Ingram went on to say that in
her opinion impact statements
are overblown not because
agency personnel fail to per-
ceive what the real issues are,
but because agency staff are
protecting their own interests
and are fearful of being chal-
lenged on minor points She
suggested, "A solution might be
to make NEPA immune from
lawsuits on procedural grounds,"
JANUARY 1978
25
-------
Gus Speth, formerly an attor-
ney with the Natural Resources
Defense Council and currently
a member of CEQ replied, "I
agree that the EIS process must
be improved to encourage
shorter, more analytical state-
ments that will be more useful
to decisionmakers, but I couldn't
disagree more strongly about
eliminating judicial review of
NEPA. That seems to me to be
a draconian solution!"
As an alternative, Speth sug-
gested that the new CEQ regu-
lations will make NEPA and the
EIS process more useful and
important in the future.
The Role of CEQ
With the new authority and
support which the Carter admin-
istration has given to CEQ, it is
almost certain that CEQ will
assume a stronger role in
environmental policy making
and new authority over the
administration of NEPA.
President Carter's Executive
Order 11991, issued in May
1977, directs the CEQ to:
Issue regulations to Federal
agencies for implementation of
the procedural provisions of
[NEPA]. Such regulations shall
be developed after consultation
with affected agencies and after
such public hearings as shall be
appropriate. They will be design-
ed to make the environmental
impact statement process more
useful to decision-makers and
the public; and to reduce paper-
work and the accumulation of
extraneous background data, in
order to emphasize the need to
focus on real environmental
issues and alternatives. They will
require impact statements to be
concise, clear, and to the point.
and supported by evidence that
agencies have made the neces-
sary environmental analyses.
The Council shall include in its
regulations procedures for (1 j
the early preparation of environ-
mental impact statements, and
(2) for the referral to the Council
of conflicts between agencies
concerning the implementation
of [NEPA}.
Extensive hearings were held
by CEQ to solicit criticisms of
the, NEPA process from all
sectors, and a detailed question-
naire was widely circulated.
Nicholas Yost, general counsel
for CEQ, said that there was
striking agreement among those
attending the hearings. Yost
related an example, "At one
hearing an industry spokesman
stood up and said, 'I'd like to
adopt in full the statement just
made by the Sierra Club repre-
sentative.'" This indicates the
extent to which industry, envi-
ronmental groups, and agencies
share views on the success of
NEPA and the improvements
needed in its administration.
According to Yost, the mem-
bers and staff of CEQ are com-
mitted to making the needed
reforms. Moreover, under the
Executive Order, the CEQ will
not be issuing guidelines, as in
the past, but regulations which
have greater legal weight. Al-
though the CEQ regulations are
still being refined and are soon
to be circulated among agencies
for review, Yost provided a
broad outline of the areas the
regulations will cover:
... reducing the length of the
EIS, by eliminating "dandelion
counts"and repetition that
often results from overly strict
adherence to the five subsec-
tions of NEPA; page limits may
be set in individual cases.
. .. reducing delay by incorpor-
ating NEPA early in decision
making, by devising a fair and
prompt means of designating
"lead" agencies, and by encour-
aging "scoping ": early decisions
by all interested parties as to
what the EIS should emphasize.
... encouraging cooperation
among agencies in early stages
of EIS preparation, rather than
a confrontation over a finished
product, and the elimination of
duplication among federal
agencies and between federal
and state and local agencies, by
using joint statements.
... "tiering" of statements so
that general issues are covered
in program EIS's and need not
be repeated in site-level EIS's.
The Council also plans to
emphasize NEPA as a whole, not
only the action-forcing provision
of Section 102(2)(c), so that
decisions will be made in accord-
ance with the Act's intent, rather
than the procedural forms re-
quired by NEPA. CEQ is also
considering restrictions on
those applicants who cannot
provide an impartial analysis in
an EIS due to conflicts of inter-
est. Follow-up on mitigation
measures listed in the EIS is
another action that CEQ intends
to emphasize.
Finally, CEQ has now moved
to adopt procedures for handling
inter-agency disagreements
over proposed Federal actions
that might have unsatisfactory
environmental effects. These
cases are referred to the Council
by the Administrator of EPA
(who is required to do so under
Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act) and other agency heads
who find an action proposed by
another Federal agency to be
environmentally unacceptable.
Although CEQ has had authority
to handle these disagreements
since 1 970, it has only recently
issued interim guidelines for
receiving and handling referrals.
More formal referral procedures
will ultimately be made part of
the NEPA regulations.
Another important indicator
of CEQ's authority is the extent
to which CEQ influences Execu-
tive decision-making. Charles
Warren, an attorney and former
member of the California
Asembly where he was chair-
man of the Resources, Land
Use, and Energy Committee,
is the new chairman of CEQ.
Warren, unlike his predecessor
at CEQ, attends Monday morn-
ing Cabinet meetings. CEQ also
prepares a weekly status report
of environmental policy issues
for the President, and provides
him with detailed analyses and
recommendations on issues
requiring a Presidential decision.
At the Conference, Warren
stated that CEQ has been given
many more substantive respon-
sibilities, and that the staff has
begun to develop Administra-
tion programs in several areas.
Studies will look at environ-
mental paths to economic
recovery, and ways in which we
can make a transition to renew-
able energy resources. CEQ is
also developing recommenda-
tions for Federal actions in
Integrated Pest Management,
and it is leading an effort to
coordinate Government toxic
substance control programs.
Other topics receiving attention
from CEQ are the inner city
environment (an important new
initiative for the Council) and
recycling strategies.
Perhaps Warren's observa-
tion best sums up the results of
the Conference on NEPA. He
said, "Although the EIS is
clearly not going to win the
contest as the Government's
most popular document, more
and more executives are
endorsing it as an important
decision-making tool." D
26
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Environmental
Industry
Council
Pollution control has spawned a growing
new industry.
It is represented by a new industrial
association,-the Environmental Industry
Council. This organization was formed by
a group of industrialists after they met in
Washington two years ago at a meeting
called by the Federal Government.
Th£ people who met in December 1 975
at the invitation of Russell Peterson, then
chairman of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality, seemed to represent
an industrial hodge-podge. Their companies'
products ranged from electronic instru-
ments to bulk chemicals, from glass tubing
to bulldozers, from dust bags to pumps.
But they had one thing in common: all
their products were needed in the growing
industry of environmental control.
Several months after the CEQ conference,
1 3 of the companies became founding
members of the new industrial association.
They were joined by three older trade asso-
ciations representing manufacturers of
water treatment equipment, gas cleaning
apparatus, and emission control devices.
The Council elected a board of directors-
one member from each of the founding
firms—with John Blizard of the Corning
Glass Works as chairman, and opened a
modest office in downtown Washington.
John Adams is executive director. He
has a two-woman professional staff and
clerical help.
Last February the Council held its first
annual conference, a three-day session in
Washington attended by 166 persons
representing 81 corporations and industry
groups, 11 government agencies and
several universities. Speakers included
William Ruckelshaus, former Administrator
of EPA; White House Counsel Stewart
Eizenstat; and Herman Kahn, author and
director of the Hudson Institute.
"Few people realize how big the environ-
mental industry is," said John Adams. "It's
big business already. It's growing faster
than the total national economy, no matter
how you measure it. And it's growing faster
than almost any sector of the economy you
can name."
"Russell Peterson, former chairman of
the CEQ, was one of the first to recognize
that pollution control was a distinct and
growing enterprise and that the environ-
mental movement was creating jobs and
real wealth. There was a widespread im-
pression that cleaning up industrial pollution
was causing numerous plant closures and
job losses."
The few job losses and displacements
that have been blamed, in part, on environ-
mental regulations, he said, have been
overwhelmingly counterbalanced by the
jobs created through the increased busi-
ness in equipment, products, and services
required to meet the regulations.
A Council brochure quotes former EPA
Administrator Russell E. Train: "We have
all heard it suggested that environmental
programs will stop or slow down economic
growth. Just the opposite is the case. It is
pollution, not its control, that limits growth"
Adams acknowledged that some of the
Council members themselves have been
conspicuous industrial polluters in the past
and, indeed, may not yet have fully cleaned
up their own operations.
Producers of basic chemicals sell thou-
sands of tons of chemicals each year to
purify drinking water and treat sewage,
but they are likely to have problems con-
trolling air and water pollutants from their
own plants.
The Council's board chairman represents
an insulating materials company that is a
leading producer and processor of asbestos,
which can cause cancer when its fibers are
inhaled.
Makers of pipe, pumps, valves, and
fittings for water treatment works and
manufacturers of bulldozers, conveyors,
hammer mills, and other heavy equipment
used in solid waste handling have pollution
problems similar to those of other heavy
industry.
These Council members know they are in
the middle of the "physician, heal thyself"
paradox. But they realize that the medicine
they are taking is also the product they are
selling to a growing and profitable market.
The environmental control industry is
not new. It started about ten years ago with
the increasing public and governmental
concern over air and water pollution. Even
then it had roots in existing industries:
dust collection from factory processes and
smoke stacks, sewage treatment, water
purification, trash collection and disposal,
and others.
