-------
Saving
Our Water
Wealth
EPA's role in the vital task of
protecting the Nation's finite
resource of water is the major
theme of this issue of the
Journal.
Fierce competition for usable
water has long existed in the
West and periodic droughts in
the Northeast are portents of
the shortages certain to de-
velop in this relatively water-
rich section of the country in
the future.
Of even greater immediate
concern is the quality of the
water used for the country's
drinking supplies, part of the
critical problem of Health and
the Environment discussed by
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle in this issue. The Journal
will carry a major review of the
drinking water problem soon.
The magazine has an inter-
view with Thomas Jorling,
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials,
several pieces on various pollu-
tion control programs, and ar-
ticles by two of the major archi-
tects of the Clean Water Act,
Sen. Edmund S. Muskie and
Sen. Robert T. Stafford.
Other subjects covered are
a report by Truman
Temple on marine research
being conducted at one of the
Agency's key laboratories, and
a took at one of the results of
failure to adequately protect
water resources—a growth in
the world's deserts. D
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA JOURNAL
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
Joan Martin Nicholson, Director, Office of Public Awareness
Charles D. Pierce, Editor
Truman Temple, Associate Editor
John Heritage, Chris Perham, Assistant Editors
L'Tanya White, Staff Support
Volume 4
Number 7
July/August 1978
Articles
EPA's Purpose: To formulate
and implement actions which
lead to a compatible balance
between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life
Health and the
Environment
Administrator Douglas M. Costle
calls for more emphasis on
prevention of pollution to
protect people.
Senate Leaders Explain
Water Legislation
The Meaning of the
1977 Clean Water Act
By Sen. Edmund S. Muskie
The Future of the
Construction Grants Program
By Sen. Robert T. Stafford
Protecting
the Integrity of
U.S. Water
An interview with Thomas C.
Jorling, Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous
Materials.
The Mounting
Sludge Pile
A review by John Heritage on
what can be done to handle the
byproducts from wastewater
treatment plants.
Aquatic Research on
the Gulf
A report byTrumanTemple on
marine research by EPA's
laboratory at Gulf Breeze, Fla.
Who Will Inherit the
Clean Water?
Sharon Francis and Richard
DeSanti report on possibilities
for waterway recreation
development.
Planning for
Clean Water
Merna Hurd reviews attempts
being made to halt agricultural
pollution.
Treatment for
Small Communities
Keith H. Dearth explains options
available to small towns for
treating wastes.
The Army Enlists For
Environmental Battle
A report on the EPA-Corps
agreement to tap the engineers'
construction expertise.
Clean Lakes
An account of a special program
EPA is conducting to help cure
ailing small lakes.
Land Treatment
Richard Thomas reports on the
revival of an ancient method of
disposing of sewage.
Deserts on the March
An article by Allen Cywin on the
impact of drought around the
world.
Region? Report
This article by Dr. Kay Camin is
the latest in a continuing series of
articles from EPA's Regional
Offices.
Departments
Almanac
News Briefs
People
Update
Nation
Front cover: Breaking wave
photo by Warren Bolster.
Opposite: Employee
of the EPA Environmental Re-
search Laboratory at Gulf
Breeze, Fla. seines for shrimp.
Photo Credits: Nick Karanikas, Frank
Aleksandrowicz.' Bill and Kathy
Shrout.1 Bill Strode.' Ernst Halber-
stadt,' LeRoy Woodson, Jr," Ken
Hyrnan,' U.S Army Corps of Engi-
neers, British Travel Association,
Steven Foss," B.Wolfgang Hoffman,
'Documerica
Harold Woodworth, Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission,
Dennis Hart, Lufthansa German Air
lines,Volunteers in Technical
Assistance, Soil Conservation
Service
The EPA Journal is published
monthly, with combined issues
July-August and November-Decem-
ber, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Use of funds
for printing this periodical has
been approved by the Director of
the Office of Management and
Budget. Views expressed by
authors do not necessarily reflect
EPA policy. Contributions and in-
quiries should be addressed to the
Editor (A-1 07). Waterside Mall,
401 M St., S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460 No permission neces-
sary to reproduce contents except
copyrighted photos and other
materials. Subscription: S10.00
a year, S 1 .00 for single copy,
domestic; $1 2.50 if mailed to a
foreign address. No charge to
employees. Send check or money
order to Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C, 20402.
Text printed on recycled paper.
-------
Environmentally Speaking
When the cost of health care in America has risen to $140
billion a year, with most of this going for after-the-fact
attempts at treatment and cure, it is obvious that we need to
reorder our national and individual priorities. How much
more health-effective and cost-effective it would be if more
emphasis were placed on prevention—on keeping harmful
materials out of the air, water, and soil—and out of our
people.
In the United States, national concern for the environ-
mental aspects of public health is of fairly recent origin.
Not until after World War II did we really become aware of
the health dangers, both immediate and long term, of many
of the substances we produce, use, and often release into
our environment.
The ratio of environmentally-induced disease to all dis-
eases is large and growing larger. As Dr. Ernst Wynder has
pointed out: "In a society where infectious diseases have
been largely overcome through sanitary measures, immuni-
zation, and anti-biotics, the major causes for today's toll are
largely unhealthy lifestyles, unhealthy working environ-
ments and disease-producing products."
The more experience we gain, and the more data we ac-
cumulate on the health effects of pollutants, the deeper our
concerns become. Scientists have developed compelling
evidence that children can contract Chronic and acute dis-
abilities as a result of air pollution. One study concluded
that as many as 20 percent of the children in a city such as
New York can develop severe and chronic respiratory dis-
eases. During the 1973-74 oil embargo, the most significant
factor in a dramatic drop in death rates in the San Francisco
area—a 13.4 percent decrease compared with the same
period over the previous four years—appears to be reduced
exposure to pollutants from auto exhausts.
The World Health Organization estimates that from 60 to
90 percent of all cancer is the result of "environmental
factors" in the broadest sense of the term. The rate of cancer
deaths is greater than at any time since World War II; the
Health and the
Environment
incidence is especially high in communities where there is a
heavy concentration of chemical industries. When Dr. David
Baltimore of MIT received the Nobel Prize in 1975 for his
work linking viruses and cancer, he said: "The role of vi-
ruses in cancer is small.The best hope today for cures is
research into environmental causes of cancer."
Each day, each of us breathes 1 6,000 quarts of air. They
often contain a debilitating mixture of sulfur oxides,
carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, nitrogen
dioxide, particulates, and other airborne pollutants.
We have accumulating evidence that mercury, lead, and
cadmium in the environment can attack the central nervous
system. We know that fluorocarbons weaken the protective
shield of the ozone layer, greatly increasing the risk of skin
cancer. Last year, we acted to ban fluorocarbons in inter-
state commerce as of April 1 5, 1979.
There is clear evidence that carbon tetrachloride and
chlorinated phenols can damage the liver; ethylene glycol
and cadmium sulfate can produce kidney disease; asbestos
and beryllium can cause lung disorders; vinyl chloride and
arsenic can cause cancer.
Asbestos and chloroform have been found in our drink-
ing water. In fact, we are now aware that chloroform and
other trihalomethanes occur in drinking water as a result of
the way we have been chlorinating that water to make it safe
for drinking. So our problems are compounded by the irony
that, in treating water to protect public health, we can actu-
ally create reactions that could prove harmful.
Another chemical trouble spot was the discovery of the
widespread contamination of the Nation's waters by poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (RGB's). Yet another was the revela-
tion that the pesticide, Kepone, had caused nerve damage
among workers.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Incidents like these helped to convince Congress to pass
the Toxic Substances Control Act. This law marks a recogni-
tion that we live in a chemical age, and that that age may be
a mixed bless ing. These chemicals will be our single great-
est environmental challenge in the next couple of decades.
They seem to be everywhere, if often only in small
quantities.
The kinds of problems I have just mentioned do not lend
themselves to quick-fix solutions. They demand thoughtful,
rational, careful analysis and decision-making. And this
kind of analysis and decision-making cannot be carried out
in a vacuum. Nor can the problems simply be handed over
to government officials, however ethical and competent,
with instructions to "solve them—tell us what to do." The
problems are deeply rooted in our highly technological
industrialized society, and they must be addressed in terms
that are not just acceptable to, but in fact arrived at by, that
society.
For most toxic chemicals, for instance, the decisions are
not going to be that clear-cut. We're going to have to make
tough judgments about the appropriate degree of control,
weighing the risk posed by a given chemical against its
economic importance.
With the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is now
required to regulate not just the residues of dangerous
chemicals, but their manufacture, use, and distribution. This
is a new order and a big one. I believe I am safe in predicting
that within a decade this program will dominate all others
in EPA. It will shift our emphasis to prevention, to keeping
harmful substances out of our air, water and soil, rather than
concentrating on cleaning them up after the damage has
been done.
We have not abandoned our concern with the natural
environment.
Understanding human impact on the environment pro-
vides us with critical clues regarding our own present and
future well-being (and environmental harm often serves as
an "early warning" about potential threats to public health).
In addition, there is a close correlation between measures
that protect public health and those that protect the environ-
ment. But we clearly have an increased concern with public
health issues. This concern is well illustrated by our strong
new focus on toxic chemicals.
There is growing concern on the part of the public about
what the chemical age has done to its world. Along with this,
however, there's also a growing skepticism about how real
some of the dangers are.
I don't believe that this skepticism means there is a wide-
spread sentiment for giving up on efforts to deal with new
public health threats. In fact, I'm very conscious of a very
strong opposite pressure; that is, to get the toxic contami-
nants out of our air and water so that people won't face
being involuntarily exposed to them.
However, the response does mean that both public and
private officials concerned with health matters have an
important responsibility.
For governmental agencies like EPA, it means we have to
be candid, laying what we do know about toxic chemicals
before the public, but making clear where our knowledge is
limited.
For industry, it means not attempting to play on the pub-
lic's doubts. Legitimate concerns about the chemical revolu-
tion deserve better than a Madison Avenue counter-attack
by the private sector.
And for the health community, it means making a far
greater commitment than has been shown in the past to
examining the health effects of toxic chemicals, and to
educating the public about such effects. Leaving this duty
to government alone is a luxury that this country can no
longer afford. [J
JULY/AUGUST 1978
-------
Senate Leaders Explain Water Legislation
find
•hen T. S:
•utier of f/7/s commit-
The Meaning of the
1977 Clean Water Act
When Congress debated the 1972
Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, mid-course correc-
tions were promised.
The Cloan Water Act of 1977 has ful-
filled that promise—and it also maintains
the original promise of clean water for the
American people.
More than seventy changes were made
in the existing law. Most enhance the
ability of the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to deal with
complex water pollution problems. We
made some requirements more flexible, but
we have not strayed from our basic goals.
We have maintained our goal to elimi-
nate the discharge of pollutants by 1985.
We have maintained the policy that the
public must be protected from cancer-
causing pollutants and other toxic poisons.
Wo have maintained the concept that
industry must use the best available
technology to control pollution.
We have renewed our commitment to
provide adequate funding to publicly-
owned treatment plants.
The new law reflects needed compro-
mise without diminishing our overall pollu-
tion control capability. As an example, the
Administrator is given flexibility in deter-
mining treatment levels for well known
conventional pollutants but is given little
leeway in the enforcement of controls on
the thousands of toxic chemicals that are
dumped daily into America's rivers and
lakes.
The success of the Federal Clean Water
Law has been uneven. Programs affecting
municipalities faltered because of uncer-
tain funding and excessive red-tape. But
the programs aimed at industrial com-
pliance fared much better.
An estimated 90 percent of the Nation's
industries met the July 1, 1 977, deadline
for use of best practicable technology.
My home State of Maine was one of only
throe States where industry achieved total
compliance with requirements to use the
best practicable clean-up technology last
July, and the improvement in water quality
has been noticeable.
By Senator
Edmund S. Muskie (D-Me.)
Despite this success, however, the 1977
Act makes some changes in the 1983
industrial requirements.
First, the concept of uniform applica-
tion of the requirement to install the best
available technology by 1983 was broad-
ened by the creation of three categories of
pollutants—conventional, non-conven-
tional, and toxic pollutants. Best available
technology requirements in existing law
will still generally apply to toxic and non-
conventional pollutants, while a new level
of treatment called "best conventional
technology" is created to deal with con-
ventional pollutants.
In creating this new level of treatment,
which is somewhere between best practi-
cable and best available treatment,
Congress determined that for conventional
pollutant discharges, best available con-
trol may require an unreasonable degree
of treatment. In order to reduce the 1 983
requirements in these cases, effluent guide-
lines for specified conventional pollutants
are to be written to reflect a new level of
treatment reflecting continued progress
beyond what has already been achieved.
Congress has recognized that toxic sub-
stances have become the most serious
water pollution problem in recent years.
The 1 977 Act strengthens EPA's authority
to control toxic pollutants by:
• requiring industry to meet best available
technology standards for specified toxic
pollutants by July 1, 1984. This action
codifies EPA's existing toxics policy;
• requiring compliance with best available
technology standards for newly listed
toxics within three years. The process of
adding a toxic pollutant to the toxics list
has been simplified.
The new non-conventional pollutant
category created by the 1977 Act will in-
clude all those pollutants which have yet
to be determined either toxic or conven-
tional. Industry has been given until 1987
to comply with the best available tech-
nology requirement for non-conventional
pollutants. However, waivers from best
available technology can be obtained if
industry can provide proof that such
non-conventional pollutants wilt not inter-
fere with the attainment or maintenance of
the national water quality standard, that is,
water quality assuring protection of public
water supplies, and the protection and
propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow rec-
reational activities, in and on the water.
Congress has given the Environmental
Protection Agency further control over
non-conventional pollutants suspected of
toxicity by recognizing its responsibility
to assure that such pollutants do not pose
an "unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment. . . ."
The second major change affecting
industrial compliance within the Clean
Water Act of 1977 is the additional time
given to meet the 1977 requirements for
best practicable technology.
An extended deadline of April 1, 1979,
is established for those industries acting
in "good faith" in trying to comply with the
July 1, 1977, deadline. However, as many
as half of those who have failed to comply
with pollution requirements may have done
so because of a lack of good faith or a
Continued on page 36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
fee. They offer •
this niurl; misunderstood new l
-------
Protecting
the
Integrity of
U.S. Water
An Interview With
Thomas C. Jorling,
Assistant Administrator
for Water and
Hazardous Materials.
This interview was conducted
by Charles Rogers, Public
A wareness Associate Director
for Water and Hazardous Mate-
rials; Truman Temple, Associ-
ate Editor, and John Heritage,
Assistant Editor, EPA Journal.
You administer what
has been called the Na-
tion's largest public
works program, helping
build sewage treatment
works. What is this pro-
gram's future?
It is accurately described as
the largest public assistance
program presently administered
by any Federal agency. We are
now spending more Federal
dollars per year than the high-
way program or the traditional
public works activities of the
Corps of Engineers. So, in that
sense we are the largest. But I
would emphasize it is public
assistance rather than public
works.
The future of the program is
more sound and secure now
than it has been. The President
has given it a 10-year commit-
ment. Congress, in the
Clean Water Act of 1977, gave
five years of authorization and
I think it is safe to say that the
necessary budget should fol-
low. There are still some un-
certainties that we can never
avoid, but the political support
for the program looks secure.
This encouraging outlook
depends, however, on the way
we manage the program. The
only way we can make a special
claim on the taxpayer's dollar, a
claim be ing won over a long
period of time, is to assure the
public that the dollars are being
used fora special objective,
namely, environmental protec-
tion. If the program is not man-
aged to carry out that primary
purpose, then we will lose sup-
port very, very quickly. If it
becomes nothing but an eco-
nomic development effort, we
should lose public and political
support. There would be many
better vehicles for that kind of
program than building waste
treatment plants.
What role do you see for
land treatment of muni-
cipal waste water?
Congress and the Adminis-
trator of this Agency are of one
mind in this. Alternatives such
as land treatment are to be
given increased opportunity.
But we are trying to overcome
a lot of difficuities in pushing
this policy, which was set by
the 1972 and 1977 changes in
the water quality law.
Municipal waste in its pres-
ent form contains a very high
level of nutrients and other
valuable materials. These re-
souces can be used very effec-
tively in agriculture and silvi-
culture. Our objective is to use
these materials in such produc-
tive ways.
We are, however, overcom-
ing a long tradition in sanitary
engineering that runs contrary
tothatnotion.Wea re also run-
ning counter to the perception
in our society that human waste
is evil. That is a relatively new
phenomenon associated with
urbanization more than anything
else.
It is very difficult to deal
with. Americans are subjected
daily to a barrage of sugges-
tions that dirt is bad and any-
thing that smells is bad. On
TV, the evil of germs is given a
special significance. Bad odor
also takes on special signifi-
cance. The public has come to
view anything associated with
waste as bad.
We have to overcome this
attitude if we are to reuse
municipal wastes in productive
systems on a large scale. Fifty
years ago most people had
experience with rural agricul-
tural systems where waste
material reuse was a routine
matter—and still is. We have to
go back to the basics and back
to the roots. We have to re-
introduce in the public con-
sciousness the idea that
wastes can and should be
recycled.
There are some other diffi-
culties that are also a function
of urbanization, namely the
many synthetic chemicals in
waste streams. Heavy metals
and synthetic or persistent
organics are in municipal waste
systems and we must remove
them if we are to utilize the
water and nutrients effectivefy
in agriculture.
That is why we are placing
so much emphasis on the re-
moval of toxic pollutants at the
source, in the water program as
well as in other programs within
the Agency. We want to utilize
the beneficial materials in the
waste stream, while at the same
time protecting public health
and the environment from the
effects of these new chemicals
that flow from our industrial
society.
Is the United States a
world leader in the
technology of
wastewater treatment?
Wearea lea derint he appli-
cation of conventional technol-
ogy. Consider the number of
population centers where we
have used various forms of
treatment. But other nations
have achieved a great deal in
alternative technologies and we
are learning a lot from them. It
is important that we keep ex-
changes and interchanges like
those we have with the Soviet
Union and Japan. Another ex-
ample is our efforts regarding
some of the Australian land
treatment systems. We want to
help improve the rate of devel-
opment and transfer of their
knowledge. We also want to
help in the application of these
technologies as they are real-
ized. That's where this Nation's
genius is.
Take another technology—
water supply. Here, we will
learn a great deal more from
the Europeans than we will
teach them. Their use of acti-
vated carbon in water treatment
is much further advanced, espe-
cially on a large scale, than in
the United States. So there are
others that are further ahead in
some elements of life support
technology.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Did the Australians
pioneer in land treatment?
Everybody was a pioneer.
Land treatment was common a
hundred years ago. Then with
urbanization of the type we
have experienced, it went into
disfavor. I thirvk now we are
among the leaders in the devel-
opment of land treatment sys-
tems. The Muskegon, Michigan,
system—for a large, joint mu-
nicipal-industrial system—is
probably the finest designed
and operated system anywhere.
It is visited by people from all
over the world.
So we are on the leading
edge of land treatment. The
thing that the Melbourne, Aus-
tralia, experience gives us is an
opportunity to review what 1 80
years of continuous land treat-
ment to soil does. It doesn't, in
fact, build up toxic concentra-
tions of heavy metals, syn-
thetics or persistent organics
in the soil.
Are you comfortable with
the 1977changes in the
clean water law ?
The general answer to the
question is, yes. The water
quality law was left basically
intact by Congress in the 1 977
Amendments. In fact, the exist-
ing statute was supported
strongly. So we feel that in
most respects, through the
municipal program, the plan-
ning elements of the program,
industrial regulations, and wet-
lands protection, the law is
intact.
Also, many things have been
changed to improve the law's
administrative character and
we are now in a very strong
position to go forward for the
next four or five years with
aggressive implementation.
We received some new author-
ities that we requested. There
were some clarifications made.
Most of the controversial polit-
ical issues were resolved, very
favorably.
Some issues—such as user
charges, reserve capacity and
conservation amendments—
caused some change contrary
to Administration positions.
But the changes were not so
contrary that we cannot make
the program work very effec-
tively. So, we are very pleased
with the outcome.
Did the 1977 Amend-
ments uphold the clean
water objectives set by
Congress in 1972?
!n all respects, yes. All of the
policies, from the protection
of the integrity of the water to
the elimination of discharge,
were upheld and continue to be
very operational policies and
goals.
These policies are beginning
to produce some real change.
We now have zero discharge
limits set for 35 industrial
subcategories. We expect that
in the next few years,
increasing numbers will be
meeting the zero
discharge limitation. We
won't achieve zero discharge
for all subcategories by 1985,
as the goal projects. But we
are making some substantial
changes in the way industrial
engineers and industrial ex-
ecutives are focusing on their
processes, and that's going to
cause very significant change
over the next decade.
So we see the policies and
goals of the 1972 Act being
supported by Congress, and in
fact, producing change out
there on the landscape.
Could you explain the
significance of biological
integrity of the water as a
Congressionaf goal?
Biological integrity is a policy
that recognizes the key role
that water plays in the planet's
life support system, not just
for human beings, but for all
creatures. If the biosphere is to
be secure and we are to avoid
markedly reducing the capacity
of the life supports, the most
prudent policy is to keep the
water system in condition to
carry out its part.
In the debate over drink-
ing water standards, are
major compromises
needed?
We certainly have struck a
very sensitive nerve with the
proposed organics regulations.
In our hearings on them, I
think it is safe to say that the
water utilities are generally
opposed to the regulations in
their present form. The utilities
are opposed on a number of
grounds. First is cost. Second
is the uncertainty with respect
to the need to protect public
health and welfare from ex-
posure to organic chemicals in
drinking water. Third is the
uncertainty surrounding car-
bon technology. And there are
variations on these three
themes.
We are not sure yet whether
the proposal will require modi-
fication before it is promul-
gated. There are some areas in
which we do have concerns
and unless we can address
those concerns satisfactorily,
some adjustment will be re-
quired. It is clear that the routes
by which people are exposed
to organic chemicals are in-
creasing. In the many areas of
the country that draw their
water supply from rivers con-
taminated with organics, the
public must be protected from
excessive exposure.
This is another question
related to the 1977 Amend-
ments. Did they weaken
or strengthen the cleanup
requirements of industry?
They significantly strengthened
the requirements. Though the
1972 Act supported a regula-
tory focus on specific chemi-
cals, this approach had not
been implemented by our
Agency, With the consent de-
cree that EPA entered into with
the Natural Resources Defense
Council, we began to shift to
the focus called for in 1972,
namely specific control over
specific chemicals. In the 1977
Act, Congress gave that pro-
gram a firmer legislative under-
pinning. Congress said loud and
clear, "Control specific toxic
chemicals in the industrial
waste stream. Do that in a very
aggressive way and when you
do it, industry must comply."
That latter point is very
significant. Under the 1972
Act, when a Best Available
Technology standard was
written, an industry source
could seek a variance of two
sorts. It could seek one on the
grounds that it was economi-
cally unable to meet the stand-
ard. Secondly, it could ask for
a variance on the basis that
actual environmental circum-
stances did not require that
level of control for the facility.
In the 1977 Act, these two
procedures were taken away
from industry. The effect is that
when we write our Best Avail-
able Technology standards for
toxic pollutants over the next
1 8 months, industry must com-
ply. Although the date of com-
pliance has been extended from
1983 to 1984, industry must
control the discharge of those
pollutants at the specified level.
There is no provision for a
variance. That provides us with
a tremendously improved regu-
latory structure, which will
produce great dividends in
removing those materials from
release into the environment.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
-------
What are some other
issues that you see as
critical in water quality?
What about the status of
effluent guidelines and
discharge permits?
The greatest difficulties con-
cern our structure for regulat-
ing point sources of pollutants.
How do we incorporate into
that structure all the pertinent
authorities, some that are within
the Office of Water and Hazard-
ous Materials and some from
elsewhere in the Agency? It
requires new conceptual tools,
new management tools. This
job of effectively integrating
our regulatory authorities is
goingtotaxusasanAgency.
We have authority to set
control requirements on point
sources of pollution discharge.
We have authority to set best
management practices to stop
pollutants from reaching the
water through routes other than
pipes. We have authority under
the Resource Recovery Act to
manage and control all hazard-
ous wastes. Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act we have
authority to protect the ground-
water by controlling the injec-
tion of chemicals into subsur-
face areas. We have authority
to set spill prevention plans to
avoid the discharge of oil and
hazardous materials.
We have this large volume of
authority. A lot of our efforts
and resources will be spent
over the next four or five years
to bring these programs to bear
in a coordinated, cost-effective
way on each site where pollu-
tants could be released into the
environment.
The challenge is similar in
the planning area. We have
authority under the Clean Water
Act to do planning. There's
planning authority under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Resource Recovery Act, and the
Clean Air Act. We will try to
bring these authorities together
as a single environmental man-
agement planning effort. That
takes a great deal of skill in
management and execution.
Each statute has a different
orientation, a slightly different
set of procedures, and our task
is to bring these massive author-
ities to bear on an integrated
basis.
It can be done. The work of
the Association of Bay Area
Governments is one example of
environmenta! management
planning. All environmental
planning was done at the same
time, in a single exercise. The
San Francisco Bay area ap-
proach has been very contro-
versial but it is very necessary.
We'll see that kind of principle
applied more widely across the
country over the next few years.
As far as other issues, in the
industrial area we can expect
tremendous strides in process
change. The basic outcome will
be to reduce the release of
materials into the environment.
There are already some exciting
developments. For instance,
Dow Chemical and Allied
Chemical have both adopted,
as corporate policy, the elimina-
tion of discharge of pollutants.
Isn't EPA coming out
with a lot of new regu-
lations on water pollu-
tion?
We are proposing and promul-
gating many regulations. This
is the first effort to take the
1977 Amendments and trans-
late their legislative changes
into programs.
Recently we announced a
national strategy to control the
industrial discharge of harmful
wastes into municipal sewers.
Such discharges add heavily to
the toxic substances going into
the Nation's waters. About
50,000 industries are involved.
To start implementing the
strategy, we have issued
regulations to require the indus-
tries to pretreat their wastes
before discharging them into
municipal sewers.
In late April the Agency pub-
lished some rules for the
municipal waste treatment plant
construction program. Partly,
the aim is to discourage the
urban sprawl and reduce the
environmental probiems that
can be associated with large
municipal waste treatment
plants. Some of the rules were
effective immediately; others
were proposed.
Also in April we proposed a
regulation to set the terms
under which some coastal cities
could qualify for permits to
discharge into deep ocean
waters sewage that had re-
ceived less than secondary
treatment. These regulations
are in response to a Congres-
sional amendment to provide
some relief for certain coastal
cities. The burden of proof is
clearly on the applicants to
show that their discharge won't
adversely affect the marine
environment.
You observed EPA as a
Congressional staffer and
from an academic van-
tage point. What do you
think now that you're
inside?
I have been a critic of the
Agency and still am in some
respects. Some of the focus of
my criticism has shifted. Before
I came into the Agency, I was
very critical of the slowness of
the response to alternative
technology, such as land treat-
ment of waste water. It didn't
seem to be the kind of imple-
mentation of the '72 statute that
I thought was provided for.
There are some decisions that
were made in the Agency that
I was very critical of, such as
the Mahoning Valley steel
decision.
Coming into EPA, I have
become aware of the dimen-
sions of what it takes to get a
decision out. There are the
hurdles, the procedural steps,
the time it takes. All of these
have given me some new appre-
ciation of the capability of the
Agency to do the right thing. I
think EPA is the best staffed
and managed Agency in the
Federal Government. I've grown
to respect the degree of energy,
the resources, dollars, and the
commitment it takes to get a
task accomplished.
But I tend to be very frus-
trated by some obstacles as I
try to push decisions through.
One of the perplexing things,
from a political science vantage
point, is that government has
almost paralyzed itself with the
number of procedures that must
bo followed, the number of
interactions that must be taken,
the immense difficulty in doing
business. We have saddled
government officials with a
great deal that reduces their
ability to govern, to perform in
the public interest. That's a
problem that we're all going to
be facing and must deal with.
What is your main goal?
My main goal is to carry out the
tremendous amount of legisla-
tive authority that we presently
have available to us and to do
it as professionally as can be
performed in a Federal agency.
We have the authority to protect
the life support system. Now the
task is to take that authority
and do the job. That requires a
great deal of energy and com-
mitment from everyone in this
Agency. But the authority is
there, the mission is clear, the
mandate is strong, and I am
convinced that the Agency
possesses the capability as well
as the commitment. Q
EPAJOURNAL
-------
The Team Leaders
Four Deputy Assistant
Administrators help Thomas
Jorling run EPA's massive
effort for water quality, drinking
water, and solid waste
management. They are respon-
sible for a national program
of 2,383 employees and
$4.8 billion a year.
John T. Rhett, Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Water
Program Operations. Respon-
sible for EPA's multi-billion-
dollar construction grant pro-
gram. Has overall direction and
supervision of the Office of
Water Program Operations, in-
cluding the Divisions of Oil and
Special Materials Control, Mu-
nicipal Construction, and Mu-
nicipal Operations and Training.
Before coming to EPA, he was
a colonel in the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. He had
served asthe Chief of the Engi-
neering Division of the U.S.
Army Construction Agency in
Vietnam, District Engineer of
the Louisville Engineering Dis-
trict, and Resident Member,
Board of Engineers for Rivers
and Harbors.
Victor J. Kimm, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Drinking Water. Responsible for
establishing a national program
to protect the public's water
supplies and carry out the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
including the setting of health
standards for drinking water.
Kimm has previously served as
the Deputy Director of the Office
of Planning and Evaluation in
EPA; a senior executive in the
Economic Devetopment Admin-
istration, U.S. Department of
Commerce; and a licensed Pro-
fessional Engineer working with
industrial waste treatment.
Steffen W. Plehn, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste. Responsible for
EPA's solid waste management
program, under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976. The program's aim is
to ensure the safe disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes. Conservation and re-
covery are additional goals,
with the Act providing incen-
tives and heip to communities
and the Federal Government.
Plehn has also been the Execu-
tive Assistant to the EPA Ad-
ministrator, Assistant Staff
Director with the Council on
Environmental Quality, a con-
sultant to the New England
Board of Higher Education, and
has served with the New Jersey
Department of Higher Educa-
tion and the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget.
Swep T. Davis, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Water Planning and Standards.
Responsibilities include devel-
opment of water quality criteria
and standards, supervision of
water monitoring, program di-
rection for State and areawide
management of water quality,
development of effluent limits
for industry, and management
of EPA's dredge and fill dis-
posal program. Davis has also
served as the Director of the
Office of Analysis and Evalua-
tion in the Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, worked
in the Office of Planning and
Evaluation, and as a consultant
fora nonprofit public policy
consulting firm.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
-------
The
Mounting
Sludge
Pile
By John Heritage
Sewage sludge, Is it poison or biack gold?
Few pretend to have a simple answer
to that riddle. But meanwhile, sludge, the
residue left after treatment of sewage, is
mounting. The Nation's production of five
million dry tons of municipal sludge a year
is expected to double by 1990.
Says EPA Administrator Douglas Costle:
"This could give us all a massive environ-
mental headache if we don't begin to apply
ourselves to its solution now."
The Department of Environmental Serv-
ices in the District of Columbia already has
a headache. In a letter to President Carter,
a local elected official charged that the
Department "is in process of constructing
a nuclear bomb of raw sewage at the Oxon
•X *,*
• •
-------
Cove point." The site is being considered
for the composting of sludge from the
nearby Blue Plains sewage treatment plant.
"This time bomb, which is germ war-
fare, threatens the lives of every human
being in this community and in Washing-
ton, D.C.," said the letter writer, Commis-
sioner Maxine Sutton of an advisory neigh-
borhood commission. The heart of her
concern was high counts of a fungus, A.
fumigatus, found in a test composting
project which processes Blue Plains sludge.
Rebutting the charge was Dr. Leanor D.
Haley, chief, Mycology Training Branch,
Center for Disease Control, U.S. Public
Health Service. "I cannot believe that the
high spore count for A. fumigatus at the
compost site is an actual health hazard for
the community of the D.C. Village munici-
pal home for the aged and the surrounding
residential areas," the scientist said in a
letter to the EPA Health Effects Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati.
Recently, a federal judge ordered the
District of Columbia to build a sludge treat-
ment facility. It is to operate temporarily,
for a year starting Feb. 15, 1979. The fa-
cility would be on a Blue Plains site in-
tended for denitrification, a waste water
treatment method. City officials say they
intend to appeal the decision.
In another region the Metropolitan Sani-
tary District of Greater Chicago has a head-
ache too, ironically because it has been
recycling sludge.
The Sanitary District, with one of the
largest wastewater treatment systems in
the country, recycles most of its sludge.
Last year, about 614 dry tons a day was
distributed for reuse, 71 percent of the
total.
Like all municipal sludge, the material
has valuable plant nutrients such as nitro-
gen and phosphorus.
In 1977, some 1 63 tons of the District's
sludge were used daily in southwest Illinois
to reclaim strip-mined land and grow a
50,000-bushel corn crop. About 320 tons
were given away as a product called Nu
Earth. It was used for home vegetable
gardens, golf courses, parks, cemeteries,
and even nurseries. Some 131 tons were
sold out-of-State for uses such as fertilizer
in Florida citrus groves.
For nearly 40 years, the Sanitary District
has been recycling. Economically, environ-
mentally, it has seemed right.
But then came rising national concerns
about cadmium—a heavy metal that can
cause kidney disease and possibly cancer.
The Chicago District's sludge has relatively
high levels of the metal, raising questions
about some of the recycling practices.
When sludge is used to produce certain
crops in the food chain, its cadmium can be
(John Heritage is an A ssistant Editor of
EPA Journal.)
A composting operation
Camden, N.J.. <, .stopped
dumping sludge in ti
by EPA Region 2 officials. Richard T.
Dewling, Region 2 Deputy Regional Ad-
ministrator. ins|,» .9 pile.
:ccornpanied by Eric Cutwater, spe-
cial assistant to the Regional Administrator.
and Charles Hoffman, (rear). Region 2 staff
attorney. The composting project is de-
signed to turn 65.000 tons of slut:;
nually into a soil conditioner for land-
scaping and other non-agricultura'
This program is being financed jointly by
EPA, Camden. the New Jersey Depart
of Environmental Protection and RuU;
University.
taken up by parts of the plants and passed
along to humans as the food is eaten.
Then EPA recently drew attention to an-
other troublesome compound in some of
the Chicago sludge—PCB's. These sub-
stances—poly chlorinated biphenyls—have
been implicated in cancer and birth defects.
Also found in EPA tests were polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are
suspected cancer-causing agents.
Meanwhile, EPA is writing regulations
that will affect the land disposal of sewage
sludge. Up to now, EPA's pollution control
regulations have covered the air and the
water, but not the land, where the Chicago
District recycles its sludge.
"If the regulations prohibit us from
recycling, and air pollution controls prohibit
us from burning it, what do we do with it?"
asks Bart Lynam, general superintendent of
the District. Lynam says he is optimistic
that the final regulations will allow the
Sanitary District to continue to recycle
sludge.
The District is making adjustments
though, including a temporary halt to the
giveaway of sludge for home garden use,
pending the EPA regulations. Many scien-
tists feel that the riskiest sludge use is for
raising home-grown vegetables. Citizens
for a Better Environment, a Chicago-based
group, has charged that Nu Earth endangers
public health.
Washington and Chicago aren't alone.
The sludge dilemma is nationwide, as the
clean water program produces more and
more sludge and as debates flare over
possible health effects.
The plight is worse in the big cities.
There, the bulk of the country's sludge is
generated. There, the problem is made
tougher by land shortages, air pollution
which mr •' already exceed the limits, con-
flicts between jurisdictions, and toxic mate-
rials from industry and urban runoff.
Coastal cities dumping their sludge at
sea face the added pressure of a Congres-
sionally-directed halt by 1981. Ocean
dumping is about 1 5 percent of the Nation's
municipal sludge total.
With the regulations they are writing
now, however, EPA officials see hope of
resolving the sludge dilemma. First, by
controlling disposal on land, EPA will be
closing the last avenue of sludge pollution.
It has been a step-by-step process.
Sludge pollution of surface waters was
regulated under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. Sludge burning was regu-
lated under the Clean Air Act. The ocean
dumping is to be stopped under the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Now sludge disposal on land will be regu-
lated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and last year's Clean Water
Act Amendments.
The land controls are "intended to help
us close the circle and get off the merry-go-
round," said Thomas Jorling, Assistant
Administrator for Water and Hazardous
Materials. Without restraints in every part
of the environment, sludge and other
wastes have been passed back and forth,
extracted from waste water for disposal on
land and shipped from land for dumping
at sea.
No form of sludge disposal is free from
dangers. While land treatment has its prob-
lems, dumping at sea threatens marine
ecology and human health. Sludge burning
poses risks due to hydrocarbons and high
levels of metal in particulates.
The next big question is how to handle
sludge when the material can no longer be
dumped or recycled anywhere without con-
trols. The challenge is to find a regulatory
formula that permits recycling that is safe.
Without answers, headaches will continue
at Chicago's Sanitary District and for other
municipal sludge handlers.
EPA is meeting the issue directly, says
Jorling. It is giving first priority to control
of the most toxic wastes, which may in-
clude some sludge. "We believe we are
moving first to protect the public health and
welfare. .
JULY/AUGUST 1978
11
-------
Recycling will benefit, Jorling says. The
pressure for safe waste management will
"drive the process toward resource recov-
ery and conservation options."
EPA is writing two sets of regulations
that may affect sludge.
The first will tightly control hazardous
wastes f-rom generation to final disposal.
Some highly contaminated municipal
sludge may be included. The regulations
probably won't be issued before late this
year.
The second set of regulations will cover
the remaining wastes that are not hazard-
ous. Acceptable disposal practices will be
set for sludge and other solid wastes.
These controls should be final around the
end of this year.