The size of the environmental industry
has been variously estimated, and no single
authority is universally accepted. Arthur
D. Little, Inc., a consulting engineering
firm, estimates that $10 billion was spent
last year to control stationary air emissions
and wastewater effluents. About half of
this sum was investment in new abatement
equipment and facilities.
Control of automobile emissions required
an additional S2.5 billion expenditure last
year. Collection, processing, and disposal
of garbage and trash took approximately
$4 billion, but only a small portion of this
can be considered a "new" market for the
recovery of reusable materials and energy
from solid waste.
The Little firm predicts that annual growth
in the next few years for air pollution control
will be about 14 percent and for water
pollution control 17 percent. "Allowing for
inflation, this is approximately two and one-
half to four times the anticipated growth in
the Gross National Product."
The Council's second annual conference
will be held Feb. 22-24 in the Hyatt-Regency
Hotel in Washington. EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle and CEQ Chairman
Charles Warren will be among the speakers.
Adams said he expected more than 200
persons from industry, government
agencies, and other organizations would
attend.
Council membership is limited to "com-
panies engaged in manufacturing environ-
mental protection equipment or material
primarily for sale to others," and to com-
patible industrial or trade associations.
Dues are $2,500 a year, a figure believed
to be low enough to permit relatively small
companies to join. The "primarily for sale
to others" requirement, Adams said, keeps
out firms, like auto makers, whose pollution
control equipment (for example catalytic
converters) is usually purchased from
others and forms only a part of the firm's
main product.
There are now 23 companies and three
trade associations in the Council. Most of
the member companies make equipment
to control air pollution from stationary
sources: scrubbers, precipttators, dust
collectors; and piping, pumps, and filters
for water treatment. About four member
firms make catalytic converters for the
control of auto exhaust emissions. Several
make basic chemicals used in pollution
control. Two make heavy motorized equip-
ment for handling solid waste.
Makers of instruments for monitoring
and process control are represented by a
trade group, the Manufacturers of Emission
Controls Association. Scores of other firms
share Council membership through the
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute and the
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manu-
facturers Association.
The Council's purpose, frankly self-
interested, is two-fold: first, to promote
"coordinated, rational and consistent"
government policies that affect the industry,
and, second, to enhance the "knowledge,
understanding, and reputation of the
industry among policymakers, opinion
leaders, other industries ... and the media."
D
JANUARY 1978
27
-------
<** m m\
Coal
Coal—the abundant but tar-
nished black gold of the utility
industry —is being scrubbed
clean in Gary, Indiana
In the process, harmful sulfur
dioxide gases are being con-
verted to valuable sulfur that can
help offset the cost of the opera-
tion. The conversion of these
gases to a commercially useful
product is a major technology
breakthrough that EPA has been
working on in cooperation with
industry
The new process is now being
tested in a one-year demonstra-
tion at Northern Indiana Public
Service Company's Dean J
Mitchell electric generating sta-
tion in Gary, Indiana. The dem-
onstration is an S1 8 million joint
project of EPA's Research and
Development laboratories and
NIPSCO. EPA is funding S5.5
million of the costs and NIPSCO
81 2.5 million.
The new process is important
because it eliminates waste dis-
posal problems associated with
earlier scrubber systems while
producing a pure product fp^.the
marketplace. Sulfur is used &
make a variety of products from
fertilizers to Pharmaceuticals.
Stephen J. Gage, EPA Assist-
ant Administrator for Research
and Development, announced
the development.
"The system being demon-
strated at Mitchell Station differs
from other scrubber systems
being used today," he said. "As
a by-product of reducing sulfur
dioxide air pollution from cc-al
combustion, it produces market-
able sulfur rather than throw-
away sulf urous sludge. The
production of large quantities
of useless sludge has often been
cited by utilities as a major
impediment to the use of
scrubbers,"
Gage noted that sulfur dioxide
was one of the first pollutants
identified with harmful effects to
human health and to materials.
"Developing the methods to con-
trol sulfur dioxide has received
high priority from EPA," he
declared "The successful com-
pletion of the performance test
program and the initiation of
(Phyllis Kierig is a writer-
editor. EPA Region V,
Office of Public and Inter-
Governmental Affairs.)
the one-year demonstration are
milestones in the decade-long
struggle to establish methods
to control sulfur dioxide air
pollution."
Wade H. Ponder, a chemical
engineer with EPA's Industrial
Research Laboratory at
Research Triangle Park and
project officer for the demon-
stration, explained that the
demonstration plant will pro-
duce 25 tons of sulfur and 3 to
4 tons of sodium sulfate purge
while cleaning 1 2,000 tons of
flue gas every day. The sulfur
will be used by a nearby acid
manufacturing plant to produce
sulfuric acid. The sodium sulfate
will be sold to the pulp and paper
industry. Revenue from the sale
of these two products will par-
tially offset the operating costs
of the system.
The operating cost of the proc-
ess is estimated at $200,000 a
month. The market price to the
two resaleable chemicals is
expected to be about S 20,000 a
month or 1 0 percent of oper-
ating costs.
During the test period, sulfur
dioxide removal efficiencies
exceeded the 90 percent per-
formance requirement. On
several occasions, two-hour
averages of 93 percent were
achieved and daily averages of
more than 91 percent were
obtained on three days
A sulfur purity of 99.5 percent
was required. Testing of samples
drawn during the test period
showed the sulfur to be 99.9
percent pure
The system, which combines
the Davy Powergas/Wellman-
Lord Sulfur Dioxide Recovery
Process and the Allied Chemical
28
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Update
Sulfur Dioxide Reduction Proc-
ess, is being tested to compare
it with other scrubber or coal
cleaning processes.
The improved process at the
Mitchell plant takes flue gas
from the burning coal and blows
it through a device where it is
cooled by a water spray, then
put into a three stage absorber
where it is reheated and the
sodium sulfate collected. The
flue gas then passes through a
condensation system where the
sulfur is removed and the sulfur
dioxide vapors are treated before
the remaining steam is allowed
to filter into the air.
Dean H. Mitchell, chairman of
Northern Indiana Public Service
Company said, "There is still
another cost that must be fac-
tored into this project before its
performance can be completely
evaluated. That is, the energy
required operate this plant. It
will reduce the electric power
available to our customers from
this one generating unit some
10.000 to 1 5,000 kilowatts.
"Application of this system of
flue gas desulfurization to all our
coal fired units would reduce
electric power available to our
customers by some 250,000
kilowatts. The cost of construct-
ing a power plant to replace the
250,000 kilowatts required to
operate desulfurization plants
on all our coal fired units would
be approximately $1 50 million.
The increased cost in opera-
tion is offset by the elimination
of waste hauling fees. The entire
process fits EPA's policy of pro-
moting recycling and reuse of
waste materials. Much of today's
pollution can be eliminated if the
waste product can be reused.
Burning coal results in gases
that can produce sulfuric acid
rains. Sulfur oxide also can dam-
age materials such as paint and
metal, and affect respiration in
humans. Congress has recog-
nized the threat to public health
and included in the Clean Air Act
Amendments last summer pro-
visions requiring the installation
of clean-up equipment on all
coal burning facilities.
Scrubbers are one of three
mechanical means to achieve
the clean-up. Three technologies
being studied at the Industrial
Environmental Research Labora-
tory in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, are: Physical or
chemical treatment of fuels to
remove pollutants prior to the
combustion process; advanced
combustion technologies to
remove pollutants during the
combustion process; and post-
combustion control by flue gas
desulfurization. Of the three
approaches, flue gas desulfuriza-
tion appears to EPA to hold the
most promise for near-term
applications. Gage explained.
Wellman-Lord is a flue gas desul-
furization process.
The use of flue gas desulfuriza-
tion or scrubbers means poten-
tially more jobs for midwestern
and eastern coal miners of high
sulfur coal.
Before last year's clean air act
amendments were enacted, the
utility industry had been using
low sulfur coal as a way to meet
Federal health standards.
Such coal comes primarily
from the coal fields of the West.
The costs of scrubbers and
other mechanical cleanup sys-
tems can be balanced by the
improvements to health of sur-
rounding residents and the
creation of jobs in the mining
and heavy equipment fields.
Scrubbers are one of the ways
the Nation can move towards
energy self-sufficiency because
of abundant coal reserves.
The Wellman-Lord system
demonstrates one way that
clean-up technology can work
efficiently and profitably. D
A listing of recent Agency publications and other items of use
to people interested in the environment
Gen
Single copies available from
Alice White, Office of Leg islation,
(A-102), US EPA, Washington,
DC. 20460. (202) 755-0890.
Progress in the Prevention
and Control of Air Pollution
in 1976.
This 1 45-page document is the
annual report of the EPA Ad-
ministrator to Congress. It
covers air quality trends, the
status of State implementation
plans, control of stationary
source emissions, control of
mobile source emissions, and
research in monitoring instru-
mentation and quality assurance.
Fed<
Copies of Federal Register
notices are available at a cost of
20 cents per page. Write Office
of the Federal Register, National
Archives and Records Service,
Washington, D.C. 20408
Pesticides.
EPA announces rebuttable pre-
sumption against registration
of products containing maleic
hydrazine. pp. 56920-935. In
the October 31 issue.
Municipal Sludge Manage-
ment.
EPA publishes technical bulletin.
pp. 57420-427. November 2
issue.