Included are proposed criteria regarding
sludge's impact on surface water, ground-
water, air, control of disease vectors,
safety, and protection of wetlands and
other ecologically sensitive areas. Sludge
use on land for food-chain crops would
have to meet additional criteria on cad-
mium, pathogens, pesticides and persistent
organics, and still other concerns.
(Regulations to cover the giveaway or
sale of sludge for industrial, commercial,
and residential use are expected to be
proposed this fall.)
In another step, aimed at controlling toxi-
cants and heavy metals in municipal
sludge, EPA recently issued rules to
require pretreatment of industrial dis-
charges into publicly-owned treatment sys-
tems. When the regulations are fully im-
plemented, sludge from municipal systems
will contain far less hazardous residue.
The key questions the regulators are
addressing: At what level is sludge too
contaminated to use in the production of
food chain crops? What technologies can
reduce the environmental risk of sludge to
acceptable levels? How much will such
control cost?
The issue that has raised the most con-
cern is the potential impact of adding some
cadmium to Americans' food intake through
sludge recycling. Already, officials at the
Food and Drug Administration fear that
cadmium in the U.S. diet is approaching
maximum safe levels. A World Health
Organization guideline is being used as the
measure.
The cadmium question is complicated.
Human exposure to the heavy metal de-
pends on where the sludge is used and for
what purpose. If it is applied as a fertilizer
to grow certain food-chain crops, its cad-
mium can ultimately be consumed by
humans. When sludge is used on golf
courses and other noncrop areas, human
exposure is greatly reduced.
The amount of cadmium in sludge varies
too. In one city, the level may be high,
because many industries with heavy metals
in their wastes are discharging into the sew-
age system. In another city, the count may
be lower, because there are few if any
discharging industries.
Because of such differences, EPA's
regulation writers have a ticklish job. If
the cadmium limit is set too high, it could
cause health problems. If it is set at too
low a level, some sludge uses may be
widely prohibited.
With the unknowns and uncertainties, a
Steam rises from a composting sludge pile
that is being mechanically mixed with wood
chips at a site run by the Maryland Environ •
mental Service.
key question emerges: How much risk can
be taken?
Regulators might set a policy attempting
to eliminate all risks to health in the man-
agement of sludge. But because there are
unsettled questions about health dangers,
there would inevitably be some risks. The
result? Under the "no risk" policy, no
sludge disposal would be possible.
Instead, a policy might be set allowing
minimum risk in sludge use. This would
allow land application, but with controls
designed to keep down health risks and
environmental damage.
Two schools of thought have emerged in
the risk question.
On one side are many operators of
municipal wastewater treatment plants.
They believe that spreading sludge on the
land should be encouraged. A costly waste
can be put to a beneficial use, and it isn't
clear there are health dangers, they
contend.
On the other side are some environmen-
tal and health-oriented groups. They be-
lieve land application should be restricted,
even if the evidence on the seriousness of
the health effects is unclear.
In this complex situation, EPA's success
will depend on its ability "to find the opti-
mum balance" between risks, costs, and
benefits, declared Bruce Weddle, head of
the Agency's Sludge Strategy Working
Group.
But preventive measures are also
needed, added Administrator Costle. They
would remove some of the stumbling
blocks to the beneficial use of sludge.
"Foremost among our priorities is the
removal of toxics and other harmful pol-
lutants from the waste stream or, even
better, preventing their entrance in the first
place," the Administrator said.
"We can then use the resulting sludge
in environmentally productive ways with-
out fear of contaminating the soil, our water
supplies, or crops," he continued.
Industry pretreatment of wastes is one
key preventive step. This cleanup-in-
advance reduces the buildup in sludge of
heavy metals from industry discharges.
In addition to its recently-issued pretreat-
ment regulations, EPA is preparing specific
limits to control 65 toxic pollutants from
industrial wastes.
In turn, the pretreated wastes may be
recycled. Some industries are finding they
can save money by reusing their wastes.
Nickel and chrome are sometimes recov-
ered and reused for electroplating. Other
industries may find uses for materials from
an industry's pretreated wastes.
Along with new regulations on land dis-
posal and pretreatment, EPA is working in
other ways to resolve the controversies and
make sludge a useful, acceptable material.
The effort is strengthened by the Agency's
high priority for recycling and reclamation.
Continued on page 37
12
JULY/AUGUST 1978
-------
Environmental Almanac: July/August 1978
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
River Magic
Now ccfmes the time of year when the pleasures of water
are fulfilled.
On the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, breakers roll in and
swimmers shout excitedly as they prepare to dive under or
jump through the ascending wall of water about to boom on
sandy beaches.
As the foaming tide recedes back into the sea, toddlers
run to splash in replenished tidal pools. Older children
scramble down the beach with their rubber mats and surf
boards to catch the curl of the next incoming wave.
Yet while the gifts of the seashore will always be
cherished, millions of people find their summer enjoyment
in swimming, fishing and boating in creeks, lakes and rivers.
The lure of clean natural waters pulls people past "no
trespassing" signs, deafens them to warnings of danger,
and fortifies them against such annoyances as gnats, mos-
quitoes, and poison ivy.
The explanation is simple. Most rivers are enchanted.
While some, like the Potomac, are lazy in their tidal sec-
tions, in their upper reaches they are usually lissome,
frolicsome, beguiling and irresistible.
An easy way to find out al;out river magic is to take the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal along the Potomac. The canal
tow path travels through a great outdoor cathedral lit by
dappled sunshine filtering through towering sycamores,
elms and oaks, festooned with great looping wild grape
vines.
Sanderlings, small birds noted for their rocking gait,
totter along the river bank. Muskrats can occasionally be
seen furtively swimming in the shadows. Canary yellow
goldfinches flit by on one of their roller coaster flights.
The river, sometimes languid but more often feisty,
splashes over its rocky bed and provides hundreds of pools
and sheltered areas where swimmers bathe along the shores.
Below the junction of the Potomac and the Shenandoah
Rivers at Harpers Ferry excited adventurers jammed in
large rubber rafts suddenly appear, swirl downstream, and
bounce through a series of rapids before landing in calm
water again.
These are some of a growing number of people who
shatter the monotony of their daily lives by taking a guided
river voyage.
Elsewhere around the Nation white water enthusiasts are
canoeing, kayaking, or riding rubber tubes in turbulent
stretches of such rivers as the Snake and Rogue in Oregon,
the Snoqualmie in Washington State, the Chattahoochee in
Georgia, and the Youghiogheny in Maryland.
The laughter of swimmers can be heard above the Buf-
falo River in Arkansas, Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hamp-
shire, and the Pedernales River in Texas.
Each summer fishermen explore the waterways in their
area with fresh hope of a mammoth catch. At night camp
fires often flicker along stream and river banks as some con-
tinue their quest long into darkness.
Many of us have fond memories of quiet river scenes—of
a heron suddenly rising from a green marsh, of sailboats
gently knocking against a wooden wharf in choppy water,
and of evening cruises with fireflies sparkling in the night.
The timeless appeal of peaceful river life was captured by
Mark Twain in the following comment by Huckleberry Finn
about a raft trip down the Mississippi River:
"We catched fish and talked, and we took a swim now
and then to keep off sleepiness. It was kind of solemn,
drifting down the big, still river, laying on our backs looking
up at the stars, and we didn't ever feel like talking loud, and
it warn't often that we laughed—only a little kind of a low
chuckle. We had mighty good weather as a general thing,
and nothing ever happened to us at all."—C.D.P.
-------
14
EPAJOURNAl
-------
Around noon on April 1 5,
1 977, a two-engined plane
bearing State of Kentucky in-
signia landed at Pensacola
Municipal Airport in Florida and
taxied up to Hangar Number
One, where private planes are
housed.
The two pilots carried three
cardboard boxes inside and
signed a log sheet with Patrick
W. Borthwick, an EPA research
biologist, establishing that cus-
tody of the boxes had been
transferred.
Borthwick quickly loaded the
boxes into the trunk of his gov-
ernment-owned sedan and
drove south through the City
of Pensacola and across a
causeway to Gulf Breeze where
EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory is located. A magno-
lia at the entrance to the lab
was bursting into bloom.
Borthwick had no time to
admire the setting, however,
for this was an emergency. In-
side the boxes were gallon jars
containing samples of sludge
that had made 32 workers ill at
a Louisville, Ky., municipal
sewage treatment plant.
Mystery hung over the whole
episode. What was in the
sludge? How did it get there?
And what would be the best
way to dispose of the stuff—
dump it at sea, incinerate it
aboard a special ship, or place
it in some special landfill?
Scientists at the Gulf Breeze
facility began work at 2:30 p.m.
the same day to test the evil-
looking substance. Since the
U.S. Public Health Service al-
ready had warned that the
sludge was a Class D poison,
capable of releasing both phos-
gene gas and hydrochloric acid
under certain conditions, the
workers drew off samples in the
open air outside the lab.
"It looked very dark, like sus-
pended motor oil from a car
crankcase," Borthwick said
afterwards. "We took rather
elaborate precautions with it."
In the next few days the Gulf
Breeze staff ran a series of bio-
assays, using live marine orga-
nisms to test the potency of
the sludge. Since their primary
mission was to find whether the
EPA employees seine for
shrimp near Pensacola, Fla.
Their catch will be tested for
PCB's.
poison could be disposed of at
sea, they poured small quanti-
ties of it into various tanks of
seawater containing five kinds
of sea life: mysid and grass
shrimp, sheepshead minnows,
tiny crustaceans known as
copepods, and microscopic
algae called diatoms.
The sludge was indeed toxic
to marine life. Tests showed
the mysterious substance was
fatal to half of all the copepods
in a concentration of 25 parts
per million of sea water. In
other words, one drop of it in
half a gallon of sea water would
kill 50 percent of this test spe-
cies. In larger quantities it was
also deadly to numbers of the
other sea life.
In addition, researchers con-
cluded the sludge contained
substances that would bioaccu-
mulate in marine life, a threat to
the food chain involving larger
fish including those caught for
the marketplace.
Within two weeks an anal-
ysis and report were on the desk
of the Administrator for Region
4. Based on these and other
findings by EPA scientists at
the Athens, Ga., laboratory,
it was decided that at-sea dis-
posal of the sludge was an
unsafe method to use. In the
meantime, investigators came
up with an explanation for the
mystery: The driver of a truck
was charged in Louisville with
illegally dumping two potent
poison wastes, hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene and octa-
chlorocyclopentene, into the
city's sewage system, and the
chemicals eventually flowed
into the treatment plant where
they made workers ill.
In a letter of commendation
to the Gulf Breeze iaboratory,
the Regional office compliment-
ed the staff for its prompt
response in a potentially grave
public health problem.
The episode illustrates the
ability of the Gulf Breeze lab-
oratory to examine toxic mate-
ials using marine organisms. It
is on^ of three EPA laboratories
that at any given moment can
provide a broad range of sen-
sitive aquatic animal and plant
species for so-called bioassay
or "live" tests of poisonous
substances. (The other two
laboratories are at Narragan-
sett, R.I. and Duluth, Minn.)
By gathering these species
from surrounding bays and
lagoons and keeping them alive
in special holding tanks for
tests, scientists have been able
to study in the laboratory the
way marine life would react in
nature to suspected poisons
that may be contained in pesti-
cides, or other chemical com-
pounds released to the environ-
ment.
The Gulf Breeze laboratory
is located on a small promon-
tory, shaped somewhat like a
tennis racket, looking north
across Pensacola Bay to the
city made famous by genera-
tions of Naval fliers and Holly-
wood films.
The visitor approaches
across a narrow bridge to the
1 5-acre site, known as Sabine
Island, which reputedly was
created in 1 876 by ballast
dropped from ships. Sabine
Island is truly international; the
ballast includes 60 different
kinds of rocks including Medi-
terranean coral and broken red
roof tife that apparently came
from Marseille.
The headquarters for the EPA
facility originally was built at
the turn of the century as a
quarantine station. Its low pro-
file and Gulf Coast hipped-roof
cottage shape are designed to
cope with the occasional hur-
ricanes that sweep over the
area, and its long verandah and
white open railings serve to
catch the Gulf breezes and keep
occupants shaded in the hot
months.
By 1925 the quarantine sta-
tion had outlived its usefulness
and it was abandoned by the
Treasury Department. How-
ever, it enjoyed a renaissance
in 1937 when the Commerce
Department's Bureau of Fish-
eries converted it to a marine
laboratory serving the Gulf
fishing industry. The facility
changed hands again in 1948
and became part of Interior's
Fish and Wildlife Service until
1 970 when it came under EPA
jurisdiction.
Continued on page 38
Truman Temple is A ssociate
Editor of EPA Journal
Aquatic
Research
on the
Gulf
By Truman Temple
JULY/AUGUST 1978
15
-------
Some years ago a landowner
in Massachusetts was told
by the Federal Housing Admin-
istration that his land along the
Nashua River had "no value"
because the river was so pol-
luted.
Much of the land along the
rivers and lakes of the Nation
had been kept from residential
or industrial development pre-
cisely because these water bod-
ies were so foul and unpleasant
that no one wanted to locate
near them.
Congress responded to the
public call for action by enact-
ing sweeping amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in 1972, which set
Sharon Francis is a special
assistant for public participa-
tion to the EPA Administrator.
This article is excerpted from a
booklet that she co-authored
with Richard DeSanti, a con-
sultant. The book, "Opportuni-
ties For Water Cleanup and the
Land" will be published by EPA
late in 1978.
Who Will
Inherit the
Clean
Water?
a goal of waters clean enough
for fishing and swimming by
1983. New amendments incor-
porated in the Clean Water Act
of 1977 provided additional
funding and guidance to con-
tinue the cleanup of the Nation's
waters.
This landmark legislation
carries economic as well as
health benefits. As rivers and
lakes become more esthetically
pleasing, the land bordering
them will become more attrac-
tive for various types of devel-
opment. But without proper
planning, if the public is not
alert to the implications of
water cieanup, it could be de-
prived of access to areas that
have been improved through
Federal tax expenditures. In
other cases, careful planning is
necessary to prevent land use
from contributing to erosion,
runoff, or new discharges of
pollutants.
Land that lies along improv-
ing waterways can be protected
now, for the enjoyment of a
majority of Americans, through
Federal, State, and local open
space programs. Public money
allocated for recreation and
water cleanup programs can be
stretched through proper plan-
ning and imaginative ideas for
coordinating this spending.
Plans to achieve these goals
started at a Boston Conference
in 1975, sponsored by EPA,
the Department of the Interior,
and the Conservation Founda-
tion. The two Federal agencies
agreed to coordinate their ac-
tivities to get the most out of
both parks and antipollution
efforts in New England. EPA's
Boston office published a bro-
chure "Multiple Use of Waste
Treatment Facilities and Rights
of Way," alerted communities
to opportunities for recreational
development at water treatment
facilities, and held workshops
to acquaint engineers with mul-
tiple use designs. Interior and
EPA have since expanded their
cooperation nationwide.
There are four basic strate-
gies for obtaining the most from
each water cleanup dollar:
Multiple Use. Recreation
facilities can be developed with
wastewater treatment facilities.
For example a trail system can
be built along sewer lines and
boat launching ramps can be
set up on available land at a
treatment plant.
Joint Development. Water
treatment and recreation facili-
ties can be constructed simul-
taneously, for example, by
building a park around an artifi-
cial lake filled by clean water
from a treatment plant.
16
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Coordinated Acquisition.
State and Federal land pur-
chases can be synchronized
with pollution control schedules
so waterfront land is bought
before it becomes cleaner and
more expensive.
Greenways. Extensive corri-
dors of open space and recrea-
tion land can be developed
along waterways.
Communities that want to
obtain recreation and land use
benefits must operate within the
framework and deadlines of
laws set by Congress. Citizens
and officials must work together
to take advantage of opportuni-
ties. Environmental and hiking
groups, sports associations,
chambers of commerce, fishing
and hunting clubs, and commu-
nity service organizations can
encourage government officials
and the general public to define
priorities and ensure adequate
funding. Planning can take
place at many levels; local,
Sta'te, and Federal, depending
on the situation.
At whatever level action is
attempted, participants must
take these basic steps: deter-
mine the schedule for water
cleanup by examining the State
priority list for municipal waste-
water treatment funding or
consulting 208 planning agen-
cies; survey recreation and
open space opportunities along
waterways by taking field trips
and examining land use plans
and zoning maps; identify avail-
able public and private pro-
grams for land preservation,
and determine their require-
ments; match up the timetable
for water pollution control with
the opportunities for open space
and recreational land; find out
which land parcels should re-
ceive priority consideration;
and, finally, develop a plan of
action that can be implemented
by an organized constituency.
A fine example of coordi-
nated acquisition can be found
in Lowell, Mass., which suffered
from declining industry and a
deteriorating inner-city until it
developed the concept of an
"urban cultural park" to pump
new life and economy into the
city. The plan emphasizes the
location of the city on the Con-
cord and Merrimack Rivers and
its legacy of long brick mill
buildings and a network of
canals. The canals are being
restored, and undeveloped
banks of the rivers will be pro-
tected. The mill buildings are
being converted into offices and
shopping malls. Lowell's strate-
gic location offers it the poten-
tial of becoming an inland
boating center.
At the Tallmans Island
wastewater treatment plant in
Queens, New York, planners
purchased more land than was
immediately needed to allow
for future expansion. Instead of
will be one of the largest urban
park developments in the coun-
try. It will contain 1,350 acres
of parkland, six and a half miles
of lakes, and twenty miles of
trails. The project began back
in the 1930's when wastewater
effluent from the Lubbock treat-
ment plant was used to irrigate
local cropland. The percolation
of wastewater through the nat-
ural filter of farm soil built up
the water table, and local au-
thorities realized that this un-
derground resource made
further uses possible.
letting the land lie vacant they
used excavation material left
over from construction to land-
scape a park. A pier needed for
the docking of sludge barges
has been opened for fishing as
well. The engineering firm
worked with the New York City
Arts Commission on the design
of the treatment facility, and
with the Brooklyn Museum to
preserve artifacts found on the
site as sculptures in the park.
Joint development projects
are especially desirable where
water resources are scarce or
in areas where waterfront land
is limited. These projects re-
quire more substantial modifi-
cations by wastewater treat-
ment agencies and greater par-
ticipation by recreation agen-
cies. A clear understanding of
planning, design, financing,
construction, and management
responsibilities should be
worked out before the project
begins.
Joint development is being
used in the Yellowstone Can-
yon Lakes Project in Lubbock,
Texas, which when completed
Land for the park is being
acquired with the help of the
Department of the Interior and
the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Wastewater treatment plants
can also serve as a source of
environmental education. With
large numbers of people becom-
ing interested in treatment
processes as communities
across America act to control
their wastewater problems,
there is an increasing need to
incorporate educational oppor-
tunities into treatment plant
design. Some plants have or-
ganized tours led by staff people
at regular intervals. The Wash-
ington Suburban Sanitary Com-
mission has trained interested
citizens in the operation of its
plant in the Maryland suburbs.
These volunteers conduct a pro-
gram on a part-time basis.
In some cases educational
features can be built in during
construction that are less ex-
pensive to maintain and oper-
ate. The wastewater treatment
plant in Shenandoah National
Park in Virginia uses a series of
roadside signs to prepare visi-
tors for their self-guided tour of
the facilities.
Establishing a greenway is
the most comprehensive way to
take advantage of clean water
opportunities. A greenway is
ideally a continuous belt of
open space along a waterway,
with a network of trails and
occasional parks for recreation.
Many variations are possible.
For example, the greenway
could be limited to the width of
a trail in some areas or could be
a series of interrelated but
separate miniparks.
Greenways can be estab-
lished through easements or
land use restrictions, and can
even include commercial de-
velopment when the existing
character of the waterfront can-
not be changed.
A pioneering greenway ef-
fort has taken place on the
Nashua River in New Hamp-
shire and Massachusetts. Be-
ginning in 1969, the Nashua
River Cleanup Committee,
which had been working to im-
prove the water quality, evolved
into the Nashua River Water-
shed Association, dedicated to
cleaning up pollution and pre-
serving land along the river.
The Association has worked
to establish a belt of open space
at least 300 feet wide along the
river and its major tributaries.
So far 1,000 of the 4,300 acres
within the greenway have been
protected from development,
providing a 56-mile ribbon of
open field, forest, floodplain,
and marshland that contains
diverse wildlife habitats and
provides major esthetic en-
hancement. Other benefits to
the region include erosion pre-
vention, improved water qual-
ity, and fewer expenses for
flood control.
Taking advantage of green-
way opportunities will ensure
that the land uses along the
Nation's waterways contribute
to, rather than work against, the
goal of clean water. Waterway
recreation development can
provide economic benefits for
urban areas and ensure that the
benefits of Federal clean water
programs go not to a select few
but rather to all the citizens who
paid for those programs through
their taxes. D
JULY/AUGUST 1978
17
-------
How does one get a tradi-
tionally independent group
of people, the farmers, to
recognize the water quality
problems associated with
farming? An even tougher
question to deal with is, once
they recognize the problen,
how does one convince them
to voluntarily undertake effec-
tive, but sometimes costly con-
trol measures? These are but a
few of the difficult questions
that I faced when I became
Director of one of the Nation's
first 208 programs in New
Castle County, Delaware.
At that time, four years ago,
there was little guidance avail-
able. Initially in meeting the
objectives of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972,
EPA program leaders developed
a 208 program emphasizing
areas which had water quality
problems as a result of urban-
industrial concentration. Little
did they realize the eventual
major involvement the program
would have with the agricultural
community.
As head of the New Castle
County's Water Resource
Planning Division, I was well
aware of the point source
contributing to water pollution
from the existing urban-indus-
trial complex. New Castle
County, located in the middle
of the corridor between
Philadelphia and Washington, is
the site of major research
facilities for several chemical
corporations However, few
people recognize that a rural
intensive farming community
exists in Delaware. The southern
two-thirds of the three-county
State is economically dependent
upon its agricultural activities;
so much so that when one pro-
ceeds south of the Chesapeake-
Delaware Canal into the rural
section of New Castle County,
it is much like entering a
different realm. So different
in fact, that at times the resi-
dents have threatened to
secede from the county and
join the more agriculturally
oriented counties to the south.
Merna M. Hurd is Director of
EPA's Water Planning Division.
Prior to that she headed a
clean-water planning program
in New Castle County, Del.
Our first step was to evaluate
existing water quality and deter-
mine the various pollution
sources. We had previously
identified our point source
problem and had developed an
active program of constructing
and operating treatment
plants. Using the limited water
quality monitoring data we had
available, we were able to deter-
mine that agricultural runoff
was a major contributor to our
water pollution problem as well.
Further verification as to
the extent of this problem was
obtained through visual docu-
mentation. Tramping around the
county in boots with the Soil
Conservation Service District
Conservationist, my staff wit-
nessed the severe erosion
problems first hand. Sediment
control is one of the keys to
improved water quality. While
sediment alone causes water
quality problems, it also acts as
an agent in carrying fertilizers,
pesticides, and other chemical
hazards into waterways. The
Agricultural Extension agent,
who had been along on some
of the treks, stated the erosion
Planning
for Clean
Water
By Merna M. Hurd
problem was at the worst level
he had seen during his 30 years
with the county. He cited
Noxontown Pond as an example
of water quality deterioration.
Less than 10 years ago National
Geographic had run a photo
spread of Noxontown Pond as
an example of beauty in a small
pond. At the time, there was
very little development in the
basin. Later a private school
bought the surrounding land
and leased it to tenant farmers.
Today the pond is badly silted
and exhibits all the character-
istics of a eutrophic lake; ex-
cessive weed growth and algal
blooms. All this is a direct result
of erosion from farming.
I was surprised at the severity
of erosion problems on farm-
lands. With institutions such as
the Soil Conservation Service
and the National Association
of Conservation Districts
(NACD) why do these erosion
problems still exist? There are a
number of reasons. For example,
farmers now have increased
their farm holdings, and the
amount of cultivated acreage
is greater than in previous
years. In order for farmers to
remain self-supporting, they
have been forced to change
their agricultural methods. The
use of large machinery, the
development of continuous
row-cropping plus the economic
need for higher levels of pro-
ductivity all can potentially
lead to greater erosion. Even
if the farmer recognizes the
problem, he often sees it as a
long term non-productive cost
item in a competitive short-term
market.
NACD and SCS have for more
than thirty years been advocat-
ing increasingly sophisticated
and effective means of conser-
vation. Although participation
by farmers in the development
of soil conservation plans has
been high, there are insufficient
resources to provide cost
sharing for implementation of
these plans. Additionally, there
are not enough personnel to
spend an adequate amount of
time with each farmer. In New
Castle County alone, the Dis-
trict Conservationist is respon-
sible for 930 farms as well as
his other duties.
Absent landowners also con-
tribute to the problem. Their
interest in farmland is often
speculative. While waiting for
suburbanization to occur, they
often lease their land one year
at a time for farming. In these
cases, neither the landowner
nor the tenant farmer has any
incentive to protect the land.
Having grown up in Nebraska,
and having worked as a con-
sultant in the Midwest, I know
how independent farmers are.
I also appreciate their open,
honest, direct approach. We
determined early in our water
quality management program
that the best way to get our
water quality message across
was through the existing struc-
tures; NACD, Extension Service,
and SCS. We began to attend
meetings of farm groups where-
ever we could find them. Of
course, there was some initial
distrust. We were looked upon
as intruding into their business.
The south canal area has always
taken pride in being known as
'No-government man's land'.
With time our newly-found
communication channels started
paying off. We were able to
tell them what we were about
and they were more than will-
ing to share their general
opinions with us. We observed
their frustration over govern-
ment control, especially the
red tape and numerous forms
involved in the permit programs.
I knew we were making
progress when after one meet-
ing, a 70-year-old woman com-
continued on page 38
18
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Treatment
for Small
Communities
By Keith H. Dearth
Many of us grew up in
small towns where cess-
pools and septic systems had
made indoor bathrooms pos-
sible, in some areas soil condi-
tions, poor construction, or
lack of periodic maintenance
resulted in failures of these
systems with subsequent pollu-
tion of ground or surface waters
and health hazards.
In other communities along
the seashore, lake and river
fronts, or near farmlands, the
convenient disposal method
was the direct sewer outfall,
even more likely to produce
pollution and health problems.
Under the 1 972 Amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, grants have been
Keith Dearth is Chief, Assist-
ance and Review Section of the
Facilities Requirements
Branch, Municipal Construc-
tion Division, Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials.
used to help solve these nation-
wide problems. Unfortunately,
in some cases the costs to local
users of the new systems built
under this program have been
heavy. Often alternative meth-
ods of handling the waste water
were not considered adequately
in the planning stage.
In some instances, the local
share of costs has made the
payoff by the users extremely
difficult if not impossible. In
others, the new facilities have
been oversized and too sophis-
ticated, creating large and diffi-
cult operations for small, often
remote communities.
For over two years EPA has
been conducting a program to
eliminate these problems.
The Agency has learned that
some less densely populated
communities cannot afford the
costs of conventional sewer
and treatment facilities. More
economical, properly designed
septic and other on-site sys-
tems, constructed in adequate
soils and with suitable ground-
water conditions, if properly
operated and maintained, func-
tion very well almost indefi-
nitely. Very few failures have
been noted where conditions
are favorable and where cen-
tralized control of on-site sys-
tems is efficiently administered.
In other instances, areas
where on-site systems are not
environmentally acceptable or
do not meet the requirements
of the law may rely on piping
septic tank effluents by small-
diameter gravity or pressure
sewers. These small flow sys-
tems are eligible for grants and
are encouraged where appro-
priate. An example in Louisiana
is use of the individual home,
or cluster-unit fagoon to receive
piped septic tank effluent where
soil absorption beds will not
function.
Many small communities
can now satisfy Federal stand-
ards with such treatment ponds
or lagoons. The use of such
ponds, when combined with
land application of the effluent,
meets the zero discharge re-
quirement of EPA's program.
Let's take a look at some
examples of how lack of plan-
ning can bring excessive costs.
One location, "Community A,"
was informed as early as the
1930'sby the State health
authorities that privies, direct
outfalls, cesspools, and mal-
functioning septic systems
would have to be eliminated
for public health reasons and
because of contamination of
the large, beautiful lake nearby.
Over the years several engi-
neering studies were made but
sufficient funds to accomplish
the task were not available until
the 1972 Amendments on water
quality. Under this legislation a
75 percent EPA grant, and
25 percent subsidy from the
State paid for the entire new
tertiary treatment plant that
subsequently discharged into
JULY/AUGUST 1978
19
-------
the lake. The Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA) and
the Economic Development
Administration provided grants
to pay for most of the conven-
tional gravity sewer collection
system with its many manholes
and pumping stations and mini-
mum 8-inch pipe. Only 6 per-
cent of the capital cost of the
collection system had to be
carried by the community and
even that was financed with a
long-term, low interest loan
from FmHA.
But when plant operation
and maintenance costs and debt
retirement costs showed that
sewer charges per user would
exceed $200 annually after
initial costs ranging from
$1,000-$1,500, for connecting
individual homes to the new
sewer lines, some citizens
refused to hook in. Some of
those who did connect with
the system refused to pay the
monthly charges, and others
petitioned the local court for
injunctions to prevent the local
sewer district from requiring
them to connect since their
septic tanks were not malfunc-
tioning.
An EPA study team looking
into the problem found that the
new plant was approximately
double the required size and
that it could not meet specifi-
cations as designed and con-
structed. A new facility plan has
been prepared that examines
alternative courses of action.
The course selected is to treat
the waste water in a lagoon and
then spray it on the land, thus
eliminating direct discharge
into the lake.
At approximately the same
time at Priest Lake, Idaho, a
similar pollution problem was
solved by using small-diameter
pressure sewers to pick up the
effluent from septic tanks and
deliver it to a lagoon for treat-
ment. Though the community is
paying for 50 percent of the
capital cost compared to the
6 percent raised by "Commu-
nity A," total sewer charges
cost each family only about $11
monthly. Original capital costs
for the system were just BVz
percent of the estimated capital
cost for a conventional collec-
tion system such as that con-
structed for "Community A."
Subsequent pressure sys-
tems constructed for Glide/
Idleyld Park, Ore.; Port
Charlotte, and Port St. Lucie,
Fla.; and designed for other
projects indicate pressure sew-
ers in rocky or difficult terrain
cost only one-eighth to one-
half as much as conventional
gravity sewers. Another benefit
is the lower cost to the environ-
ment since large trenches and
strict line and grade control
manholes and large lift stations
are not required for pressure
sewers.
In another instance, "Com-
munity B" discovered in time
that its new project would be
too expensive, even though the
seven-year bond issue to cover
the nearly $2 million local share
has been sold and the contract
has been let for the construc-
tion of a new collection/
interceptor network.
Though only 1,500 people
live in the township, the new
regional system is capable of
serving 1 5,000 people. The
result is that families are being
ca lied upon to pay for the con-
struction of a system that can
serve lOtimes as many people.
At public meetings, township
supervisors have been physi-
cally attacked and two have
resigned. Through a special
election two new supervisors
opposed to the project were
elected and the entire sewer
authority was replaced. The
new authority refuses to obtain
the rights-of-way for the sewer
line, so the project cannot pro-
ceed. Suits are threatened by
the contractor who cannot begin
work and by the adjacent com-
munities who are bearing the
entire cost of the new regional
facilities until "Community B"
connects to the system.
EPA, in providing technical
assistance to the community,
has recommended eliminating
collection sewers for rural
areas, restructuring the finances
to eliminate the bond issue, in-
curring a long-term FmHA loan,
and releasing the contractor
from his contract. Litigation to
recover the damages and con-
tractual liabilities incurred from
responsible third parties was
also recommended.
The Agency also recom-
mended that the balance of the
township where sewers were
no longer planned should be
part of a special sewer district.
An operation and maintenance
program would be set up there
fqr existing on-site wastewater
treatment systems after up-
grading any that were malfunc-
tioning.
Apple Valley, Calif., has
also faced required high-cost
sewers in a sparsely-populated
area. It overcame the problem
by planning for a portion of the
area to be under central man-
agement of the existing on-site
wastewater treatment systems.
Wastewater from the remainder
of the area will be collected by
small-diameter pressure sew-
ers. Considerably lower capital
and operation and maintenance
costs will result.
The plan for Fountain Run,
Ky., which calls for small-
diameter gravity sewers to carry
effluent from septic tanks to
suitable subsurface disposal
areas, will result in monthly
costs approximately one-half
the costs for conventional
sewers and central treatment
This is the case also for a sim-
ilar project in Westboro, Wis.,
whose population is essentially
elderly retired persons on low
incomes.
Economic difficulties in small
communities were recog-
nized by the Congress in the
Clean Water Act of 1977. Grant
funding eligibility has been ex-
tended to the construction of
privately-owned treatment
works serving one or more
principal residences or small
commercial establishments.
Restrictions to these grants
will be spelled out in the EPA
regulations now being written
to implement the law.
Beginning in October, the
Act will also provide for a
set-aside of four percent of the
grant funds allocated to each
rural State to be available only
for alternatives to conventional
sewage treatment works for
municipalities having a popu-
lation of 3,500 or less or for
highly dispersed sectors of
larger municipalities. The Gov-
ernors of non-rural States may
request a similar set-aside of
4 percent or less, but it is not
compulsory. Where a project
calls for innovative processing
or techniques, it may be eligible
for an 85 percent grant rather
than the standard 75 percent
grant.
EPA's experience has been
that making grant funds avail-
able to conventional systems
and excluding individual sys-
tems has created an incentive
to plan only for conventional
systems.
By making individual sys-
tems eligible for grants, this
incentive will fortunately be
eliminated. Eligible individual
systems include treatment in
septic tanks and disposal in soil
absorption fields, dual systems
with waterless toilets (includ-
ing those with composting
tanks) and grey water treat-
ment and disposal facilities,
other on-site units, small sys-
tems serving clusters of house-
holds, and pressure, vacuum and
small-diameter gravity sewers.
Also eligible for a grant is the
acquisition of property for land
treatment or ultimate disposal
of septage or sludge.
In addition to increased EPA
incentives for such alternatives
to conventional waste treatment
plants, other funds also are
available. The Department of
Housing and Urban Develop-
ment has block grants that can
be used for all but treatment
plants. Various loans, grants,
and loan guarantees are avail-
able from the Economic Devel-
opment Administration, the
Appalachian Regional Com-
mission, the Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, the
Coastal Energy Impact
Program, and the FmHA Rural
Housing programs. Revenue-
sharing funds can now be used
as matching monies for Federal
grants. Last-resort funding for
the local share is available
through the EPA/Federal Fi-
nancing Bank Loan Program.
The new Act and the many
measures being taken by EPA,
such as seminars to advise
those concerned about the place
of on-site and small systems in
our program, should result in
the best and most carefully
engineered projects to meet
specific local, State, and Fed-
eral requirements at minimum
cost both economically and
environmentally. D
20
EPAJOURNAL
-------
The Army
Enlists
For Envi-
ronmental
Battle
The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers have
signed an interagency agree-
ment whereby the Corps as-
sumes a new mission in support
of EPA's wastewater treatment
construction grants program.
In accordance with the agree-
ment, the Corps is assisting
EPA in reviewing and inspect-
ing the construction of hun-
dreds of new sewage treatment
plants across the country.
Noting that this multi-billion
dollar construction program
is one of the Federal Govern-
ment's largest, EPA Adminis-
trator Douglas M. Costle said
the Corps of Engineers' help
"will give EPA moretimeto de-
vote to environmental aspects
of the construction grants
program."
Lt. Gen. John W. Morris,
Chief of Engineers, said
the Corps "welcomed this op-
portunity to assist EPA in this
construction effort to improve
the quality of the Nation's
waters in years ahead. Under
this agreement the Corps will
be able to bring its long experi-
ence in water resources man-
agement to bear in this critical
area."
On March 8, 1 978, less than
two months after the agreement
was signed, a pilot program was
approved by Adlene Harrison,
EPA's Region 6 Regional Ad-
ministrator, and the Corps'
Southwestern Division Engi-
neer, Brigadier General James
C. Donovan. They noted that
one reason for the pilot program
in Region 6 was the size and
diversity of the Region's grants
program. Grants have been pro-
vided to communities ranging
in size from Dime Box, Tex.,
(pop. 300) to the gigantic
Dallas-Fort Worth area.
This unique interagency
partnership will build on a man-
agement system established by
EPA to track the expenditure of
Federal dollars to construct
waste treatment plants.
In the arrangement, the
Corps reviews treatment plant
plans and specifications sub-
mitted by cities and other juris-
dictions to EPA and inspects
the construction of those plants.
Although responsible for pro-
viding guidance and making
recommendations, the Corps
has no authority either to ap-
prove or disapprove a grantee's
plans and specifications of
actual construction.
Fundamental to the inter-
agency agreement is the con-
cept that the grantee is ulti-
mately responsible for the tech-
nical integrity of the project and
sound fiscal management of
grant funds. It is the Corps' job
to determine whether the
grantee is fulfilling those
responsibilities.
As specified in the regional
agreement, EPA Region 6 re-
tains final responsibility for all
aspects of the construction
grants program. Corps activ-
ities conform to EPA regula-
tions, policies, and guidelines.
The Southwestern Division
provides three major serv-
ices: (1 ) Reviews grantees'
plans and specifications prior
to advertising; (2) Provides
inspection by a resident engi-
neer on construction projects
costing $50 million or more,
and (3) Inspects construction
work and advises grantees and
EPA of the status of construc-
tion, including deviations from
plans or specifications, and
quality and timeliness of work.
The Southwestern Division
Headquarters, in Dallas, is the
contact point for the Corps
with EPA Region 6. Because
Corps District boundaries are
determined by river basin
boundaries which do not neces-
sarily follow State lines, often
more than one Corps District
will be found in a single State.
To facilitate matters for the
Corps-EPA Program, a single
Corps District Office has been
assigned Corps program re-
sponsibilities for each State.