Pesticides.
EPA gives notice of intent to
cancel the registrations or
change the classifications of
pesticide products containing
dibromochloropropane (DBCP.)
pp. 57543-544. November 2
issue.
Air Programs.
EPA incorporates changes into
regulations required by the
1977 Clean Air Act Amend-
ments, pp. 57459-462. Novem-
ber 3 issue.
Regulations Under Con-
The following rules are being
developed by EPA. The Agency
encourages public comment,
and EPA contacts and proposed
issuing date are listed so that
interested persons can make
their views known. These rules
will be issued in February, 1 978:
Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Photochemical Oxidants.
EPA may modify the standard
on the basis of new criteria
to protect community health
and welfare, contact John
O'Connor (MD-1 2), EPA,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, (919)541-5355
Revised National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations.
Regulations to establish treat-
ment techniques or maximum
contaminant levels for con-
taminants in drinking water,
contact Joe CotruvO (WH-550),
EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202)755-5643.
''ing Eve.
For more information contact
Sue Sladek, Office of Public
Awareness (A-107), EPA, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460. (202)
426-4188
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle will speak at a conference
entitled "Environmental
Mediation: An Effective Alter-
native," January 1 2 at the
Center for Environmental
Mediation, Palo Alto, Calif
Administrator Costle will
address a meeting on the impli-
cations of the Delaney Clause
sponsored by the National
Center for Toxic Research and
the International Academy of
Environmental Safety at the
Mayflower Hotel, Washington,
D.C. on February 5.
A public meeting to discuss
strategy for implementation of
the new Solid Waste Disposal
Act Amendments will be held at
the Ramada Inn in Rosslyn, Va.,
a suburb of Washington, DC
from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
January 19. Meetings on author-
ization by EPA of State hazard-
ous waste programs will be held
in Boston. New Orleans, and
Seattle during late January and
early February at dates to be
announced later.
JANUARY 1978
29
-------
People
Merna M. Hurd has been
selected to be Director of EPA's
Water Planning Division, which
operates under the Office of the
newly-appointed Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Water
Planning and Standards, Swep
Davis, Jr.
Along with its other responsi-
bilities, the Division is charged
with assisting in planning efforts
for local water resources man-
agement. Hurd's experience
includes service as Administra-
tor for the New Castle County,
Del., Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Program (com-
monly referred to as a 208 plan-
ning agency}.
While working with the New
Castle group, Hurd established a
management process for main-
taining and improving area
water quality, and assisted in the
preparation of the State's Clean
Water Plan. She also helped in
the development of a plan for
major drinking water companies
to provide adequate supply while
decreasing energy consumption.
Originally from Lexington,
Neb., Hurd received her BS
degree in civil engineering in
1 964 from the University of
Nebraska, where she earned an
MS in sanitary engineering in
1969.
Dr. Roy Albert of the Institute
of Environmental Medicine,
New York University Medical
Center, has been named Health
Advisor by EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle.
"Dr. Albert is one of the lead-
ing authorities in the field of
environmental medicine and
particularly in the assessment of
health risks from carcinogenic
substances," Costle said. "He is
fully familiar with the health
research programs at EPA as
the result of his service in
1 975-76 as Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Health and
Ecological Effects."
In addition to his new duties,
Albert will continue to serve as
David R. Andrews has been
named Legal Counsel and Spe-
cial Assistant to EPA Deputy
Administrator Barbara Blum. In
his new position, Andrews will
provide legal advice on all formal
proceedings as well as Congres-
sional statements and testimony.
He will also be responsible for
coordinating an urban policy and
an Indian policy for the Agency.
"Dave's experience in the
California Regional Counsel
Office will be a tremendous help
to me," Blum said. "I will rely
heavily on his sound legal advice
in helping me with Agency
matters."
Andrews was the Regional
Counsel and principal legal
advisor in Region IX from 1 975
to 1977.
Before joining the Agency, he
was an attorney in private prac-
tice in San Francisco from 1971
to 1 975. From January 1 974 to
August of that year Andrews
was a visiting Professor of Law
and Max Planck Fellow in Inter-
national Law at the Max Planck
Six gold medals were awarded
to EPA employees at the Sev-
enth Annual Awards ceremony
held recently in Washington.
Five went to individuals and the
sixth was given to an environ-
mental impact statement team.
The Gold medals for excep-
tional service went to Frank
Corrado, Director of Public and
Intergovernmental Affairs,
Region V, for his work in public
affairs; Rebecca W. Hanmer,
Deputy Regional Administrator,
Region I, for her work with
review of programs, grants, and
regulations; John E. Hardaway,
Chief, Research and Application
Branch, Office of Energy Activi-
ties, Region VIII. for his work in
assessing the impact of devel-
opment of mineral resources;
Alexander D. Hicks, Director of
Civil Rights, Region X, for his
work with minority businesses
and contracts; and David A.
Ullrich, Chief, Case Develop-
ment Section, Enforcement Divi-
sion, Region V, for his work with
technical data used in enforce-
ment cases.
A Group Award Gold Medal
went to the Environmental
Impact Statement team, Water
Division, Region VIII; J. William
Geise, Jr., Robert Doyle, and
John N. Philbrook for their prep-
aration of the Denver regional
environmental impact statement.
William M. Upholt, Director
of Health Effects and Science
Policy, Office of Toxic Sub-
stances, received a Distin-
guished Career Award for his
exceptional scientific and man-
agement ability and contribu-
tions to the protection of health
and the environment.
30
Frank M. Corrado
Rebecca W. Hanmer
John E. Hardaway
-------
chairman of the Agency's Car-
cinogen Assessment Group,
which he helped to organize.
The CAG is an advisory body
which assesses the possible
health risk of all suspect carcino-
gens entering the environment
for which EPA has regulatory
authority. He will also participate
in joint efforts between EPA, the
Food and Drug Administration,
the Occupational Safety and
Robert Redford shed his
familiar role as a leading actor
recently to address EPA's Office
of Public Awareness as a ski-
area owner and Sewer Commis-
sioner from Prove Canyon,
Utah. "I'm very proud of having
been elected to that job," he
noted, "although some people
say it's a title I richly deserve."
The meeting, sponsored by
the Public Awareness Office's
Outdoor/Recreation Team, was
part of a weekly OPA discussion
series in which representatives
from various segments of the
public exchange views regard-
ing environmental matters with
staff members.
Redford, an active skier—as
his film "Downhill Racer" testi-
fies—is one of the principals in a
resort development in Utah
called Sundance. His concerns
in keeping that area environmen-
tally sound include wastewater
treatment, water resources,
land use, energy conservation,
and air quality. "I don't know if
it's possible to run a ski-lift by
solar power . . . but I want to
find out," he said. After his talk
with the OPA staff, Redford
met with EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle.
Health Administration, and the
Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission in developing common
approaches and policies for
addressing public health issues.
After receiving his degree in
medicine and his post-doctoral
training in internal medicine,
Albert pursued a career in aca-
demic research and teaching.
His major research interests
have been in the field of cancer
and pulmonary disease including
laboratory and epidemiological
studies resulting in over 80
scientific publications. He has
participated in numerous gov-
ernmental advisory activities,
including a series of panels at the
National Academy of Science.
Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law at
the University of Heidelberg,
West Germany. He received a
BA in Economics in 1 968, and a
law degree in 1971 from the
University of California at Berke-
ley. He was an editor of the
California Law Review.
Howard J. Lamp'l, chief of
EPA's Region III Environmental
Emergency Branch, has been
elected chairman of Committee
F-20 on Spill Control Systems of
the American Society for Testing
and Materials.
Committee F-20 develops the
Society's standards on perform-
ance, durability, and strength of
systems for the control of spills
of oil and other substances, and
does related research.
Silver Medals for Superior
Service were awarded to Wil-
liam A. Brungs, Environmental
Research Lab, Duluth, Minn.;
Charles L. Gray, Jr., and Karl H.
Hellman, Office of Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control,
Ann Arbor, Mich.; John Y. Hohn,
Enforcement Division, Region X;
Chester E. Kirk, Environmental
Research Lab, Corvallis, Ore.;
Lee A. Mulkey, Environmental
Research Lab, Athens, Ga.;
Edward J. Nime, Office of
Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio;
Gilman D. Veith, Environmental
Research Lab, Duluth, Minn.;
James D. Vieregg, Enforcement
Division, Region VII. Silver
Medal Group Awards went to
the Effluent Guidelines Analyti-
cal Methods Work Group, the
Environmental Quality Indica-
tors Task Force. Region X; and
the Standards and Regulations
Group, Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control.
Public Health Service Merito-
rious Service Medals were
awarded to John J. Henderson,
The Society is the world's
largest source of voluntary con-
sensus standards for materials,
products, systems, and services.
Headquartered in Philadelphia, it
claims some 26,000 members.
Lamp'l, a native of Atlantic
City, N.J., attended the Univer-
sity of Vienna (Austria) and
Northwestern University. He
has published many papers and
articles on oil spill prevention,
cleanup, and related subjects.
Region VI; John R. O'Connor,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.;
Charles E. Rodes, Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C.; Jon P. Yeagley,
Region VIII; and Donald E.