To meet its manpower needs
for the program the Southwest-
ern Division has reallocated 40
job slots. The Division expects
to assign additional personnel
to this program in future years
as the workload climbs.
The Corps program began
April 1. In the first month, the
Corps conducted 104 inspec-
tions on construction contracts,
one review of proposed plans
and specifications, and con-
ducted three pre-construction
conferences with EPA,
grantees, and contractors. D
' i i
Representatives from EPA and the Corps of Engineers review plans for a wastewater treatment plant in Arlington, Tex.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
21
-------
Clean
Lakes
Slowly yielding to the in-
sistent pull of the tractor,
the stump relinquished its hold
on the mucky lake bottom.
Debris-laden water swirled into
the hoie and rippled around the
trunk as it was pulled toward
shore.
Three hundred people
watched the ripples fade away
and knew that their vision of a
clean, usable lake was one step
closer to reality. The submerged
stumps along the eastern shore
of Collins Park Lake in upper
New York State had threatened
to block restoration of the lake
adjacent to a long-established
picnic area until residents orga-
nized a volunteer "stump pull."
Local enthusiasm is a vital
ingredient for success in all of
EPA's "clean lakes" projects.
Over a number of years, rec-
reation suffered because of
abundant aquatic plant growth
and sediment accumulation in
Collins Park Lake. Ultimately,
State, local and Federal govern-
ments combined their resources
to restore the water quality and
recreational value of the only
publicly-owned lake in Sche-
nectady County, N.Y. Their
plan involved the removal
of bottom sediments through
dredging, the construction of a
sediment basin, and the reloca-
tion of leaf and snow disposal
sites. Dredging will remove
years of accumulated bottom
sediments which provide foot-
ing and nutrients for aquatic
plants, while the sediment basin
will capture incoming sedi-
ments and their associated
nutrients. Relocation of the
leaf and snow disposal sites
will eliminate those nutrient
sources.
Nearly seventy lakes have
benefited from EPA's Clean
Lakes Program. Initiated in
1966 by Senators Walter Mon-
dale (D-Minn.) and Quentin
Burdick (D-N. Dak.), the legis-
lation authorizing the program
was incorporated into the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
Section 31 4 of the law requires
the States to report on the water
quality of their freshwater lakes
and authorizes funds to help
States take action to restore the
water quality of those lakes.
The program is being closely
coordinated with other agency
efforts.
Arguing in support of the
clean lakes section during Sen-
ate debate on Capitol Hill, then-
Senator Mondale pointed to
"the evidence that many of the
Nation's fresh water community
lakes are now being victimized
by municipal and industrial pol-
lutants, agricultural runoff, and
accelerated sedimentation."
Although his comment was
based on the large number of
lakes in Minnesota, he noted
that "there is not a State in
which the water quality of lakes
is not seriously degraded."
Sinceitbegan in 1975,the
Clean Lakes Program has spent
about $25 million on restora-
tion projects around the coun-
try. This does not include EPA
funds for municipal waste treat-
ment plant construction on
lakes. EPA spent $514 million
in FY 1 977 for its cleanup
efforts for the Great Lakes. This
includes treatment plant aid
but not other Great Lakes spend-
ing by EPA regional offices.
In order to be eligible for a
clean lakes grant, a lake must
have public access and use,
must be classified as fresh-
water, and its advocates must
show that their restoration plan
has a high probability of long-
lasting benefit.
Few sure cures are available
to aid planners in developing
comprehensive, effective resto-
ration plans for ailing lakes.
The entire field is so new that
researchers are still unable to
predict consistently the effect
of a particular technique on a
lake. This situation is compli-
cated by the uniqueness of
each iake and its watershed.
For example, both Buckingham
and Washington Park lakes in
New York were dredged to re-
move accumulated organic-rich
sediments. One year after com-
pletion of these projects, Buck-
ingham Lake shows no signifi-
cant improvement in water
quality while Washington Park
Lake is clear and has fewer
aquatic plants.
EPA's Office of Research
and Development is involved in
an intensive study of several
clean lakes projects. These
projects were carefully selected
to yield the broadest possible
data base on both the limnologi-
cal and socio-economic aspects
of lake restoration. Their goal is
to be able to predict accurately
and consistently the effect of a
restoration technique on a par-
ticular lake.
Presently, though, planners
rely largely on data generated
by university research, and
through State, local and Federal
lake programs here and in other
parts of the world. All projects
supported under the Clean
Lakes Program have monitoring
and reporting requirements so
that as the program matures
there will be a larger data base
for evaluating and improving
lake restoration planning and
techniques.
The largest problems facing
lakes today are caused or ac-
celerated by human activities
in their watersheds. These re-
sult in increased nutrients, sedi-
ment, and various pollutants,
not to mention the old tires and
beer cans that find their way
into a lake. Nutrients, for exam-
ple phosphorus and nitrogen,
originate as agricultural and
lawn fertilizers or are released
from sewage, leaves, or other
organic debris. They are car-
22
EPAJOURNAL
-------
This fountain-like device is an
aerator, which pumps lake
water up into the air so that
oxygen can mix with the water
before it spills down a series of
concrete steps and returns to
the lake.
ried to a lake by storm water
running directly off the land or
through a storm sewer system.
Excessive nutrient content may
stimulate the growth of abun-
dant aqua tic weeds, algal
blooms, or large, floating
masses of algae. Sediments
from plowed fields, construc-
tion sites, and dirty streets are
carried into lakes by flowing
water and settle out in the quiet
lake waters. Eventually, accu-
mulated sediment will begin to
interfere with boating and
swimming activities. Shallower
water allows more light to reach
the bottom and encourages
rooted aquatic plant growth
that will further restrict boating,
fishing, and swimming. Abun-
dant aquatic weeds and floating
masses of algae also reduce
aesthetic enjoyment of the lake.
Sediment and runoff waters
contain the nutrients necessary
for plant and algal growth. Nu-
trients are vital to a healthy,
living lake which will support
wildlife ranging from midge
larvae to game fish and water
birds. But an excess of nutrients
often leads to too much produc-
tivity. This can result in large
areas of rooted aquatic plants
or algal blooms. The blooms, a
sudden rapid increase in the
number of algal plants in the
lake, can cause taste and odor
problems in drinking water, turn
the lake pea-green, and foul fish
harvesting equipment and water
intake devices. When the algae
die and decompose, they use
dissolved oxygen that fish and
other organisms depend on; fish
kills may result.
Each summer large masses of
algae formed in Medical Lake,
Wash., and collected on
the shorelines. The decaying
"mats" of algae restricted
swimming and boating and
robbed the lake of oxygen. Dur-
ing the summer of 1977, the
Town of Medical Lake began
a lake restoration program.
Liquid aluminum sulfate (alum)
was mixed into the lake at con-
trolled depths, rates, and con-
centrations. Results from last
summer's treatment indicate
that the alum successfully re-
acted with the dissolved phos-
phorus in the lake and formed a
"floe" or "clump" which then
settled to the bottom. In addi-
tion to an increase in water
clarity and a decrease in algae,
field examinations show that the
alum floe is trapping other
sources of phosphorus which
have previously encouraged
algal growth. These promising
results suggest that the restora-
tion of Medical Lake should be
a success.
Heavy metals such as mer-
cury and lead are another lake
pollution source. They are pres-
ent wherever cars and factories
are found. Special industries
contribute other pollutants. For
example, the Finger Lakes in
Boone County, Mo., suffer from
acid mine drainage due to
extensive strip mining in the
area. The specific long-term
effects of these pollutants on
aquatic organisms, and ulti-
mately on people, are largely
unknown, but the general effects
are not beneficial.
Each lake has unique prob-
lems and requires a tailor-made
restoration plan. In 1 974, a
low water level and a high level
of duck mortality around their
lake prompted the Penn Lake
Homeowner's Association to
petition the Bloomington (Min-
nesota) City Council for help.
A plan to restore the lake was
adopted. It included drillinga
well to provide supplemental
water to the lake during periods
of low rainfall, ins tailing an
aeration system to maintain a
sufficient level of dissolved
oxygen, excavating the lake to
deepen it, and constructing
several basins to catch sedi-
ment before it reached the take.
After it was well into the plan-
ning stage, the City became
aware of the funding available
through EPA's Cfean Lakes
Program. An application was
prepared and approved.
Last summer after the aug-
mentation well and aeration
system were operating, the lake
was restocked with bluegill and
bass. In contrast to other years,
the fish have survived the win-
ter and are expected to provide
good recreational fishing. The
incidence of algal blooms had
decreased by last summer and
they are not expected to regain
their previous frequency or size.
Elements of the project which
have not been completed are
the sediment basins, a proposed
aeration system for upper Penn
Lake, a three-year water quality
monitoring program, a boat
rampanda parking lot. All but
the last two will be completed
with the help of clean lakes
funds.
EPA's Region 5 office has
the Great Lakes National Pro-
gram, which deals with water
quality problems in that area,
and oversees U.S. implementa-
tion of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement with
Canada. At present a two-year
international study of the
causes and effects of Lake Erie
pollution is being carried out
under the program.
EPA also has improved the
quality of a number of lakes
through some of its other pro-
grams. Wastewater treatment
plants built with the help of the
Agency's municipal construc-
tion program have provided
primary and secondary treat-
ment, which offer a way to keep
human and industrial wastes
out of recreational waters. Near
the City of Seattle, upgraded
wastewater treatment plants cut
the nutrients entering Lake
JULY/AUGUST 1978
23
-------
EPA Clean Lakes Projects
Washington, and thereby helpoci
to preserve a boating and swim-
ming facility used by many
urban residents. (Seattle took
the initial cleanup steps. EPA
reimbursed them later for part
of the cost and aided in further
nutrient cleanup.)
Programs such as the
Shagawa Lake Eutrophication
Project in northern Minnesota
have applied more advanced
technology, in this case tertiary
treatment, to stop the decline in
the health of a lake. Phosphorus
contributing to massive growths
of algae was the problem in this
lake. The treatment plant re-
duced the phosphorus level,
and now the lake is no longer
clogged with rotting masses of
aquatic plants."
Water quality management
planning boing carried out un-
der Section 208 of the Clean
Water Act has an impact on
many sources that contribute
to unhealthy lakes. These
sources include urban runoff,
acid mine drainage, sediments
from erosion, and discharges
by sewage plants and indus-
tries. Close coordination be-
tween the staff of the Clean
Lakes Program and 208 plan-
ners helps to put the emphasis
where it is needed most.
The Clean Lakes Program
cooperates with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under the
requirements of the dredge and
fill program, as well. Any lake
restoration program that meets
Corps criteria is required under
the terms of the EPA grant to
apply for a dredging permit.
In the space of three years,
the Clean Lakes Program has
aided the restoration activities
at 68 lakes (see following
Uibld). Increased emphasis on
the program prompted the
scheduling of a National Con-
ference. Topics wil! include
discussions of various lake
problems, their causes, and the
current status of techniques
used to combat them, (see box)D
• Son EPA Journal Vol.2 #7
"Rescuing a Lake"
California
Ellis
Gibralter
Lafayette (Reservoir)
Stafford
Temescal
Florida
Apopka
Jackson
Illinois
Frank Molten
Indiana
Skinner
Iowa
Blue
Lenox
Oelwein
Maine
Annabessacook
Little Pond
Maryland
Loch Raven (Reservoir)
Massachusetts
Charles River
Cochituate
Ellis Brett Pond
Lower Mystic
Morses Pond
Nutting
Michigan
Lansing
Reeds
Minnesota
Albert Lea/Fountain
Chain of Lakes
Clear
Hyland
Long
Penn
Phalen
Missouri
Finger
Rothwell
Vandatia
Montana
Mary Ronan
New York
Buckingham
Collins Park
Delaware Park
59th St. Pond
Hampton Manor
Hyde Park
Ronkonkoma
Steinmetz
Tivoli Lakes
Washington Park
North Carolina
Mystic
Oklahoma
Pauls Valley
Oregon
Commonwealth
South Dakota
Cochrane
Kampeska
Oakwood Lakes
Swan
Texas
McQueeney
Vermont
Bomoseen
Virginia
Rivanna
Washington
Ballinger
Liberty
Long
Medical
Moses
Sacajawea
Spada/Chaplain
Vancouver
Wisconsin
Half Moon
Henry
Little Muskego
Mirror & Shadow
Noquebay
White Clay
Lake Restoration
Conference
EPA is sponsoring a na-
tional conference on lake
restoration in Minneap-
olis, Minn., from August
22-24. The conference is
designed for peopie who
are interested in cleaning
up lakes; officials of
water pollution control
agencies; State and local
leaders, and teachers and
researchers in related
fields. Meetings will be
held at the Sheraton-Ritz
Hotel. Some 30 speakers
are scheduled to talk
about the practical appli-
cation of restoration tech-
niques. Successful State
restoration programs in
Minnesota, Florida, South
Dakota, and Vermont,
will be discussed. The
conference will also fea-
ture field trips to two lake
restoration projects near
Minneapolis.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Land treatment is emerging
as one of the popular alter-
natives to treating municipal
waste water in a plant and then
discharging it to the water. The
rebirth of land treatment as an
alternative technology that re-
cycles nutrients'while reclaim-
ing waste water is an interesting
phenomenon. History has a way
of repeating itself, and the rec-
ord shows that our national
concept of wastewater manage-
ment is no exception. We are
seeing the rapid growth of a
new conservation/reuse/re-
cycling era.
Why is Land Treatment an
Alternative?
The Federal record shows the
changing land treatment story.
Richard Thomas is a physical
scientist with EPA's Municipal
Technology Branch.
The grants program to build
treatment plants originated in
the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1956. The Act
didn't encourage recycling or
land treatment. Its thrust was
toward treatment in the munici-
pal plants. But 1 6 years later, in
the 1972 amendments to the
Act, Congress gave EPA the first
strong tools to encourage recy-
cling, including the land ap-
proach. Then the Clean Water
Act of 1 977 strongly endorsed
land treatment and provided fi-
nancial incentives for its use.
These new incentives should
give EPA strength to implement
its policy of encouraging wide-
spread use of land treatment, a
policy first issued in November,
1 974, and again very strongly in
October, 1977.
But while recycling is on the
upswing, the common form of
pollution control in the United
States today consists of a sys-
tem of sewers and treatment
plants that discharge into
streams, fakes, or the oceans.
Even the encouragement of
land treatment in the 1972
Amendments was tempered by
a Congressional push for sec-
ondary treatment in municipal
plants by 1977. Cleansing of
waste water at the treatment
plant has always, until recently,
been aimed at removing enough
of the pollutants to allow natural
processes in the receiving
water to complete the process.
This concept of waste water
collection and disposal served
us quite well until increasing
amounts and changing compo-
sition of waste water discharges
became a serious threat to the
waterways. Damage such as
fish kills alerted the Nation to
the fact that we were degrading
our rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters.
Our plight was not new but
rather a repeat of previous
events. For example, the First
Royal Commission on Sewage
Disposal in England concluded
that, "... The right way to dis-
pose of town sewage is to apply
it continuously on land and it is
only by such application that the
pollution of rivers can be
avoided." This statement was
published in the 1 857 report of
the Royal Commission. A simi-
tar conclusion was arrived at
by George Rafter after a long
and exhaustive study of sewage
treatment in Europe and the
United States. Mr. Rafter, like
the Royal Commission, con-
cluded that, ".. . The most
efficient purification of sewage
can be attained by its applica-
tion on land," and "on properly
managed sewage farms the
utilization of sewage is not
prejudicial to health."
Rafter conducted his studies
in the 1890's and published
the above conclusion in
Land Treatment
By Richard Thomas
V'..'*
-------
1899. Over the last 100 years,
many other noted wastewater
scientists have proclaimed the
virtues of land treatment.
In essence, land treatment
has been an available technol-
ogy that has gotten little use or
attention over the past 40 years
in the United States. It is con-
sidered an alternative tech-
nology today because most
municipalities have chosen in-
plant treatment and stream dis-
charges as the favored and
hence conventional technology.
Communities like Bakersfield,
Calif., Lubbock, Tex., Calumet,
Mich., and Lake George, N.Y.,
which have used land treatment
for many decades, have found it
very satisfactory. It has been
economical and dependable
and gives many of these com-
munities an advantage in meet-
ing the national goal to achieve
wastewater management with-
out polluting discharges.
Why is Land Treatment
Attractive Now?
Our reawakening to the prob-
lem of polluting surface waters
with sewage effluent has be-
come a part of an overall aware-
ness of a need to conserve
resources and reduce energy
demands. Land treatment is a
wastewater management con-
cept that embodies both of
these needs.
Domestic and many indus-
trial waste waters contain nitro-
gen and phosphorus, which are
essential for plant growth.
Removal of this nitrogen and
phosphorus by in-plant treat-
ment requires chemicals and
energy and drives the cost of
wastewater treatment upward.
Land treatment uses the nitro-
gen and phosphorus for plant
growth or relies on natural
processes to remove the nitro-
gen and phosphorus from the
waters.
It takes about 10 times as
much energy for a sewage treat-
ment plant to produce the same
quality of reclaimed water as
land treatment. In addition, the
land treatment alternative is
reusing valuable nutrients for
production of cash crops. For
example, reuse of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium at
Muskegon, Mich., in 1975
amounted to S110,000 of f er-
tilizer value. This contributed
to a total crop income of
$710,000, which offset one
third of the costs of operating
the whole wastewater treatment
system. These operating results
fuel EPA's thrust to make land
treatment a recycling alterna-
tive of choice. The EPA policy
on land treatment calls for
preferential consideration of
this approach because it con-
tributes to reclamation and
recycling.
!t has been estimated that the
domestic sewage discharged to
our surface streams on a na-
tional scale contains 800,000
tons of nitrogen, 700,000 tons
of phosphorus, and 470,000
tons of potassium per year. This
is about 10 to 15 percent of the
national fertilizer consumption
of these valuable nutrients.
While our agricultural produc-
ers pay approximately $500
million annually to buy this
amount of fertilizer, the sewage
discharges continue to pollute
our surface waters rather than
fertilize crops. Why is it that
such an economically attractive
way of recycling resources has
not been accepted more read-
ily? There are constraints that
have held back institutional and
public acceptance. Some are
real, others are mostly conjec-
ture and fear of the unknown.
What are These Con-
straints?
Underlying all of the reasons
usually given for not using land
treatment is the repugnance
that Americans feel toward their
own wastes. We have disassoci-
ated ourselves from thinking
about the problem. In doing this
we have become comfortable
with the treatment and dis-
charge concept of waste dis-
posal. We have been confident
that water treatment plants will
make our drinking water "safe"
and we will not be subjected to
the epidemics of the 19th cen-
tury. Those who vigorously
oppose land treatment often
cite this fear of health risk in
their arguments that land treat-
ment is not as good as conven-
tional in-plant treatment and
water disposal.
The technical reliability of
land treatment is usually a sec-
ondary factor in decisions to
adopt sewage plant treatment.
The reasons for rejection of
land treatment are availability
of land, unsubstantiated high
costs, general institutional re-
sistance, and the fear of health
risks.
It is rare to find someone who
favors having a waste manage-
ment facility as a neighbor.