Gardner, Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
Alexander D. Hicks
David A. Ullrich
31
-------
• small business may have a
" limited credit history and
possible cash flow problems.
Consequently, it is often unable
to obtain long-term, low-interest-
rate financing Add to this the
high cost and often nonproduc-
tive nature of required pollution
control equipment plus the
relatively higher costs of smaller
firms due to the economies of
scale, and financial burdens can
become hardships.
But small businesses can now
finance pollution-control equip-
ment in exactly the same way
larger businesses do —through
the scale of tax-exempt bonds
issued by a State or municipal
authority. The program is a new
type of assistance by the Small
Business Administration (SBA),
in cooperation with commercial
banks and State agencies. It is
designed to help small business
obtain long-term (20-25 years),
tow-interest-rate financing for
their pollution control needs.
About $2.6 billion such bonds
were extensively utilized by big
business in 1 976. The bonds are
issued by a public entity. Repay-
ment is based solely on the credit
of the business. The bonds are
then sold to the public by an
underwriter. Periodic payments
to cover principal and interest
are made by the business to a
trustee who uses those funds to
pay the interest to the bond-
holder and redeem the bonds as
they mature.
The first such tax-exempt
Industrial Pollution Control
Revenue Bond backed by the
United States Government
through the Small Business
Administration has just been
issued in California. The bonds
were issued by the California
Pollution Control Financing
Authority for just over $5 million
and with a net interest cost to
the firms of 6 percent. At a bank,
such a loan could run as much as
11 percent. For some small
businesses, therefore, this new
program could mean the differ-
ence between continued sol-
vency and closing.
Legislation passed in June of
1 976 authorized the SBA to
issue an unqualified guarantee
of 1 00 percent of the payments
of rentals or other amounts due
under qualified contracts with
respect to planning, design,
financing, or installation of
pollution control equipment.
The pilot program which
began in California took into
By Sheldon
Sacks
account various industry seg-
ments having extensive pollution
control problems. The initial
Pollution Control Revenue
Bond included an apple growers'
cooperative association, a
leather tanning company, a
manufacturer and distributor of
cheese and milk products, a
timber business, an agricultural
cooperative association, a metal
plating works, and a smelter and
refiner of copper and bronze
scrap. A number of States are
awaiting similar programs.
Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania,
Arkansas, Ohio, and Missouri
have expressed an interest to
participate in this program.
-•- ax-exempt interest for those
' who purchase the bonds
results in lower interest costs to
the business financing pollution
control equipment There are
also other advantages, such as
investment tax credit and
accelerated depreciation.
The Environmental Protection
Agency is pleased to see SBA
developing this new program for
small business. It is estimated
that roughly 750 small busi-
nesses accounting for nearly
$300 million will be taking
advantage of this program, and
many more are eligible, such as
businesses affected by new pre-
treatment regulations and many
dischargers into waterways who
hold Federal permits.
A small business concern for
the purpose of the pollution
control guarantee assistance is
one which, together with its
affiliates, is independently
owned and operated, is not
dominant in its field of operation,
does not have assets exceeding
$9 million, does not have net
worth in excess of $4 million,
and does not have an average
net income —after Federal in-
come taxes—for the preceding
two years in excess of $400,000
or qualifies as a small business
concern under Title 1 3 of the
Combined Federal Register. Any
concern primarily engaged in
the operation of a farm is
classified as small if its average
annual receipts for its preceding
three fiscal years do not exceed
$1 million.
To be eligible, in addition to
the size standards mentioned
earlier, a small company must
be under an order to meet
Federal or State air or water
quality standards, and at an
operational or financing disad-
vantage with other businesses.
Also, the pollution control
facilities cannot generate a
profit. The applicant must have
been in business at least five
years and show a profit on
average in three of the last five
years. His cash flow must be
sufficient to meet the terms of
the bond.
To get the SBA guarantee, a
bank or other financial organiza-
tion must serve as a qualified
sponsor. It must certify the
company is credit-worthy and
EPAJOURNAL
-------
show that other long-term
financing either isn't available
or that it would impose a severe
hardship.
• nlike the normal procedures
'"' involved in obtaining a
loan, tax-exempt bond financing
by nature necessitates substan-
tial additional costs such as bond
counsel fees, SBA's guarantee
fee, attorney's fees, trustee and
paying agent's fees, required
escrow deposit fee, and appli-
cation fees for both SBA and the
State Issuing Authority. These
costs are estimated to add be-
tween one half percent
to 1 percent to the small busi-
ness' financing cost. Most fi-
nancing experts agree that the
most favorable interest rate for
bond financing is generally avail-
able on larger issues. Because
of this, financing for amounts
below S1 50,000 can be uneco-
nomical for a small business.
For smaller sums the small
business should consider the
Water Pollution Control Loan
Program. This loan program
offers eligible small businesses
loans at 6-5/8% interest with
up to 30 years to repay the loan.
The loan program was initiated
to provide loan assistance to
those small businesses who
would suffer a substantial eco-
nomic hardship in order to meet
the requirements established
under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. The loans are
provided when commercial loan
sources are unavailable or can
only provide part of the required
loan. An EPA certification is re-
quired, which states that the
equipment or process for which
funds are being made available
is necessary and adequate to
meet the pollution control re-
quirements placed upon the
applicant.
For more information on the
Pollution Control Revenue Bond
program the reader should write
to SBA, Office of Community
Development, 1441 L Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 2041 6.
For more information on the
Water Pollution Control Loan
program and a free brochure
entitled Financial Assistance
Programs for Pollution Preven-
tion and Control Available
through the Federal Government
write to Sheldon Sacks, EPA,
Water Economics Branch,
WH-586, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. D
otudies of the economic
effects of pollution control
on two important U.S. industries
show that they must make sub-
stantial investments in the years
ahead for environmental clean-
up.
The first study, dealing with
the pulp and paper industry,
concluded that "on balance, the
economic impacts of the studied
regulations on the paper indus-
try and on the economy as a
whole are relatively small."
The second, which examined
the iron and the steel industry,
noted that pollution controls
would have only a small impact
on steel prices and energy re-
quirements for steel production,
but warned of potential capital
raising problems.
The studies were both done
for EPA's Office of Planning and
Evaluation as part of a larger
program sponsored by the
Agency to assess the economic
impact of its regulatory pro-
grams.
The two industries are especi-
ally important because both are
heavy users of water. The paper
industry, for example, accounts
for 37 percent of total industrial
consumption of fresh water in
processing materials in the
United States. Most of this water
is used for processing wood
pulp to produce paper and
paperboard. Wastewaters from
the industry contain large load-
ings of bio-chemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended
solids and color, as well as small
concentrations of such trouble-
some pollutants as chlorine and
mercury.
The iron and steel industry
also generates significant quan-
tities of pollutants, including
particulates and sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide and hydro-
carbons into the air, and in
wastewater it must control a
range of pollutants including
suspended solids, phenols, oil
and grease, cyanide, ammonia,
sulfide, fluoride, nitrate, and
heavy metals. EPA studies show
that nearly nine billion pounds of
such pollutants are generated
each year by the industry, al-
though much is removed before
the effluents are discharged
into waterways.
T he study of the pulp and
paper companies, which was
done for EPA by Arthur D. Little,
Inc., noted that by 1975 the
industry had made substantial
progress toward complying with
existing environmental regula-
tions. However, it emphasized
that the industry still faces large
capital expenditures in environ-
mental clean-up through 1983.
Water pollution control will
account for about 76 percent of
these total direct capital costs.
The estimated capital costs
for compliance with environ-
mental laws at the time the
Little study was made totalled
about $4.8 billion for water
clean-up between 1 975 and
1983 for the pulp and paper
industry. Air pollution controls
would cost about S1 billion and
other controls to comply with
noise regulations set by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration would cost S55
million. The latter estimate as-
sumes that the industry would
use engineering and adminis-
trative controls to achieve
compliance with a noise level
limit of 90-dBA, a standard
proposed by OSHA. The noise
regulations would apply equally
to both existing and new plant
capacity.
Two levels of control for the
existing pulp and paper industry
were assessed in the survey.
The first was the cost of conrv
pliance with the "best practicable
control technology currently
available" (BPT) which was
required in the original 1972
Act for 1 977. The second was
the control using "best available
technology economically
achievable" (BAT) required for
1983.
T he minimum standard that
industry must meet for
conventional pollutants is the
1 977 requirement for "best
practicable technology."
The study of the integrated
iron and steel industry, perform-
ed for EPA by the firm of Temple,
Barker and Sloane, Inc., con-
cludes that the industry faces
S6.8 billion in capital outlays for
air and water pollution control
between 1 975 and 1 983. The
total needed to modernize
operating facilities and expand
them during the same period
will be S27.5 billion. However,
the full cost for pollution control
including operating expense, if
passed on in selling prices,
would increase the price of steel
in real terms only 4.6 percent by
1 983, according to the study.
The foremost problem facing
the industry is the need for
substancial financing for expan-
sion of capacity and moderniza-
tion, and pollution control. The
industry's profitability in recent
years, with the exception of
1 974, "has seriously lagged the
all-manufacturing averages,"
the study pointed out, affecting
the ability of steel companies to
raise capital through stock
issues. An attempt to meet
financing requirements entirely
through bond issues would
have an adverse impact on cur-
rent bond ratings of steel
companies, and therefore heavy
debt financing of this type would
be "highly undesirable," accord-
ing to the study.