Most people want it to be some-
one else's neighbor. But prog-
ress is being made and a local
resident who spoke strongly for
land treatment as a "preferred
neighbor" was a pivotal influ-
ence in a recent decision to
adopt land treatment instead of
in-plant advanced treatment for
a large system that will improve
the dependability of a drinking
water supply. It is interesting
and at the same time perplexing
to observe public reaction
across the Nation. In water-
short areas people use golf
courses, parks, and recreational
lakes maintained with waste
waters reclaimed by land treat-
ment. In other parts of the
Nation the fear of the unknown
and the repulsion toward
wastes form an almost impene-
trable barrier.
EPA has responded to this
general repulsion and fear of
the unknown with an effort to
develop information on land
treatment and present these
facts to the public and to de-
cisionmaker-s1. The 1977 Act
increases EPA's capability to
educate by establishing a public
information program on land
treatment and other recycling
and reuse methods.
Projections for the
Future
The effort to establish land
treatment as an accepted re-
cycling and reclamation alter-
native is founded on a strong
technical base. It gives careful
consideration to protection of
the groundwater and the land
resources as well as the surface
waters. The environmental
emphasis of the 60's and 70's
has broadened our concern for
management based on the total
content of the waste water. It is
no longer enough to build treat-
ment plants that remove part of
the suspended solids and oxy-
gen-demanding substances.
EPA now considers nutrients,
metals, and trace organics as
pollutants to be removed or,
more appropriately, recovered
or recycled.
Land treatment offers many
options for recycling nutrients
while reclaiming waste water.
The natural processes in the
plant/soil environment also pro-
vide a strong force for removal
of toxics and the return of many
trace constituents to the soil
and geological formations.
Some of the options available
are represented in Phoenix,
Ariz., Bakersfield, Calif., Lake
George, N.Y., and Clayton
County, Ga. The Phoenix plan—
called the Rio Salado Project—
represents a three-time use of
the same water to extend a
limited supply. Land treatment
by the rapid-infiltration process
is followed by the recreational
and irrigation use of the re-
claimed waste water. (Rapid-
infiltration cleans waste water
by fast percolation through the
soil.) The Bakersfield project is
an example of continuing use of
municipal waste water to irri-
gate cash crops. The rapid-
infiltration system at Lake
George is a good example of a
40-year-old treatment system
which may be achieving the no-
discharge goal of the Federal
law on water pollution. It is in-
teresting to note that groups
wanting to protect Lake George
in New York and Lake Geneva in
Wisconsin both enacted ordi-
nances requiring land treatment
some 40 years before Federal
law encouraged it. The Clayton
County project, to use a com-
paratively large treatment sys-
tem, represents a major break-
through for land treatment.
The system will irrigate a forest
with effluent in the watershed
of a reservoir. A significant
objective of the project is to
conserve water and improve
the dependability of the water
supply in the reservoir.
Like the Royal Commission
in England in the 1850's and
George Rafter in the United
States at the turn of the cen-
tury, I am convinced that land
treatment will become a con-
ventional way to manage waste-
water. Those early advocates
were unable to foresee the fu-
ture completely, though, and
only time will tell us if land
treatment is finally to become
a norm. D
26
EPAJOURNAL
-------
News Briefs
EPA Expresses
Concern About
Gas Prices
Two Groups
Honor Blum
Walsh Named
To EPA Post
Decontrolling the price of gasoline could hurt
the Nation's efforts for clean air, an EPA
official recently said in Congressional
testimony. It could encourage the price
difference between unleaded and leaded gasoline
to be even bigger than it is today, said
Benjamin Jackson,. Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Mobile Source and Noise
Enforcement. Recent figures showed unleaded
regular gas was an average of 4.1 cents higher
than leaded regular at full-service stations.
A bigger price gap could be an incentive for
motorists to use leaded gasoline in cars
requiring unleaded, said Jackson. Unleaded
gasoline has been required in most automobiles
built since the 1975 model year to protect the
cars' catalytic converters.
Deputy Administrator Barbara Blum was honored
recently by the Americans for Indian Opportunity
(AIO) and Federally Employed Women (FEW). AIO,
which has worked since 1970 to provide improved
expertise and resources to native Americans,
cited Blum's long personal interest in Indian
affairs and her establishment of an EPA "Indian
Working Group" to consider the effects of EPA
regulations on tribal lands and reservations.
FEW, an organization dedicated to equality for
women in government, praised Blum's work
recruiting women and minorities for key positions
at EPA and her contributions to advancing women's
careers throughout government.
Michael P. Walsh has been appointed as the
Agency's new Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control. Walsh said
his office will provide special attention to
States requiring regular inspection and maintenance
programs to reduce emissions from automobiles.
A former special assistant to David Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste
Management, Walsh has been with EPA since July,
1974. Prior to joining EPA he was Director of
New York City's Bureau of Motor Vehicle Pollution
Control. Walsh replaces Eric Stork, who is now
at Purdue University.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
27
-------
People
Administrator Costle presented
an EPA plaque to Humberto
Romero Alvarez, (left) Mexico's
Undersecretary for Environ-
mental Improvement,
during a visit last month to
Mexico City when they signed
an agreement pledging mutual
cooperation on environmental
problems.
Steve Jellinek
The EPA Assist ant Administra-
tor for Toxic Substances, spent
3 days in Missouri in late May
meeting with farmers, environ-
mentalists, industry representa-
tives, and others. Purpose of the
trip—and similar ones Jellinek
plans to make to other States in
the coming months—was to in-
formally exchange ideas and
views on the Agency's pesticide
and toxic substances programs,
for which he is responsible. The
Missouri trip included a visit
to the 1,600-acre farm of John
Riedel near Centralia.
:
Lance Vinson
Region 8 Administrator Alan R.
Merson has named Vinson as
Director of the Enforcement
Division in the Denver office.
Vinson, who has been acting
director for several months,
was Chief of the Region 8 En-
forcement and Legal Support
Branch for the past two years.
He previously served as Chief
of the Case Development Sec-
tion, Air Enforcement Branch
in EPA's Region 5 office in
Chicago. Vinson is an attorney,
a graduate of Loyola Law
School, and a member of the
Bar Associations in California,
Illinois, and Colorado.
Chris L. West
He has been named Public
Awareness Director for the
Agency's Environmental Re-
search Center at Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C. At his new
post, West will handfe public
information and community
relations for the four labora-
tories that make up the research
complex. West had been Public
Awaroness Director for EPA's
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Richard T. Dewlirtg
He has been named Deputy
Regional Administrator for
EPA's New York office by
Regional Administrator Eckardt
C. Beck. Dewling was most re-
cently Director of the Surveil-
lance and Analysis Division at
the Region 2 laboratory in
Edison, N.J. He has a bache-
lor's degree in sanitary engi-
neering from Manhattan
College, a master's degree
from New York University, and
a doctorate in environmental
sciences from Rutgers Univer-
sity. Dewling is 42 and a native
of New York City. "I am de-
lighted to have a professional
with Dick Dewling's solid
grounding in environmental
sciences and strong experience
in managing EPA programs to
help us deal with the many
problems facing us in Region
2," said Beck.
Mrs. Mary Stinson and
Dr. Herbert S. Skovronek
These two researchers at EPA's
Edison, N.J., laboratory have
received an award for the Best
Paper of 1977 appearing in the
American Electroplaters' So-
ciety Journal, Plating and Sur-
face Finishing. The paper, "Ad-
vanced Treatment Approaches
for Metal Finishing Waste-
waters," discussed new ways
\o control cyanide and metal
discharges. Stinson and Skov-
ronek received a gold medal, a
plaque, and an honorarium as
part of the award. Both work in
a field station of EPA's Indus-
trial Environmental Research
Laboratory, part of the Office of
Research and Development.
Don R. Goodwin
The director of EPA's Emission
Standards and Engineering
Division at Research Triangle
Park, N.C., he has been given
the S. Smith Griswold Award
by the Air Pollution Control
Association. The award is pre-
sented to a government staff
person for outstanding accom-
plishment in prevention and
control of air pollution. Good-
win was recognized for his
major role in developing two
national air pollution control
programs: the new source per-
formance standards and na-
tional standards for hazardous
air pollutants. He is a graduate
of the University of Pittsburgh
in chemical engineering and
served with the National Air
Pollution Control Administra-
tion, an EPA predecessor
agency, from 1964-1970.
Corvallis Environmental Re-
search Laboratory since 1 972.
His previous government ex-
perience included serving as
Public Information Officer for
the U.S. Atomic Energy Com-
mission at Oak Ridge, Tenn.,
and Las Vegas, Nev. He re-
ceived a bachelor's degree in
journalism from the University
of Missouri in 1964.
Paul De Falco, Jr.
The Regional Administrator of
EPA's Region 9 San Francisco
office is the first non-resident of
Guam to be named an honorary
member of the Ancient Order
of the Chammori, the original
people of Guam. Governor
Bordallo and the Legislature of
Guam gave De Falco the award
for the pollution control assist-
ance he has provided for the
people of Guam over the past
10 years.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
29
-------
Deserts on the March
By AllenCywin
More than one third of the
Earth's land area is arid.
Much of it has become desert
since the dawn of civilization and
many vulnerable areas are even
now being turned into desert.
In the past half century, on the
southern edge of the Sahara
alone, as much as 650,000
square kilometers of once pro-
ductive land have become desert.
Much of the western United
States is arid or semi-arid.
Deserts of all types are found
within our geographic bound-
aries. Drought represents a
recurrent menace for us and
many other parts of the world.
In connection with this problem,
the President has announced
a new water resources policy,
with "conservation as its corner-
stone."
Several years ago, the
Sahelian drought in Africa and
its tragic effects on the peoples
of that region drew world
attention to the chronic prob-
lems of human survival and
development on the desert
margins.
From 1 968 to 1 973 drought
swept along a 2,600-mile-long
band through the six nations
of the Sahel-—Senegal, Mauri-
tania, Upper Volta. Mali, Niger,
and Chad, leaving behind
devastation and death. More
than 25 million people were ex-
posed to starvation and disease.
Observers echoed an old saying
that the Sahara was "on the
march." Sahel is an Arab word
meaning "shore." It describes
a wide stretch of land extending
along the southern edge of the
Sahara.
Desertification- the spread
of the desert into semi-arid and
Allen Cywin is Senior Science
Advisor in EPA's Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials.
marginal lands—is neither new
nor confined to Africa. It is
going on in the Middle East,
in parts of Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Peru, Mexico, China,
India, and the United States.
It is caused by many factors
including climate changes,
overgrazing and overcropping
of land, denudation of trees by
timbering and firewood
gatherers, and subsequent
erosion of precious topsoil.
To give impetus to interna-
tional action, the U.ISI. General
Assembly in December, 1 974,
decided to convene a United
Nations Conference on Deserti-
fication August 29 to Septem-
ber 9, 1 977, in order to produce
an effective, comprehensive,
and coordinated "Plan of Action
to Combat Desertification."
The United Nations Environ-
mental Program (UNEP), head-
quartered in Nairobi, was given
the responsibility for organizing
that conference. UNEP em-
ployed a number of consultants
from within and outside the U.N.
to draft a plan of action as well
as to prepare for the conference.
The U.S. Department of
State, in turn, organized an
interagency task force, with
additional outside participants.
William Long of the U.S.
Department of State was the
chairman of this task force and
coordinator for developing
a U.S. position.
The Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, a
predecessor of EPA, had helped
sponsor a conference on "Arid
Lands in Transition" in 1 969,
and a number of present EPA
research projects also are re-
lated to controlling the degra-
dation of air, land, and water in
these regions. EPA's western
regional offices and our rela-
tionships on environmental
matters with Mexico provided
additional background.
The first plan of action, de-
veloped by UNEP consultants,
appeared to be nothing more
than a series of physical steps
toward "desert development"
projects, rather than recognizing
the social, cultural, economic,
and even energy constraints
and problems of combatting
the ravages of desertification.
The United States reacted
critically to the original as well
as subsequent drafts of the plan
of action. As a result, many U.S.
suggestions were offered and
accepted. The final product
therefore represents a more
balanced recognition of environ-
mental hazards of short-term
development solutions and
focuses on the human problems
in these regions.
One of the reasons for hope
in preventing this further spread
of deserts around the globe is
the countermeasures that
several nations already have
successfully taken. In the after-
math of the Dust Bowl tragedy
in the Great Plains during the
1 930's, the United States re-
sponded with improved land
husbandry, the planting of
thousands of windbreaks to
halt wind erosion, and many
other measures that have made
once-desolate land productive.
In Israel's Negev Desert, his-
torically subject to overgrazing
and deforestation, the land is
now blooming and prosperous
as a result of controlled grazing,
improved dryland farming, and
new irrigation practices.
Similarly, Algeria has begun a
vast tree-planting project ex-
pected to total some 20 billion
seedlings to deflect winds and
halt the movement of sand
dunes. Mexico, Pakistan, and
India also are conducting large
reforestation programs.
There is a line in Ibsen's play,
"The Wild Duck," where one
character says, "The trees have
their revenge." That may well
be the epitaph for the once-
verdant Sahara and other simi-
lar regions unless deforestation,
overgrazing, and other abuses
of the land are halted and re-
forestation and improved land
use widely sponsored.
One of the first acts of the
U.N. conference last year was to
redefine the word "desertifica-
tion" itself. The new version
actually reads more like a case
history of the process, and in-
cludes this description:
"Desertification is the
diminution or destruction of
the biological potential of the
land, and can lead ultimately to
desert-like conditions. It is an
aspect of the widespread
deterioration of ecosystems,
and has diminished or destroyed
the biological potential, i.e.
plant and animal production,
for multiple use purposes at a
time when increased productiv-
ity is needed to support grow-
ing populations in quest of
development . . .
"In exceptionally fragile eco-
systems, such as those on the
desert margins, the loss of
biological productivity through
the degradation of plant, ani-
mal, soil, and water resources
can easily become irreversible,
and permanently reduce the
capacity to support human life.
Desertification is a self-accel-
erating process, feeding on
30
EPAJOURNAL
-------
-------
itself, and as it advances, re-
habilitation costs rise exponen-
tially. Action to combat
desertification is required ur-
gently before the costs of re-
habilitation rise beyond practical
possibility or before the oppor-
tunity to act is lost forever."
As a part of the preparation
for the worldwide meeting,
UNEP held four regional meet-
ings. A second draft of the
"Plan of Action" provided the
vehicle for discussion at those
meetings.
The United States expressed
skepticism about this proposal,
declaring that a vast amount
of technical information and
knowledge was already avail-
able on which to plan sound
future action and that in many
areas adequate institutional
arrangements probably existed
to carry out remedial programs.
We further summarized our
comment as follows: (1} The
second draft of the Plan of
Action, despite its improvements
over draft one, still appeared
to be a shopping list of possi-
bilities rather than a definitive
and specific plan that would
lead to "on the ground"
activities. (2) There was suffi-
cient information available on
which to base program proj-
ects, and activities to combat
desertification. The need for
research activities should be
based on requirements for im-
plementing action programs.
(3) Ecologically sound land use
and management needed addi-
tional emphasis. (4) The real
problems of desertification are
a function of man's use and
misuse of the land. (5) Demo-
graphic considerations should
Herds of grazing animals like
those goats in a Nigerian village
contribute to the increasing
be more fully developed (6)
There were a variety of existing
national and/or international
organizations/bodies whose
functions should be evaluated
before deciding that new in-
stitutions must be established
The Environmental Protection
Agency representation led the
U.S. delegation at the "Mediter-
ranean Area" (Europe, North
Africa, and the Middle East)
meeting. Other meetings were
held on "The Americas,"
"Africa, South of the Sahara,"
and "Asia and the Pacific."
Through these efforts, much of
the U.S. position was agreed to
and recommended to the
general meeting.
A final Plan of Action was
discussed and adopted at the
international meeting in Septem-
ber of 1 977. Over 95 countries
and many international agencies
attended.
The report has now been
formally submitted to the
United Nations General Assem-
bly and to individual nations for
implementation.
The basic principles adopted
include the following points:
• Immediate application of
existing knowledge is needed
in measures against desertifica-
problem of growing deserts by
nibbling the ground co\
tion and in educating endan-
gered communities about the
problem. Training programs
should be begun through inter-
national organizations.
• Improved land use with sound
management based on known
ecological principles is a key to
combatting desertification.
• This land use should recognize
the inevitability of periodic
drought in dry lands and their
generally low natural biological
potential.
• Rescue programs should re-
store vegetation cover on mar-
ginal land, making use of
adapted species of plants and
animals.
• Alternative supplies of food
and fuel should be provided
where the restoration of vegeta-
tion requires a ban on over-
cutting, over-grazing, and
similar activities.
• U.N. resources should be
pooled for an integrated world-
wide program of research,
development, and application
on desertification.
• While short-term relief for
desertification is necessary,
long-term measures should not
be delayed, since prevention
costs less than cure.
In summary, I believe the U.N.
approach has vastly changed
into a better appreciation of
problems, including the social
and nonstructural solutions to
them. This evolution was
fostered by the United States,
but could only have been
achieved through mutual under-
standing and cooperation of
the many other nations that
participated.
An encouraging outgrowth
of the U.N. conference already
is a separate conference on
mutual desertification prob-
lems by Mexico and the United
States, which is now being
planned. The Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs of the U.S.
Department of State is the lead
agency in an interagency work-
ing group for this conference,
which probably will be held in
Mexico City later this year.
Mexican environmental offi-
cials, who proposed the idea,
said they had been impressed
by the cooperation between the
United States and Canada on
shared water resources and felt
that a similar exchange of infor-
mation on problems involving
arid lands that extend contin-
uously from the Southwest into
Mexico would be useful. Among
topics to be explored will be
improved management of range
land, the concept of grazing
fees, planting of windbreaks,
ground water protection,
environmental monitoring, and
prevention of deforestation and
denuding of the land.G
.-I.'
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Update
A listing of recent Agency pub-
lications and other items of use
to people interested in the
environment.
Federal Register
Notices
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.
Water Pollution
EPA amends rule under the
Clean Water Act to control the
discharge of hazardous sub-
stances; effective 6/5/78. Pp.
24309-310, in the June 5 issue.
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB's)
EPA proposes to prohibit manu-
facturing, processing, distribu-
tion, and use; comments by
8/7/78,Pp.24802-817, June
7 issue.
PCB's and Fully
Halogenated
Chlorofluoroalkanes
EPA provides preliminary guid-
ance for exporters; effective
6/8/78,Pp.24818,June 7
issue.
Regulations Under
Consideration
The following rules are being
developed by EPA. The Agency
encourages public comment.
EPA contacts and proposed
issuing dates are listed so that
interested persons can make
their views known. These rules
will be issued in September:
Under the Clean Air Act, a
regulation to require use of the
best demonstrated control tech-
nology for emissions from
stationary internal combustion
engines and a regulation to con-
trol particles produced by
quarrying of nonmetallic min-
erals and related operations.
Regulations are also being con-
sidered to declare as hazardous
pollutants arsenic emissions
(primarily from copper smelt-
ers), benzene emissions, and
coke oven emission-charging
and topside leaks. To comment
on these rules write or phone
Don Goodwin (MD-13), EPA,
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. (919)541-5271.
Under the Clean Water Act,
effluent guidelines for industries
are being reviewed to ensure
that the best available technol-
ogy requirements, new source
performance standards, and
pretreatment guidelines are
current. For timber products
processing write or phone John
Riley (WH-552), EPA, Wash-
ington, D.C.20460.(202)426-
2554. For steam electric power-
plants write or phone John Lum
(WH-552), EPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460. (202)426-4617.
For leather tanning and finishing
write or phone William Sonnett
(WH-552), EPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460. (202) 426-2707.
Under the Atomic Energy
Act, a regulation to set environ-
mental standards for high-level
radioactive waste. Write or
phone Richard Guimond (AW-
460), EPA, Washington, D.C.
20460. (703) 557-8927.
Under the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, guide-
lines to help Federal agencies
ensure that procured materials
are composed of recycled mate-
rials as much as possible. Write
or phone Stephen Lingle (WH-
563), EPA, Washington, D.C.
20460.(202)755-9140.A
regulation that would require
industry to keep records of
health reactions to its chemical
products and consumer com-
plaints about its chemical prod-
ucts. Write or phone Ed Brooks
(TS-788), EPA, Washington,
D.C.20460.(202)426-9819.
Conferences
National Conference On Lake
Restoration, Sheraton-Ritz
Hotel, Minneapolis, Minn.
Aug. 22-24.
More information on the fol-
lowing conference is available
from Susan Armstrong, Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, 505
King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio
43201. (614) 424-7769.
States Served by EPA Regions
Region 1 (Boston)
Connecticut. Maine,
Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island.
Vermont
617-223-7210
Region 2 (New York
City)
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands
212-264-2525
Region 3
(Philadelphia)
Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania. Virginia,
West Virginia, District of
Columbia
215-597-9814
Region 4 (Atlanta)
Alabama, Georgia,
Florida, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky
404-881-4727
Region 5 (Chicago)
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Michigan. Wisconsin,
Minnesota
312-353-2000
Region 6 (Dallas)
Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas, New
Mexico
214-767-2600
Region 7 (Kansas
City)
Iowa. Kansas. Missouri,
Nebraska
816-374-5493
Region 8 (Denver)
Colorado, Utah,
Wyoming, Montana.
North Dakota. South
Dakota
303-837-3895
Region 9 (San
Francisco)
Arizona. California.
Nevada, Hawaii
415-556-2320
Region 10 (Seattle)
Alaska, Idaho. Oregon.
Washington
206-442-1220
JULY/AUGUST 1978
33
-------
Around the Nation
Bottle Bill Passes
Connecticut Governor Ella
Grasso has signed a bottle
bill requiring deposits on
soda and beer containers.
and banning cans with
detachable flip tops. The
law, which will take effect
in January, 1980, had
been debated in Connecti-
cut for six years. Similar
laws exist in Maine, Ver-
mont, Oregon, and
Michigan.
Coastal Zone
Program Approved
Massachusetts has be-
come the first East Coast
State to win approval of
its Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program from the
U.S. Department of Com-
merce. The program will
increase protection for
sensitive coastal areas
such as salt marshes, bar-
ren beaches, dunes, and
shellfish beds through
more vigorous enforce-
ment of existing environ-
mental laws. Improvement
of the State's fishing in-
dustry and planning for
onshore impacts of oil and
gas exploration are also
part of the plan. Massa-
chusetts is eligiblefor
$1.2 million in Federal
funds for coastal zone
management.
that less expensive regu-
lar fuel containing lead,
was sold as higher priced
super premium fuel,
which is supposed to be
unleaded. In addition to
defrauding customers,
this practice can ruin the
catalytic converter and
other parts of cars that re-
quire unleaded gas. The
Agency has recommended
a $5,900 civil penalty
against the service sta-
tion. Amoco Oil Co., the
station's supplier, dis-
covered the discrepancy
during regular quality con-
trol sampling. Amoco
notified the Nassau Coun-
ty Bureau of Weights and
Measures, which per-
formed inspections that
confirmed the supplier's
suspicions. The County
then notified EPA. Agency
surveys in various parts of
the country suggest that
10 percent of all vehicles
designed to use unleaded
fuel received the leaded
product instead, which
poses a threat to the suc-
cess of the auto emission
reduction program by im-
pairing the functioning of
pollution control
equipment.
Gas Fraud Charged
The Region 2 Enforce-
ment Division has cited a
retail gasoline station on
Long Island for deliberate-
ly defrauding customers.
EPA charges that the Mer-
rick, N.Y., service station
switched the face plates
of two gasoline pumps so
EPA Sues
Philadelphia
Region 3 recently filed
suit through the U.S. Jus-
tice Department against
the City of Philadelphia
for violation of the Clean
Water Act and the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act. Jack J.
Schramm, Regional Ad-
ministrator, said that de-
lays in building and im-
proving three sewage
treatment plants and slow
development of land-
based alternatives to
ocean dumping have had
a detrimental effect on the
health and economy of
Philadelphia, and have
left the Federal Govern-
ment with no choice but to
go to court. "The city was
first ordered to upgrade its
level of treatment in 1968
and because of a lack of
progress during the past
10 years now contributes
about half the pollution
load from all municipal
and industrial sources
combined along the Dela-
ware Estuary," said
Schramm. He added that
sewage plant construction
will create up to 1,800
jobs in the Philadelphia
area but that Federal fund-
ing for the projects hinges
on actions by the city. One
suit asks the Court to en-
join the city from any fur-
ther delays in sewage
treatment plant construc-
tion and to fine the city if
it does not follow a court-
imposed construction
schedule. A related action
asks penalties for past
violations of Philadel-
phia's sewage discharge
permits. The second suit
asks collection of $225,-
000 in civil penalties re-
cently assessed by
Schramm for the city's 32
violations of its 1 976-77
ocean dumping permit
and asks the Court to en-
join Philadelphia from
violating its present
permit.
Fuel Agreement
Reached
Region 3, the States of
Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, and the City of
Philadelphia have agreed
to a proposal that will
adjust limits on the sulfur
content of fuel used in the
Philadelphia area, to
share the task of meeting
air quality standards.
Under the new proposal
Philadelphia facilities that
use heavy fuel oil can
burn .5 percent sulfur oil
instead of the .3 percent
now required by the EPA-
approved Pennsylvania
State Implementation
Plan. Fuel sulfur levels in
areas immediately ad-
jacent to the city can be
reduced from 1.0 percent
to .5 percent. Outlying
facilities will be required
to burn 1.0 percent sulfur
oil. New Jersey facilities
in counties adjacent to
Philadelphia can raise
their sulfur level from .3
to .5 percent, while facili-
ties in outlying areas will
be reduced from 2.0 to
1.0 percent. Region 3
administrator Jack J.
Schramm said "If the
proposal is put into effect,
the result will be to take
away much of the finan-
cial inequity placed on
facilities in Philadelphia
and portions of New
Jersey without sacrificing
the quality of theair." He
no ted that the agreement
is a breakthrough in nego-
tiations that EPA has
mediated for the past two
years.
Spill Fines Levied
Region 4 has collected
more than $400,000 in
penalties from firms in
the Southeast that have
spilled petroleum prod-
ucts or have failed to plan
properly for the contain-
ment of such spills. EPA
has jurisidiction over
spills of oil and other
materials on inland water
bodies under the 1972
Amendments to the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Con-
trol Act. While the ma-
jority of the fines were
for spills of oil products,
more than $137,000 was
collected from firms that
failed to develop and im-
plement Spill Prevention
Control and Counter-
measure Plans. These
plans are required for
facilities storing certain
volumes of petroleum.
When a spill occurs the
firm responsible must pay
the full cost of cleanup in
addition to the penalty.
Louisville Plant
Operational
The Morris Forman
Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Louisville, Ky. is
operating again after
being shut down because
of chemical contamina-
tion. In early summer
the plant was not meeting
permit limitations for dis-
charge into the Ohio
River. In early 1977, the
facility and some of
Louisville's principal sew-
ers were contaminated
with thousands of gallons
of highly toxic chemicals
allegedly dumped into a
downtown manhole. The
plant, which has a capac-
ity of 1 05 million gallons
per day, serves Louisville
and portions of Jefferson
County. The Metropolitan
Sewer District put the
plant back into operation
lateinMaytocomplywith
an EPA administrative
order issued in April. The
agency also filed a lawsuit
against the utility for fail-
ure to meet limits in its
discharge permit.
Lake Study Released
While gross pollution has
been subsiding. Lake
Michigan has shown in-
creasing evidence of
subtle enrichment over
the last 10-1 5 years, ac-
cording to a recent EPA
study. The results of the
study were released dur-
ing the three-day Lake
Michigan Fair cospon-
sored by Region 5 and
the Lake Michigan Federa-
tion in early June. The
study says that the coastal
areas of the lake are
showing adverse effects
of the increase of nu-
trients in the lake. Re-
searchers found that many
shore areas and bays are
mesotrophic, which
means the water con-
tains a moderate amount
of dissolved nutrients, or
are eutrophic, meaning
the water is rich in dis-
solved nutrients and is
often short of oxygen. The
open waters of the lake,
especially in the central
and northern areas, are in
.u
EPAJOURNAL
-------
transition from the oligo-
trophic state, that is, well-
supplied with oxygen and
short of nutrients, to
mesotrophic. The south-
ern basin is more meso-
trophic. The study will
be published ia October.
Meanwhile a 20-page
summary is available in
limited quantities from
the Office of Public
Affairs, Region 5. (See
address on P. 33.)
Rural Drinking
Water Study
Region 6 began its part of
a national drinking water
study in early June. The
research project examines
both the quality and the
quantity of water available
to residents of rural
America. The study in-
cludes interviews with
individuals and analyses
of household tapwater
samples. Initial interviews
are being conducted in
two counties apiece in
Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Later parts of the study
will include surveys in
other counties of those
two States as well as in
Louisiana, Texas, and
New Mexico, and will
conclude in mid-October.
Four hundred counties
nationwide will be cov-
ered in the study, which is
required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act be-
cause complete informa-
tion on rural water condi-
tions is not available now.
Results of the study will
be used to assess the
types and locations of
rural water problems.
Clean Water Act
Meetings
"Implementing the Clean
Water Act of 1977", one
of five nationwide semi-
nars, was held in Dallas
June 1 2. The day-long
meeting covered Agency
plans for implementing
new provisions of the Act
and gave special empha-
sis to proposed regula-
tions for Agency grants
for construction of muni-
cipa I wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Another
meeting was held June 28
to obtain public comment
and testimony about new
regulations under the Act.
Indian Meeting Held
Region 7 recently held a
meeting with people from
five of the eight Indian
tribes that have reserva-
tions within the Region.
Tribal leaders wereamong
those attending the one-
day session, along with
representatives from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs
and the Indian Health
Service. Joining in the
meeting were representa-
tives from the Americans
for Indian Opportunity, a
non-profit organization
that has been working
with a grant from EPA to
advise tribes across the
Nation about their respon-
sibilities and options un-
der the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act. Dr. Kay
Camin, Regional Admin-
istrator, told the partici-
pants that the purpose of
the meeting was for EPA
to learn about the environ-
mental needs of the Indian
people and for the tribes
to learn about the environ-
mental services a^nd con-
cerns of EPA. The agenda
featured areas of major
concern—drinking water,
sewage treatment, solid
waste, pesticides—pre-
sented by EPA's program
staff, with an emphasis on
discussion. A session on
jurisdictional problems
was led by Leigh Price of
the EPA's pesticide pro-
gram. The meeting ended
with a commitment by all
participants to maintain
an open and active work-
ing relationship.
Airport Expansion
Debated
Region 8 Administrator
Alan Merson has asked
the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration to submit to
EPA environmental as-
sessment documents that
relate to a Frontier Air-
lines proposal to initiate
scheduled jet service to
Jackson Hole Airport in
Grand Teton National
Park. According to Mer-
son the action is subject
to review under the
National Environmental
Policy Act as well as
Federal Aviation Admin-
istration regulations, the
Department of Transpor-
tation Act, the Historic
Preservation Act, and the
Clean Air Act. Merson is
concerned about the con-
sequences of the Frontier
Airlines proposal because
of its relation to the Jack-
son Hole Airport Master
Plan. EPA is presently
reviewing the draft envi-
ronmental impact state-
ment for that master plan.
The conclusion of EPA's
review of the impact state-
ment is expected to be
that airport expansion,
which would mean more
air traffic and the expan-
sion of jet service to the
area, is environmentally
unacceptable and
economically unneces-
sary. The ^rentier Airlines
proposal would bring
modified Boeing 737 jets
into service over the park
starting this summer. The
Jackson Hole Airport is
the only airport located
within a national park.
Merson cited "the sensi-
tivity of park and wilder-
ness area users to the
impacts of aircraft noise"
as a major concern in
questioning the approval
of jet service and airport
expansion.
Clean Air Act
Determination
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle recently deter-
mined that the 1977 Clean
Air Act applies to oil
operations on the Outer
Continental Shelf, the
plain extending below the
ocean along the coast-
lines. At issue was Exxon
Corporation's proposed
oil storage and treatment
facility, which would be
anchored near platform
Hondo, 3.2 miles off the
coast of Santa Barbara,
Cal. The facility is a con-
verted tanker with equip-
ment to separate oil and
gas, and to compress and
dehydrate gas. Authority
for the determination
comes from the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands
Act, which "extends"
U.S. laws to apply to all
fixed structures located in
that area. The decision is
EPA's first application of
the new act and sets the
tone for future decisions
about offshore activities.
It applies the new source
review and prevention of
significant deterioration
provisions of the Clean
Air Act to any facility in
the Outer Continental
Shelf whose emissions
might affect a State's
plans to achieve ambient
air quality standards.
Exxon Corporation is
challenging EPA's deter-
mination in the courts.
Environmental
Quality Awards
Region 10 recently an-
nounced the 1 2 recipients
of the annual environmen-
tal quality awards given
in this region. Each win-
ner was chosen, according
to Regional Administrator
Donald P. Dubois, be-
cause of efforts that have
brought environmental
improvements or have
contributed to promoting
better understanding of
environmental issues. The
winners include: public
officials James M. Span-
gler, Fort Steilacoom,
Wash., for pioneering
use of wood pellets as
fuel with resulting reduc-
tions of air pollution, and
Arthur R. Dammkoehler,
Seattle, Wash., for work
with the Puget Sound Air
Pollution Control Agency.
Citizen activists: Hoi-
way Jones, Eugene, Ore.,
for establishing the Ore-
gon Wilderness Coalition,
and Robert Lynette, Red-
mond, Wash., for alerting
Northwesterners to the
dangers of locating oil
transshipment facilities
on Puget Sound. Environ-
mental educators: Peter
F. Jensch, Gresham, Ore.,
co-author of Investigating
Our Ecosystem, an envi-
ronmental textbook,
Helene Schulier, Seattle,
Wash., for involving stu-
dents in pollution cleanup,
and the Youth Conserva-
tion Corps, Alaska, for
summer camp projects
throughout that State.
Journalists: Kathy
Johnston, Hayden Lake,
Ida., for a series of arti-
cles on pollution in north-
ern Idaho lakes, Jim
Kadera, Portland, Ore.,
for in-depth articles on
environmental issues, and
Steve Green, Seattle,
Wash., for articles linking
the impact of oil devel-
opment to air pollution
problems.
Public agencies: the
Council of Governments,
Lane County, Ore., for
successful development
of their water quality man-
agement plan, and the
Transit Department, Mu-
nicipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Wash, for con-
struction of two park-ride
lots and planning of other
measures to relieve traffic
congestion.
JULY/AUGUST 1978
35
-------
Senate Leaders
Muskie
Continued from page 4
lack of interest in the success of the
program. In these instances, the Agency
should continue its enforcement policy of
seeking court-imposed penalties for non-
compliance in amounts related to the
benefits of delayed compliance.
Third, the industrial prctroatment pro-
gram established in the 1972 Act has been
made more workable. This program has
been designed to protect our municipal
treatment plants from non-compatible in-
dustrial discharges and to keep our munici-
pal sludge free of harmful toxic pollutants.
Congress applauds the success to date
of a majority of our Nation's major indus-
tries for achieving the requirements of the
1 972 Clean Water law. Through the enact-
ment of the 1 977 Amendments, we have
acted fairly toward those who made an
effort to comply, and we have realistically
adjusted certain industrial regulations
accordingly.
The 1 977 Act also addressed several
other important provisions:
• The Environmental Protection Agency,
through Section 404, is mandated to de-
velop an effective program for controlling
I he pollution of the Nation's 76 million
acres of wetlands. The Agency is also
required to monitor the protection of these
water areas in coordination with other
Federal agencies and the States through a
permit program. Federal jurisdiction over
the wetlands has been retained, and I am
hopeful this means the fragile wetlands
environment will truly be protected.
• Federal authority to clean up oil and
hazardous substance pollution has been
extended to 200 miles from the shoreline.
The liability limits on tankers and facilities
for spill clean-up have been raised. These
amendments provide interim assurance
that adequate authority exists to clean up
most spills of oil and hazardous substances
until separate legislation to create a "super-
fund" through a fee on oil transportation
can be enacted.
• Federal facilities now must comply with
both procedural and substantive provisions
01' the clean water law.
The 1977 Clean Water Act continues
the national goal of eliminating the dis-
charge of pollutants into our water. It was
not easy legislation to enact. The amend-
ments to the Act took two years of hard
work by Congress to develop.
But we have reached an important turn-
ing point in our struggle for clean water.
Our emphasis must now shift from legisla-
tion to the implementation of regulations.
We have a law capable of achieving cur
goals. We now must work toward regula-
tions to match.
Six and a half years ago, I made the
following remarks which I think are as
relevant today as then in describing the
nature of our environmental challenge:
"It is imperative that we attempt to stop
pollution and to restore the quality of our
environment. I suggest that we begin by
adding to our approach some humble ideas
about ourselves and our place upon the
planet.
"It may be, as some argue, that man is
the most adaptable of Earth's creatures.
It may be that he can remain essentially
the same, changing only slightly as he ad-
justs to higher levels of pollution.
"But what we do not know, and what we
cannot predict accurately, are the long-
range effects upon man of prolonged ex-
posure to bigger and bigger doses of
pollution. Man, no less than the peregrine
falcon and the mountain lion, is an endan-
gered species.
"He is also the principal danger to him-
self, the principal polluter of his environ-
ment. Foul air, dirty water, ravaged land,
are more than complex problems in
resource management. What must be man-
aged, and properly managed for our own
protection, are our activities within our
environment.
"There is another humble idea that
should be added to our approach: We live
today in what an engineer might call a
closed system. Some of our resources,
once used, cannot be replaced. Others of
our resources are renewable, but finite.
No one is likely to invent more clean water,
more clean air, more arable land." fj
Senate Leaders
Stafford
Continued from page 5
bill ion for FY 1980 in addition to the $4.5
billion contained in his FY 1979 budget
request.