In its summary, the study de-
clared that while financing both
expansion and pollution control
requirements may be difficult
for the steel industry, "the task
is manageable." To do so, the
industry must be able to pass
through increased costs related
to these requirements, it con-
cluded.
Copies of the studies are being
made available by the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22151. D
JANUARY 1978
33
-------
Around the Nation
Merit Award Winners
Region 1 has announced
the names of 1 1 winners
of its annual Environment-
al Merit Awards The win-
ners are: Dr. Evelyn
Murphy, Secretary of the
Executive Office of Envi-
ronmental Affairs for
Massachusetts, for her
efforts on behalf of the
environment; Mrs. Martha
Stone of Wellesley, Mass.,
former Commissioner of
the Wellesley Board of
Public Works, for her
efforts to promote recy-
cling; Elmer Raymond of
Plymouth, Mass., Ply-
mouth Conservation
District Supervisor, for
his efforts to reduce agri-
cultural water pollution;
Cynthia Thomas, Norfolk,
Mass., Director of the
Stonybrook Center and
Wildlife Sanctuary in
Norfolk, for her work with
pesticide use studies,
Arthur Stone of Wil-
liamstown, Vermont,
Vice Chairman of the
Vermont State 208 Water
Quality Board for his en-
vironmental education
activities; Julia Mannarino
of the Connecticut Citizen
Action Group, Hartford,
Conn., for her efforts to
promote transportation
control plans; Lawrence
Schaefer, of the Environ-
mental Education Center,
New Haven, Conn., for
his efforts in enviro n-
mental education; Joseph
Struzziery, Executive
Secretary of the Utility
Contractors Association
of New England for his
efforts to promote cooper-
ation between the private
and public sectors in water
pollution control; C. Frank
Velkas of Bennington, Vt.,
for his many actions which
helped lead to the initiation
of corrosion control in
Bennington's drinking
water; John Leaning of
Dudley, Mass., a former
reporter for the Benning-
ton Banner, Bennington,
Vt., for his accurate and
detailed accounts of the
problem of lead in drinking
water in his community;
the Maine Citizens for
Returnable Bottles for
their efforts in coordinat-
ing efforts aimed at the
passage of the Maine
Returnable Bottle Bill
referendum and for their
efforts to educate Maine
citizens about solid waste
issues.
Monitoring Technique
Region 2 is testing a new
technique that uses aquat
ic animals to study the
effects of pollutants in the
receiving waters of indus-
trial plants and municipal
dischargers EPA hopes to
use this biomonitoring to
set levels for combinations
of pollutants in discharge
permits. A 38 ft. mobile
laboratory van contains
the equipment for fresh-
water and marine testing.
This includes a 500-gallon
tank of upstream water,
acclimation chambers
where fish get used to the
water to be tested, and
temperature controlled
mixers and circulators. The
dilution equipment delivers
various concentrations of
waste effluent to exposure
chambers containing
native aquatic life. In
Freehold, N.J., for exam-
ple, hundreds of bluegill
fish were exposed to
different concentrations of
effluent for 96 hours to
determine acute toxicity
levels.
Bay Group Gets Grant
Region 3 has awarded a
$248,158 grant for pub-
lic participation training to
the Citizens Program For
The Chesapeake Bay, Inc.,
to carry out public educa-
tion and citizen involve-
ment activities for the
Chesapeake Bay area. The
grant is part of a program
created to conduct an in-
depth water quality study
of the Bay in response to
legislation sponsored by
Senator Charles McC.
Mathias (R-Md.). Regional
Administrator Jack J.
Schramm said, "The
potential for the Chesa-
peake Bay Program to
make significant contribu-
tions to the management
and protection of the Bay
is evident. The first step
towards achieving our
goal is to develop a close
and continuous working
relationship among mana-
gers, scientists, and the
public. The timing and
size of this grant demon-
strates our commitment to
this philosophy." Activities
under the grant will in-
clude: identification of Bay
users and their needs,
creation of a Citizens
Steering Committee to
assist in program devel-
opment, preparation of a
public education and in-
formation program, and
conducting public forums
and workshops in the Bay
area
York River Plant
A Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the
York River, Va., Waste-
water Treatment Facility
has been issued by Region
3. It recommends a 1 5-
million gallon per day plant
at a previously proposed
site at Seaford, Va. south
of Yorktown, that would
accommodate projected
growth of the area until
1 997. The environmental
impacts of the plant were
found to be minimal com-
pared to the detrimental
effects of failing septic
tank systems and the
severe economic impact
of a construction morato-
rium. The EIS found that
the Seaford site offered
substantial savings over
two alternate sites with no
substantial loss of water
quality. The statement also
recommended that a
sludge composting study
be started instead of using
incineration.
Sewage Permits
Region 4 has issued water
pollution control permits
for nine Alabama sewage
treatment plants, which
Agency officials say will
allow for continued orderly
growth in the Birmingham
area while reducing pollu-
tion discharge into local
waterways. Controversy
over the permits drew over
1,000 people to a public
hearing chaired by Re-
gional Administrator John
C. White last September
21 . In issuing the permits
White said, "I feel we have
reached limitations in the
permits which will allow
the continued, orderly
growth of Birmingham and
Jefferson County, while
advancing our efforts to
reduce and eliminate the
discharge of pollutants
into the local waterways."
He added that public
participation in the permit
process resulted in
changes to all nine permits,
and in six cases the altera-
tions were major. Much of
the public interest con-
cerned the permit limita-
tions for the Cahaba River
Treatment Plant, on a river
that is under study for
inclusion in the Nation's
wild and scenic river
system.
Labor Workshops
Region 5 and the Environ-
mental Affairs Committee
of Local 101 Oof the
United Steelworkers of
America held four work-
shops last November and
December to discuss jobs
and the environment with
labor communities in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Ohio. The workshops
were held with Local 65,
Local 1010, and Local
1299 of the United Steel-
workers and with the
Retail Clerks.
Emissions Offset
Regional Administrator
Adlene Harrison and
Louisiana Governor Edwin
W. Edwards have dis-
cussed the construction of
a new General Motors
plant in Shreveport. Their
major concerns were the
hydrocarbon emissions
from the new plant and
maintaining air quality
while providing for indus-
trial growth and economic
development. Pollution
from the new plant will be
offset by emission reduc-
tions at other facilities.
General Motors must now
submit a control plan to
achieve the lowest possi-
ble emission rate. Mrs.
Harrison said, "As long as
lines of communication
are kept open, solutions
can be cooperatively
worked out."
Hudson Foods
Agreement
EPA and the Justice
Department have an-
nounced a partial settle-
ment of a lawsuit involving
wastewater discharges
from the Hudson Foods,
Inc., chicken processing
34
EPAJOURNAL
-------
and protein plant at Hope,
Arkansas. The company
agreed to stop discharging
pollutants until it can start
operating a spray irriga-
tion system on a company-
owned 800-acre tract
nearby. The suit sought
civil penalties and a pre-
liminary injunction against
the discharge of waste-
water that could be haz-
ardous to the environment.
Settlement of the prelimin-
ary injunction was reached
through the cooperation
of Hudson Foods. Several
issues stemming from
alleged discharge permit
violations remain to be
solved and are under
discussion.
Chemical Fire Cleanup
A team of State and Fed-
eral experts have cleaned
up oil and chemical resi-
dues left after a fire de-
stroyed a South Houston
chemical warehouse in
late October. About
100,000 gallons of pol-
luted water were pumped
from a nearby ditch onto
the blaze and a hastily built
dam kept the water from
flowing into Sims Bayou
and the Houston Ship
Channel. Chemicals
flushed from the ware-
house during the fire-fight-
ing efforts included
solvents, pesticides, herbi-
cides, fungicides, and
fertilizers. The EPA re-
sponse team worked in
cooperation with staff
from the Texas Depart-
ment of Water Resources,
the U.S. Coast Guard,
Arrriy Corps of Eng ineers.
Department of Interior,
and Department of
Commerce.
after an air emergency alert
was declared last October
25 in St. Louis, Mo. Pollu-
tion levels were as much
as three times over
emergency levels. This
was the first air emergency
alert in the State. St. Louis
County also asked Cities
Service Co.'s iron oxides
plant and Metropolitan
Sewer District's L'May
treatment plant to curtail
production. The general
public was alerted to pos-
sible health problems and
people with heart and
respiratory ailments were
told to take the necessary
precautions. The alert was
removed on November 3
by the St. Louis County
Air Pollution Control
Branch afterwinds shifted,
dispersing the pollution.
Dr. Kathleen Camin,
Regional Administrator,
brought monitoring
units from EPA's Health
Effects Research Labora-
tories in North Carolina
into the area to
measure the level of parti-
cles and suifur in the air
Missouri River Oil Spill
A tank receiving crude oil
at the Amoco Oil Refinery
in Sugar Croek, Mo. over-
flowed last October 30,
sending an estimated
21,000 to 42,000 gallons
of oil into Rock Creek and
from there into the Mis-
souri River. The spill was
attributed to human error
because a drainage pipe
valve had been left open.
EPA acted as on-scene
coordinator for cleanup
activities. Much of the
crude oil was confined by
floating booms. However,
oil was spotted as far
away as 23 miles down-
stream. Cleanup of the
spill was completed
November 1 2, 1977.
it nourishes the thick
green turf for two 1 8-hole
public golf courses as well
as numerous shrubs and
trees.
Faster Decisions
Promised
Region 8 Administrator
Alan Merson has promised
that decisions will be
coming quicker from EPA
Speaking to a State Affairs
Conference at the Univers-
ity of Northern Colorado
he said, "I don't believe in
the tactics of harassment
and delay just to hold
something up. Everyone
deserves a chance to be
heard. Once those voices
have been heard, it's time
to get on." Merson said
some EPA requirements
may be unjustified and
should be dropped. As an
example he noted a regula-
tion which requires per-
mits for irrigation return
flows. While some EPA
practices and regulations
are being reviewed,
Merson reiterated that
the Agency will be taking
steps to insure environ-
mental quality in the six-
State area.
Air Alert Called
N.L. Industries, Inc. St.
Louis,Mo. has cut produc
tion 50 percent at their
titanium pigment plant
Wastewater Greens the
Desert
Region 9 has funded 75
percent of a project that
recycles water from a
sewage plant in Tucson,
Ariz. EPAgranted just over
$1 million for the con-
struction of the Randolph
Park Wastewater Recla-
mation Plant. The project
is one of many throughout
the State of Arizona that
show what can be done if
water is regarded and
used as a resource instead
of a throw-away item. The
plant treats sewage and
recycles the "new" water
into Randolph Park. There,
in the middle of the desert.
Dioxin Study Underway
Region 1 0 is conducting
a research study to deter-
mine whether human
breast milk contains the
chemical dioxin (TCDD), a
manufacturing contami-
nant sometimes found at
low levels in certain
herbicides and related
chemicals. The herbicides
are used in the Pacific
Northwest to control
unwanted forest growth
that interferes with timber
production or to kill off
unwanted shrubbery
along roads and powerline
rights of way. The study,
which began last Novem-
ber, uses 50 volunteer
nursing mothers frorr.
areas around the national
forests Volunteers for the
control group were taken^
from areas where spraying
does not occur. Samples
were collected through
the cooperation of local
and State health programs
and clinics, environmental
groups, concerned indi-
viduals, and university-
affiliated persons. The
study is expected to end in
mid-1978. Results will be
forwarded to each partici-
pant shortly after they
become available to EPA.
Highway Cleanup
Ordered
EPA has ordered the
Federal Highway Adminis-
tration to remove sediment
from the south fork of the
Clearwater River in Idaho.
The sediment was depos-
ited there as a result of a
Federal Highway Adminis-
tration road building proj-
ect in the Nez Perce
National Forest. Fish and
wildlife officials say the
sediment will severely
disrupt the migratory
pathways of chinook
salmon and steelhead
trout. The action is being
taken through an order
issued under the authority
of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amend-
ments of 1 972, which
allows EPA to move
against anyone depositing
or discharging polluting
materials into a waterway
in violation of that statute
D
States Served by
EPA Regions
Region 1 (Boston)
Region 2 (New York
City)
Region 3 (Philadelphia)
Region 4 (Atlanta)
"
Region '
i 6 (Dallas)
' (Kansas)
Region 9 (San
Francisco)
JANUARY 1978
35
-------
Environmental Journey
Continued from page 10
Washington Post reported in its
September 23, 1977, issue,
under the heading "Youngs-
town's Layoff Sends Chills
Through Steel Towns," that:
"The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency ruled that the
steelmaker was violating Federal
clean water regulations at its
Monessen plant and earlier
this year began fining the firm
825,000 each day. EPA granted
Wheeling-Pittsburgh a 90-day
moratorium on the fines several
weeks ago after the total
reached S42 million, according
to a company spokesman."
It is difficult to see what is
being accomplished by this
primitively punitive ritual.
Numerous other puzzles come
to mind. Where it is presumed
national policy to encourage
the construction and operation
of regional waste treatment
plants which treat both munici-
pal and industrial wastes, why
does the Congress place road-
blocks against them with a
fallacious Industrial Cost Re-
covery requirement and rigid
formulas for covering operating
and maintenance costs?
Lip service is being paid to
the regional approach through
efforts to implement Section
208 of the Water Act which
deals with areawide waste
management, but the only
accomplishment appears to
be the stirring up of a great
many people in the name of
"public participation."
Why should an industrial
company be required to achieve
effluent limitations based on
"best available" technology if
it is discharged into a stream
which will be fishable and swim-
mable as a result of achievement
of effluent limitations based on
"best practicable" technology?
Why should a publicly owned
treatment works be required to
achieve secondary treatment if
it is discharging into a body of
water so big that the present
discharge has no significant
impact?
Why should a company be
required to install flue gas
desulfurization facilities if it
is burning low sulfur coal or
otherwise avoiding breaches of
ambient air quality standards?
Why should companies be
required to achieve "zero dis-
charge" if their present dis-
charge does not result in
breaches of water quality
standards?
Why should a company be
required to exert a degree of
pollution control that uses an
excessive amount of energy,
natural resources, and money,
and only transforms the pol-
lution from one form to another
with a resulting negative en-
vironmental impact?
There are additional enigmas
being proposed. For example,
pollution taxes. Why should a
company which complies with
environmental standards be
required to pay a tax on its
emissions and discharges? Why
doesn't Congress recognize
the fact that in most instances
capital and operating costs for
abatement facilities do not
yield a direct economic return
but do confer broad social
benefits, and permit immediate
write-off of the facility?
After the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was created
by Executive Order, why didn't
the Congress enact a compre-
hensive Environmental Pro-
tection Act?
Although the theory of
creating EPA was to achieve a
coordinated administration of
environmental laws, inconsistent
approaches are still being taken
and Congress is still legislating
in piecemeal fashion. There is a
National Environmental Policy
Act but the only national en-
vironmental policy it sets forth
is that Federal agencies are to
take environmental considera-
tions into account when under-
taking major Federal actions.
Although courts have held that
it is a procedural law not con-
ferring substantive rights, many
of them have upheld challenges
to the adequacy of environ-
mental impact statements, and
the chief result has been tre-
mendous delays in energy de-
velopment in the United States.
Congress has had to undertake
patchwork repairs such as the
Alaska Pipeline legislation and
temporary licensing legislation
for nuclear power plants.
Congress keeps legislating
amendments to the Clean Air
Act and the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, and keeps
coming up with new discrete
laws such as the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act, the Re-
source Conservation and Re-
covery Act, and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as well as
e'nergy legislation which im-
pacts on environmental legis-
lation.
And I cannot hope to discuss
other environmental type laws
such as the Federal Environ-
mental Pesticide Control Act;
the Coastal Zone Management
Act; the Marine Protection, Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act; the
Endangered Species Act; the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; the
Noise Control Act; the Marine
Mammal Protection Act; an
Act to Require Aircraft Noise
Abatement Regulation; the
Deepwater Ports Act; the Ports
and Waterways Safety Act; the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act; the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act; the Water Resources
Research Act; and the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1899; the
Environmental Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1 970; the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetics Act; the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act; the Occu-
pational Safety and Health Act;
the Consumer Products Safety
Act; and the Environmental
Education Act. I have not at-
tempted to compile the number
of words and pages of regula-
tions all these laws have and will
give birth to or the number of
words, dollars, and man-hours
that have been and will be spent
on filling out the forms and other
paperwork the regulations give
birth to.
We now have one section of
the Water Act dealing with
"toxic pollutants" and another
dealing with "hazardous sub-
stances." We have a section of
the Air Act dealing with "haz-
ardous air pollutants." We have
a whole new law dealing with
the control of "toxic substances'.'
We have eleven sections of a
new solid waste law dealing
with generation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and dis-
posal of "hazardous wastes."
And don't forget the Trans-
portation of Hazardous Materials
Act which is administered by
the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation.
No wonder the EPA, FDA,
OSHA, and CPSC have formed
an Interagency Task Force on
cooperative reform of regula-
tions to try to fit some of the
pieces together.
So we see our environmental
map is replete with confusing
routes, destinations, and road
signs, particularly dollar signs
which promise not much more
than to lead us into impenetrable
jungles of regulation and ex-
pense. Perhaps Congress should
create a Commission with the
task of recommending a com-
prehensive environmental pro-
tection law that would carefully
work out a balance of environ-
mental, engineering, energy,
natural resources, and economic
considerations and that would
enable government administra-
tors to work with industrial
companies and municipalities
and achieve rational solutions to
problems created by our present
baffling environmental map. D
36
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Pulling Together
Continued from page 11
the problem. The corporate and
public policy teams pull in
opposite directions.
Another institutional mecha-
nism that is often chosen is that
of tax credits, accelerated depre-
ciation, or subsidized financing
of qualifying investments, such
as for pollution abatement. One
problem with this is that the re-
turn on the corporation's invest-
ment (not counting the social
return, which does not appear
on the company's books) is still
likely to be negative. A second
problem is in the definition of
the qualifying investment. It is
usually necessary, for adminis-
trative reasons and to discourage
abuses, to make the subsidy
available only for single-purpose
plant and equipment. Thus a
scrubber tacked on the end of a
conventional coal-burning
powerplant would qualify, but a
system removing sulfur dioxide
as an integral part of the com-
bustion process might not.
Finally, it is capital investment
that is being subsidized, not per-
formance in reducing emissions,
so there is little incentive to
design and operate the most
effective and efficient system.
The potential rewards of
devising an institutional
mechanism that would provide
the needed motivation in the
difficult cases described
(desire for better technology,
high costs of implementation)
are.great. Let us consider how
it might be done for two
pollutants that fall in this
category: sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides. Nationwide
emissions of each are pro-
jected, in the Department of
Energy's analysis of the
National Energy Plan and its
alternatives, to significantly
increase, despite the application
of "best available control
technology." Unless we find
a way to do better, the acidity
of precipitation and its adverse
impact on ecosystems will
further increase, as will the
concentrations of fine aerosols
that reduce visibility and are
believed by many to have an
adverse impact on health.
Furthermore, any increase in
emissions of nitrogen oxides
will likely exacerbate the
difficulties in reducing ambient
concentrations of oxidants,
which are produced in atmos-
pheric reactions involving
nitrogen oxides.
Assume that we decide
(through legislation) that this
result is not acceptable, and
that we must reduce, not
increase, national emissions
of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. I'll describe one
mechanism for achieving this.
It is based on an emissions
charge approach, which is a
concept long favored by
economists and most environ-
mentalists, but in addition it
has certain features that
should appeal to people
in industry and regulatory
agencies as well. Unless
otherwise stated, the elements
of the plan described below
would be embodied in legisla-
tion.
• A schedule for desired re-
duction of man-made nation-
wide emissions of each pollutant
over a considerable period—
for example, a reduction of
3% per year for 25 years-
would be specified.
• An initial charge level (for
example, 50C per pound),
estimated to be sufficient to
achieve this schedule reduction,
would be specified and applied
nationwide.
• An annual tabulation of actual
nationwide emissions would be
compiled by EPA. The Agency
would also prescribe minimum
procedures for measurement
of emissions.
• If actual emissions were
greater than scheduled emis-
sions there would be an
automatic increase in the charge
for the following year. For
example, an increase of 5%
in the charge for each 1 %
deviation for deviations up to
10%, and a 1 5% charge
increase for each 1 % deviation
greater than 10%, might be
specified.
• All of the charge revenues
would be rebated. The charges
paid by each affected industry
or polluting group would be
collected in a separate fund for
that group. Rebates from the
fund to each member of the
group would be proportional to
that member's percentage of
the Nation's production of
the group. For example, in a
group defined as "producers of
electrical energy from coal,"
a company which produced
during the period 2.5% of the
national total of electrical
energy from coal would receive
2.5% of the national charges
paid into that fund during the
period. This is the incentive
part of the plan, since any
company doing a better job
of pollution abatement than the
average of its group would
receive more money in the
rebate than it paid through
the charge.
• EPA would estimate and make
public the expected national
average ratios of emissions to
product for each group for the
ensuing year. This would then
be translated into a projected
charge-rebate schedule for
emissions above or below the
national average. Companies
and plant managers would thus
have the information they need
to estimate charges and rebates
for their individual plants and
"fine tune" their operations.
• Each State would review the
expected impact of the national
charge/incentive system on
present and prospective
emitters in each of the Air
Quality Control Regions under
its jurisdiction. If this analysis
shows that the individual source
emission limitations in the State
Implementation Plan for a
particular air region are not
necessary to achieve State and
Federal air quality goals,
upon review and approval of
the State's analysis by EPA
the State emission limitations
for that region would be
indefinitely suspended. This
would apply only to those
pollutants covered under the
charge/incentive system;
State limitations on other
pollutants would be retained.
• The States and EPA would
periodically review the situation
in regions where State Im-
plementation Plan suspensions
had taken place, to insure that
actual emissions and ambient
air concentrations were no
greater than projected in the
analysis. If they were greater,
the State and/or EPA would be
required to reimpose the State
Implementation Plan limitations.
Note that the proposed plan
is not a wholesale replacement
of regulations with emission
charges. Such would be
undesirable, first, because
regulations are an efficient and
effective mechanism in many
situations, and second, because
if charges were expected to
substitute everywhere for
regulations the burdens on
administrators to establish
defensible charge levels in
each of hundreds of localities
would prove onerous.
A plan such as the one
described is perhaps more
likely to be acceptable to in-
dustry than previous emission
charge proposals. The net
charges for each industry
group will be zero, so the fear
that the industry might be so
taxed simply to raise revenue
is allayed. Corporate managers
confident of their ability to do
at least as well in pollution
abatement as the industry
average might even welcome
the opportunity to compete
on this basis, since it offers
another source of profit for
their companies. Finally, and
perhaps most important,
companies presently unable
to locate any new facilities,
no matter how well designed,
in regions just meeting or
exceeding the ambient pollutant
concentrations permitted by
the standards.should correctly
perceive the charge as an
incentive for all emitters in
the region to do better than
required by the State Imple-
mentation Plan, thereby
"making room" for new
facilities.
I have done no more than
sketch the bare outlines of a
plan to motivate the private
sector to solve this class
of public policy problems.
It quite possibly is not the best
plan. But it is long since time
that this question of motivation
received serious attention by
policymakers in both the public
and private sectors, so that
the Nation can effectively
and efficiently achieve what
it has set out to do, pulling
together rather than apart.
If this proposal stimulates a
wide-ranging discussion of how
that can be done it will have
served a useful purpose. D
JANUARY 1978
37
-------
Ptriof o
Congress Approves
1977
Amendments
to
Clean Water Act
CEQ
Urges Limit
on
Wordy Impact
Statements
EPA
Proposes
Restrictions
on Lead Levels
in Air
Congress has passed amendments to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. The legislation authorizes a total of $28.7 billion
for water clean-up, including $24.5 billion for Federal matching
grants to build wastewater treatment plants over the next five
years. The balance of funds are to help develop water treatment
technology, training programs and other activities. Among its
provisions, the legislation extends the deadline from mid-1977
to April 1, 1979 for industries to install best practicable control
technology for those who had made a good-faith effort to meet the
old deadline. It also postpones the deadline of mid-1983 for
installing best available control technology, depending on the
type of pollutants. EPA was given new authority to control toxic
chemicals.
The Council on Environmental Quality has proposed a 300-page limit
on environmental impact statements. The plan would limit most
EIS's to 150 pages for small projects and 300 for complex issues.
The proposed rules would require an agency head to state publicly
which aspects of the report he used in making his decisions and
which he ignored. A draft of the proposals is now being circulated
for other agencies to review. Earlier, routine responsibility for
receipt and filing of impact statements was transferred to EPA's
Office of Federal Activities.
EPA Administrator Douglas M. Costie has proposed an air quality
standard to protect public health from exposure to air-borne lead.
The problem is especially acute for young children who are
sensitive to low levels of the pollutant. The EPA proposal would
limit the level to 1.5 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air.
Lead levels have been found to be as high as six micrograms in
parts of Los Angeles and Dallas, according to David Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management.
38
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Meeting
With
Business
By Philip Wisman
During 1 977, the Department
of Commerce and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency jointly
sponsored four Business-Indus-
try Conferences. These meetings
represent a new era of coopera-
tion between government offi-
cials and private industry to
stimulate new initiatives by all
sectors of industry, government,
and the technical community to
conserve natural resources and
produce cleaner, more cost-
effective industrial processes.
Speakers and conference par-
ticipants included representa-
tives from industry, State, local,
and Federal governments and
key congressional leaders. At
each Conference, the first day
was tailored for industry's top
management and policy officials.
The second day addressed spe-
cific technical and economic
issues and case histories.
The first such Conference was
held in Chicago last January. Its
theme dealt with steps industry
had taken and could take
"beyond environmental regula-
tion," and stressed methods for
reducing industrial pollution and
achieving substantial cost-
benefits at the same time. The
keynote address, "Pollution
Prevention Pays" was given by
Lewis W. Lehr, President of the
3 M Company. Panel discus-
sions addressed the questions,
"What are the barriers to
improving industrial pollution
control?" and "What are the
(Philip Wisman is an EPA Head-
quarters Public Affairs Officer.)
EPA
Commended
Juanita M. Kreps, Secre-
tary of Commerce, has
commended EPA's initia-
tive in developing the
series of regional business-
industry meetings to
exchange information on
pollution control
techniques.
"These seminars will
help us assess the poten-
tial for alternate technolo-
gies and techniques in
which industries—which
account for nearly one-
half of all U.S. energy
consumption—will be able
to conserve energy, con-
form to pollution stand-
ards, and lessen the need
for costly 'end-of-the-pipe'
treatment."
In seeking new solutions
to environmental and
energy problems, Kreps
said "the Commerce
Department and EPA have
been guided by an impor-
tant element in President
Carter's Environmental
Message to Congress: the
belief that environmental
protection is consistent
with a sound economy."
Report from Region 1
Continued from page 21
incentives required to make
improvements in industrial pol-
lution control?" Workshops
covered, "Selection and Imple-
mentation of pollution abate-
ment programs," Monitoring for
environmental performance,"
and "Industrial-municipal waste
treatment interface."
Another Conference was held
in Boston in June 1977 with the
theme "Industry Takes the Initia-
tive." The keynote speaker was,
as in Chicago, Lewis W. Lehr,
President of the 3 M Company
who described the company's
approach to pollution preven-
tion. Panel discussions ad-
dressed "Legislative Impact on
Process Change," "Process
Change brings Energy Benefits"
and "Barriers and Incentives to
improving Industrial Pollution
Control." Workshops covered
"Managing for Environmental
Performance" and "Selection
and Implementation of Pollution
Control Programs."
The Dallas conference was
held last September with the
theme "Profits through accom-
plishments in Pollution Control,"
with the keynote speech, "Pol-
lution Prevention Pays".
Workshops covered:
"Managing for Environmental
Performance" and "Selection
and Implementation of Pollution
Control Programs."
The most recent Conference
held in San Francisco last month
was on "Pollution Imagineering."
It was designed to spotlight
examples of successful integra-
tion of pollution abatement
methods with corporate man-
agement philosophy.
The keynote speech was given
by William D. Ruckelshaus,
Senior Vice President of the
Weyerhaeuser Company.
Administrator Douglas Costle
gave the EPA address.
The Department of Commerce
was represented by Dr. Allen
Haile and by Ms. Anne Wexler,
Deputy Under Secretary. The
first panel discussion dealt with
"Non-degradation/Non-Attain-
ment—Water, where was Con-
gress Going?" Dr. Sidney Galler,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Affairs, served as
moderator. The Congressional
staff member was Ms. Joan
Kovalic from the Committee on
Public Works and Transporta-
tion.
The Second panel had as its
topic "Non-degradation/Non-
Attainment — Air, where was
Congress going?" The modera-
tor was Thomas Quinn,
Chairman, California Air Re-
sources Board The Congres-
sional Staff Member was
Steve Connally, House Sub-
committee on Health and the
Environment.
Technical sessions covered (1)
"Implementation" (2) "Process
Examples" with speakers from
the cannery, refining, mining,
and pulp and paper industries
and (3) "Financial Considera-
tions." n
interests must always conflict
is one myth I hope to erase as
Regional Administrator. J do not
believe that in the long run there
is an inherent conflict between
environmental and economic
goals. They are not mutually
exclusive and no strategy that
seeks to pursue one by sac-
rificing the other is going
to succeed.
I also come to this job as a
confirmed believer in a tough
but fair enforcement policy. I
am willing to work with in-
dustries and municipalities
who are having trouble com-
plying with environmental laws.
We will offer advice and tech-
nical assistance. But violators
who flout the law, who make
little or no effort to meet our
rules and regulations will be
targeted for swift enforcement
action. It is simply not fair to
allow one industry a competi-
tive advantage over another
because one must comply
with pollution control regula-
tions and the other is allowed
to slide.
Enforcement is one of the
most important elements of
our regulatory program. We
have on the books many new,
tough anti-pollution laws.
Only strong, vigorous enforce-
ment of those laws will make
them effective.
I intend to exercise my
prerogative as Regional
Administrator to impose some
of my own philosophy on the
operation of the regional office.
First, I hope that free and open
communication between me
and my staff, and between the
Agency and the States, munici-
pal governments, the business
community, and environmental
groups will be one of the key
features of my tenure as
Regional Administrator. I
have tried to make my staff,
governmental officials, and
business and environmental
leaders aware that my door
is open to them. I am interested
in their opinions, in what they
think we are doing right and
Continued on page 40
JANUARY 1978
39
-------
Report from Region 1
Continued from page 39
wrong, in their suggestions and
recommendations. I recognize
that in the end, the hard
decisions are mine to make,
but I am actively seeking
advice before I make important
decisions
William R. Adams Jr.
This does not necessarily
mean that I will take all the
advice offered, but I will listen.
No one will be able to say that
this Agency has been arbitrary
or is unwilling to listen to
opposing opinions or has not
done its homework.
Second, I want to see in-
creased flexibility in what we
as an Agency are willing to
consider or to do. I do not
mean to disparage the admin-
istration of my predecessor
He inherited a hodge-podge
of programs and personnel
and philosophies from many
different agencies. His challenge
was to take them and make
them function effectively as a
unit. My challenge is different;
I have inherited a smooth-
running organization — so
smooth that it practically
runs itself. The danger in this
situation is that everything is
easy as long as we don't step
out of our established patterns,
so we tend to try to do things
as we have always done them.
I think it is a very typical rut-
one to which all agencies must
be vulnerable when they are
about as old as EPA is, and I
believe we must be zealous in
our determination to stay out
of it. We must be willing to
stick out our necks, put our
reputations on the line for new
approaches, and innovative
technologies. We have to expect
that this pioneering spirit will
backfire on us from time to
time, but we must be willing to
take this risk, because yester-
day's solutions simply will not
work for tomorrow's problems.
And I truly believe that if we
are unwilling to take the risk,
we are going to find ourselves
the dinosaurs instead of the
leaders of the environmental
movement.
Third, I want this Agency to
begin to do more acting than
reacting. It is all too easy,
particularly in the first years
of an Agency's operation,
to get into a fire-fighting
situation and just never have
a chance to sit down and
anticipate or prepare for
anything. However, we cannot
continue to operate this way.
We must make the time to
think about what kinds of
problems we are going to face
in the coming years, and how
we are going to deal with
them. We need to think about
our goals, about whether or
not they are valid after seven
years of operation. We need
to think about what we have
learned during those years,
and whether we need to change
our policies or goals on the
basis of what we have learned.
We simply cannot expect to
run an effective environmental
protection program if we don't
think very carefully about
where we are going and why.
Since coming on board as,
Regional Administrator, I have
been asked many times about
what I believed will be the most
important environmental
issues facing New England in
the coming years.
One issue that I predict will
receive a great deal of atten-
tion, not only in New England
but nationwide, is preventive
public health. The new drinking
water standards, the new
toxic substances act, the
hazardous waste provisions of
the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act are all
designed to prevent public
health problems before they
occur. I think that this emphasis
on people will bring a whole
new interest group into the
environmental constituency
We will be dealing with very
serious issues and making
many important decisions that
will have profound impacts on
public health. I expect that we
are going to be subjected to
closer public scrutiny than we
have ever before experienced.
We are going to have to be
scrupulously careful about
what we do, or we will leave
the Agency open to charges
of carelessness and bureau-
cratic lack of concern for the
public.
Another problem that I
foresee is oxidant air pollution.
Excessive levels of photo-
chemical oxidants, or smog.
have been recorded at every
monitoring station in New
England that measures this
pollutant, and the frequency
of violations is increasing.
In New England about half
of the hydrocarbons that form
oxidants are generated by
automobile traffic. Eventually,
the internal combustion
engine can be redesigned to
produce significantly less
hydrocarbon pollution, but that
is a long-term solution. For the
short-term we are going to
have to adopt specific measures
to cope with automobile air
pollution, particularly in Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Massa-
chusetts. One thing we should do
is to work to develop alternatives
to commuting alone. I think
more people should be en-
couraged to use car pools and
mass transit. I also think it is
essential that states adopt
mandatory automobile inspec-
tion and maintenance programs.
Programs such as this have
been tried in other areas of the
country and have proven to
be an effective way of reducing
pollution from cars.
Energy development cer-
tainly will be an important
issue I will have to deal with.
Off-shore oil drilling apparently
is moving ahead off our New
England coast. We are going
to have to work to ensure that
every possible environmental
control is used so that our
valuable commercial fishing
industry in this region is not ad-
versely impacted. We also must
make sure that any on-shore
development that may occur.
such as the construction of re-
fineries or large storage facilities,
is consistent with environmental
requirements.
Of course, nuclear power
development will be another
issue which we will have to
address. The Seabrook nuclear
power plant issue raised a lot
of questions that I am sure will
come up again and again in
this region. We will continue
to review all proposed plant
applications on a case by case
basis, and we will continue to
insist that the best available
control technology be employed
in order to minimize the effect
of the facilities on our environ-
ment.
Another issue that I think is
going to be very important
over the next few years is
solid waste management.
Let me say in closing that
I do not believe any of these
problems is insoluble. I have
inherited a very capable,
dedicated staff, and I am
confident that if we keep the
lines of communication open.
and apply some creative
thinking to the problems that
confront us, we can realize
our goal of a cleaner New
England for us all. CD
Opposite Page: The electro-
static precipitator (left) and
"Venturi" scrubber (center)
on this International Paper Co
plant at Jay, Me. are keeping
pollutants out of the nir
Back Cover: This detail is from
one of a set of posters produced
by EPA on air. land, and water.
Single copies of the posters
will be available in March from
EPA Printing Management
(PM-21 5), Washington, D.C.
20460. Quantities may be
purchased from the Govern-
ment Printing Office, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20402.
40
EPAJOURNAL
-------
•
if
-------
poblic gifts"- Ov,d
United Slates
Environmental Pro'-
Agencv
Washington D C 20460
Official Business
Penalty fot Private Use
$300
Fees Paid
Environ
Protection
EPA 335
Third Class
------- |