Let me add a word of caution here. The
availability of these additional funds
should not lull State water quality adminis-
trators or local officials into believing that
money wil! always be available, whatever
the need. The previous Administration set
out a strategy which suggested support
for a 10-year, $45 billion Federal assist-
ance program. The present Administration
is proceeding consistently with that plan.
Yet the 1 976 Needs Survey estimated
the grant eligible costs of publicly-owned
treatment works and associated sewers
{categories I-V) at $95 billion, of which
$71.8 billion represents the Federal share.
Of that, $62.0 billion must come out of the
newly authorized funds and future authori-
zations. Because Congress did not place
certain anticipated restrictions on the fund-
ing of sewers or the reserve capacity of
treatment works, the "needs" have not
been reduced to approximate the $45 bil-
lion level of Federal effort for which one
can reasonably anticipate continued
Administration support.
On top of this shortfall, the figures are
expressed in terms of constant 1976
dollors. Should inflation in the construction
sector continue, a near certain proposition,
the real needs will be even greater.
Nor should we only be concerned over
the total capital costs of the construction
grant program. As construction is com-
pleted, it is becoming obvious to sponsor-
ing communities that the operating costs
of the technologies we are using are very
large. On the average, the annual operating
cost of a plant is about 1 0 percent of its
total capital cost. Thus a $10 million plant
costs about $1 million annually to run.
When conventional technologies are ap-
plied in smaller, rural communities this
phenomenon is exacerbated. Frequently, a
small town cannot afford the skilled opera-
tor needed for the effective and efficient
performance of a treatment works.
Engineers often do not continue their
association with a project for the length of
the "shake-down" period—up to one year
—after the construction is completed.
If communities go broke trying to clean up
their water pollution, the political support
which this program has enjoyed thus far
will be seriously threatened.
In an attempt to cope with the problems
of cost and performance, Congress adopted
several reforms in the municipal construc-
tion grants program. One, which I outlined
EPAJOURNAL
-------
earlier, is to require the careful study and
consideration of alternative and innovative
wastewater treatment technologies before
any grant can be made. Projects that
produce offsetting revenues, that conserve
water, that reduce energy demands, that
recycle and reclaim water and nutrients
will make a greft contribution to reducing
the annual costs of these facilities. And
especially if water is conserved, the
capacity and therefore the capital costs can
be contained. Such projects are bound to
yield better pollution control, which can be
translated into real economic as well as
environmental benefits.
To further encourage the adoption of
these technologies, the 1977 Clean Water
Act provides a bonus Federal share of
10 percent beginning in fiscal year 1979.
If an approved alternative or innovative
technology is selected, a community can
receive 85 percent of the capital costs from
the Federal Government. Furthermore, the
estimated cost of such a project may ex-
ceed the most cost-effective alternative by
1 5 percent, giving an even greater incen-
tive to overcome the professional bias
against new technologies.
To heJp small communities, the new
Clean Water Act makes eligible "individ-
ual" treatment technologies which may be
.located on private property. To see how
important this can be, about 25 percent of
the U.S. population is still served by septic
tanks. Experts tell us that proper design,
construction, and maintenance of these
septic systems can provide years of
trouble-free service and an economical,
healthful solution to sewage disposal.
Other on-site treatment and disposal sys-
tems, as well as non-conventional systems
suitable for smaller communities, are also
eligible for funding under the 1977 Act,
with active involvement by the sponsoring
municipality in assuring the proper opera-
tion and maintenance of any Federally
assisted individual systems.
To ensure that less costly alternatives
to conventional treatment technologies are
made available in rural communities, the
Act requires each "rural" State, one having
a rural population of 25 percent or more,
to set aside 4 percent of its allotment for
use in small towns and villages.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, in addi-
tion to reinforcing the basic thrust of the
1972 Amendments, adopted several
amendments to the municipal program
which give greater resources, policy initia-
tive and flexibility to State and local
•governments on which EPA increasingly
relies to administer this program. For ex-
ample. States may receive up to 2 percent
of their construction grant allotment to
manage aspects of the program. Lest there
be any doubt, the Declaration of Goals and
Policy has been amended to read: "It is the
policy of Congress that the States manage
the construction grant program under this
Act and implement the permit programs
under sections 402 and 404 of this Act."
Priority list determinations are to be
made solely by the States, unless the
projects selected will not result in com-
pliance with the enforceable requirements
of the Act. Communities have more options
in the design of systems for collecting user
charges to pay for operation and main-
tenance and for recovering the industrial
share of capital costs. Small communities
can expect some real relief from red tape
by combining their applications for step 2
and step 3 grants into one package for
projects totaling $2 million or less (or $3
million in areas of high costs).
Finally, areawide treatment manage-
ment planning grants are continued so that
any designated agency may receive 100
percent Federal assistance over a two-
year period for use in planning the myriad
activities which must be coordinated and
controlled in order to abate pollution of the
waters and prevent further degradation
due to growth in economic activity. These
section 208 agencies, as they are called,
must also deal with the complex problems
of non-point sources of pollution, both
urban runoff and agricultural erosion. They
have sweeping responsibilities, and the
Clean Water Act of 1977 adds to them in
creating a cost-sharing program to help
farmers undertake "best management prac-
tices" to control water pollution from
pesticide-laden soils.
Apart from the skill and care which
Congress applied to the drafting of this
new law, and to clarifying our intent and
our expectations, in the end the municipal
construction grants program will only suc-
ceed through the cooperation and consent
of those who are most involved in carrying
out the law: government officials in the
States, municipalities, and the EPA; engi-
neering firms, construction companies and
construction workers; planning groups and
citizen organizations. The program cur-
rently enjoys tremendous political support,
in the best sense of the word. To retain this
support, the projects which we build must
be effective in abating pollution and must be
affordable. It is my hope that the Clean
Water Act of 1977 contributes to that
result. Q
The Mounting Sludge Pile
Continued from page 12
With 75 percent EPA funding, a Duluth,
Minn., project will attempt to produce
usable energy from sludge and municipal
solid waste. The materials will be burned
together in a system that speeds up the
combustion of the wet sludge.
Aided by EPA funds, Bangor, Maine,
has been composting its sludge for more
than two years with a forced air method,
a project that has attracted public interest.
More than $100 million of EPA construc-
tion grant funds are being used for pilot
projects to evaluate sludge management
alternatives.
Eight municipal sludge landfill sites are
being studied by EPA to find how far con-
tamination has moved and whether it
threatens local groundwater.
Around the country, many potential
options for sludge recycling are being ex-
plored. One possibility is fixation of sludge
by chemicals for safe landfilling and use in
highway construction. Another possible
system is methane gas recovery from land-
fills. Reclamation of strip-mined land can
involve another use of sludge.
The benefits of such approaches are two-
fold. The sludge is retrieved as a resource
and it is put to beneficial use. With the
sludge, nutrients are recycled, materials
and energy produced, and damaged land
restored.
Sludge illustrates the ecologists' lesson:
Everything is connected to everything else.
Sludge that is "thrown away" emerges to
pollute somewhere else. But sludge that is
safely reused protects nature's systems
and strengthens the Nation's economy.
With the increasing quantities of wastes,
the growing complexity of pollution, and
the closing regulatory gap, the sludge
riddle may seem impossible. But as Ameri-
can poet James Russell Lowell once wrote,
"New occasions teach new ideas." In the
effort to resolve the issue of sludge, such
ideas are already beginning to emerge. D
(If more information on ocean dumping is
needed, EPA recently submitted a report
to Congress on the matter. A copy of the
report can be obtained by writing Chief,
Marine Protection Branch, Division of Oil
and Special Materials Control, WH-548.
EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.)
JULY/AUGUST 1978
37
-------
Planning for Clean Water
continued from page 16
merited, "We don't believe
government officials, but we do
you, because you admit to not
having all the answers." We
found farmers to be very much
concerned about the protection
of water resources but even
more so about the cost of neces-
sary controls in an increasingly
competitive market.
In addition to selling water
quality, another of our primary
concerns was showing the bene-
fit of undertaking water quality
management practices. Toward
that end, we have piggy-backed
on the previously discussed
agricultural institutions. We
transferred funds from the 208
continuing planning program
to the local soil conservation
district and we transferred two
staff positions to SCS to con-
centrate on helping farmers
to develop conservation plans.
With our limited resources,
we decided to focus on a single
watershed located entirely
within New Castle County. The
largest land holder is Getty Oil,
with 3,000 acres in the basin,
over half of which Getty leases
for farming. Participation of
ail the landowners in the de-
velopment of a conservation
plan for the entire area has been
sought. Proven best manage-
ment practices from the Indiana
Black Creek Demonstration
Project will be utilized in the
watershed.
We initially suffered a small
setback when our monitoring
money was cut out of the budget
for the project, but some local
university graduate students
agreed to take on some of that
responsibility. Because of the
cutback, and considering the
previous research at Black
Creek, we decided to allocate
the resources toward develop-
ing plans for farmers to imple-
ment, rather than documenting
water quality data in a report.
I'm pleased to say that, at
the six month milestone, the
program is working. The in-
tensive effort by our 208
engineer and two new SCS staff
farmers has resulted in over 60
percent of the watershed plans
being completed. Implementa-
tion of these plans will begin
soon, starting with 8,000
feet of grassed waterways. Even
Getty Oil is also now participat-
ing in the plan. Incidently, the
communication exchange has
been a two way street. Our 208
staff engineer is now fully
informed on how to milk 1 20
cows at one sitting.
Looking at New Castle's
success from my new position
as Director of EPA's Water
Planning Division, I believe the
concept used in New Castle
County, of having farmers
develop their own programs
with technical assistance and
cost sharing is worthy of further
attention. What we all must
realize is that voluntary parti-
cipation by the farmer is one of
the keys to successful erosion
control. The process may be
a long one, involving education,
communication, technical
assistance, and of course,
millions of dollars, but I think
it is one that is worth pursuing.
What we are planning for, in
a national program, is a con-
tinuation of the effort that has
already begun on a limited
scale. We need to further
refine best management prac-
tices. We need cost-effective
techniques that work toward
improving water quality.
We must continue to work
with the National Association
of Conservation Districts, the
Soil Conservation Service and
other agricultural agencies. We
are currently involved in a joint
effort, with NACD, evaluating
and monitoring the impact of
various practices on water
quality. In over 40 States con-
servation districts have been in-
volved in 208 planning and
implementation, and a sizable
number have been designated
as the management agency for
non-point source water pollu-
tion control. These organiza-
tions can be our allies in the
battle against pollution from
sediment erosion.
Congress has authorized a
substantial amount of assistance,
up to $600 million through FY
1980, toward the cost of im-
plementing rural best manage-
ment practices for improved
water quality. Known as the
Culver Amendment, this section
of the Clean Water Act of 1 977
authorizes funding for areas,
with approved 208 plans, which
have sources severely impacting
water quality. Funding may also
go to soil conservation districts,
State soil and water conserva-
tion agencies or State water
quality agencies to assist in
program administration. Fund-
ing will go directly to the indi-
vidual farmer through long term
contracts.
I believe that we can dras-
tically reduce the impact of
agriculture non-point sources
without a national regulatory
program. However, to do so will
require an exceptional educa-
tion and communication process.
However, for that small
minority of farmers who will
not voluntarily comply with the
law, a regulatory-back up may
be necessary to insure that the
job gets done in a timely and
effective fashion. Q
Aquatic Research
on the Gulf
Continued from page 15
"Our mission has broadened
a great deal since we came into
EPA," declares Dr. Thomas W.
Duke, Laboratory Director.
"We've been looking into or-
ganics such as pesticides and
PCB's. Then ocean dumping.
Then specialized problems of
Region 4. We wear as many
hats as we can, since there are
now many thousands of chem-
icals on the chemical register
that could affect the environ-
ment. We've worked also with
Region 6 in Dallas on an in-
secticide case and with Region
3 on Kepone. Now we're in-
volved in in-depth research on
modelling to see if our research
and predictions on Kepone are
valid. That is, what its environ-
mental half-life is, how long it
remains in sediments, and what
the turn-over time is for shell-
fish, meaning how long it takes
an oyster to expel Kepone."
The growth of the Gulf
Breeze laboratory has reflected
this changed and enlarged mis-
sion in the past eight years.
Only about two dozen perma-
nent employees worked there
when EPA took over the facil-
ity in late 1970. Today about
135 are on its payroll including
some contract employees and a
contingent of scientists at a
fieid station in Bears Bluff,
South Carolina. The laboratory
has an annual budget of about
$5 million.
An indication of the enlarged
responsibilities of Gulf Breeze
was the dedication last October
by EPA Deputy Administrator
Barbara Blum and U.S. Repre-
sentative Robert F. L. Sikes of a
$1 million toxicological test
facility on Sabine Island. Dr.
Stephen Gage, EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Research and
Development, also spoke at
the ceremony.
The new building is a 7,500-
square-foot "wet lab" equipped
with a flowing fresh seawater
system able to deliver 450
gallons of water a minute. The
raw seawater is pumped di-
rectly into the lab from Santa
Rosa Sound. Because it can
duplicate the natural conditions
38
EPAJOURNAL
-------
in which marine organisms live,
the aquatic laboratory can test
subtle, long-lasting effects of
pollutants on marine life. Dr.
Duke estimates that the facility
will enhance threefold the
laboratory's ability to evaluate
the environmental effects of
toxic substances in estuaries.
The Gulf Breeze laboratory
in the past has played a promi-
nent role in EPA pesticide
registration, and information
derived from its tests often
appear on the caution label of
commercial pesticides.
"Because of public concern
that estuaries and marine
waters receive undue amounts
of pesticides and other organ-
ics," Dr. Duke explains, "we
are now being asked for more
critical evaluations of pesticide
formulations, especially those
used near aquatic ecosystems.
Our new test facility wilt aid
researchers in our continuing
short and long-term assess-
ments of chemical contami-
nants and their marine environ-
mental pathways."
Gulf Breeze now not only
performs research for EPA but
also participates with other
Federal agencies in projects of
mutual interest. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, for example, is
helping to fund studies of the
environmental impact on ma-
rine organisms of offshore
drilling. With spiraling energy
needs, drilling at sea off the
coast of Texas and Louisiana
and oil spills from offshore
deep-water ports are both ex-
pected to increase. Unfortu-
nately, the major oil producing
areas also are the most pro-
ductive shrimping grounds in
the Gulf of Mexico. Shrimp and
fish are attracted to the rig
structures and scientists are
studying the effects of their
exposure to petroleum hydro-
carbons. Researchers from Gulf
Breeze are now looking into the
problem at a Navy platform 1 2
miles off the coast of Panama
City, Fla.
The laboratory also is about
to embark on a broad study of
carcinogens in the marine en-
vironment along the Gulf coast,
funded by the National Cancer
Institute, Dr. John Couch, co-
ordinator of the project, says
the environmental pathology
team will examine aquatic
species along the coasts of
Florida, Alabama, and Missis-
sippi to see how carcinogens
are affecting them and also
whether there is a link through
the food chain with the inci-
dence of human cancer in the
region.
In 1976 Congress directed
EPA to conduct an in-depth
study of the Chesapeake Bay,
and the Gulf Breeze laboratory
has assumed an important role
in that program. Dr. Tudor T.
Davies, deputy director of the
laboratory, is chairman of the
technical advisory committee
for the Chesapeake study and
also administers research
grants for the program. Al-
though original plans outlined
about ten problem areas as-
sociated with the Chesapeake,
the study group is focusing on
three major ones: toxic sub-
stances, eutrophication, and
the disappearance of sub-
merged aquatic vegetation
from the Bay.
Thus far Congress has pro-
vided about $10.5 million for
the study. Jack J. Schramm,
Region 3 Administrator, is
national program director. A
number of other EPA facilities
also are making their resources
available including the Athens,
Ga., laboratory; the Annapolis
Field Office of Region 3; the Las
Vegas Environmental Monitor-
ing and Support Laboratory;
the Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory; and the
Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Complex in
Warrenton, Va.
Dr. Davies coordinated ear-
lier work on the environmental
effects of Kepone, and follow-
up studies of its effects on oy-
ster tissue and chromosomes
now are being pursued in a
separate project with the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration at the National
Marine Fisheries Service labo-
ratory in Oxford, Md.
One of the living organisms
cultured at the Gulf Breeze lab
is the southern mangrove tree.
"Mangroves grow in inter-
tidal waters on the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts of southern States,"
explains Dr. Gerald Walsh, a
research Geologist. "They're
used to produce lumber, tele-
phone poles, charcoal, and
tannin, and they also grow in
important spawning grounds for
fish and shrimp.
"We've found they're resis-
tant to a number of substances
like heavy metals, insecticides,
and herbicides. But unfortu-
nately they transport toxics
from the soil to their leaves,
and when the leaves fall into
the water, they're ingested by
shrimp and other aquatic ani-
mals. So we have been growing
mangrove seedlings in the labo-
ratory to study this whole prob-
lem more thoroughly," he says.
Gulf Breeze has been able to
add a dimension to its field
work by means of a mobile
laboratory, which along with
two others also is used by
Region 4's Surveillance and
Analysis Division (EPA Jour-
nal, November 1977). The De-
partment of Commerce's Bu-
reau of Economic Analysis has
forecast very heavy increases
in production over the next few
decades in industries such as
paper, textiles, and chemicals,
and Dr. Walsh points out that it
will be necessary to regulate
their effluent and test it to see if
it meets standards. The impor-
tance of a mobile lab is that the
vehicle can test such discharges
right at the site where they pour
into receiving waters.
In addition to its contracts
with other Federal agencies.
Gulf Breeze has a grant with the
University of West Florida to
monitor Santa Rosa Sound
right on the laboratory's north-
ern doorstep. The two-year
agreement begun last Novem-
ber will make use of 30 sam-
pling stations to measure
salinity, pollution, and algae
and bacteria counts.
Specialized research at the
Bears Bluff, S.C. field station,
under direction of Dr. William
P. Davis, is assessing the im-
pact of chlorination of marine
waters on marine organisms.
Electric power generation sta-
tions located in coastal areas
use chlorination to cut down
fouling of their cooling sys-
tems, and wastewater treat-
ment plants also add chlorine
in the final stage before dis-
charge. Since this chemical
plays a role in fish kills, the
field station, located about 25
miles south of Charleston on a
tidal estuary, is studying the
environmental impact of chlori-
nation on various Crustacea,
oysters, fish and communities
of marine organisms.
A master plan for the Gulf
Breeze facility calls for addi-
tions in several areas in the
future. These include a storage
building for hazardous sub-
stances, a laboratory for test-
ing the effects on animals of
suspected carcinogens, a sepa-
rate facility for chemical analy-
sis of carcinogens, and—not
least important because of the
Gulf's occasional hurricanes—
a sea wall around part of Sa-
bine Island.
Despite the storms, one of
the bonuses for the men and
women working at the Gulf
Breeze laboratory is its almost
idyllic surroundings. The cli-
mate is semi-tropical, and palm
trees and shimmering white
sands are part of the local am-
bience. As a result there have
been far more applicants than
job vacancies in recent years. D
JULY/AUGUST 1978
39
-------
Report
By Dr. Kathleen Q.
Camin, Regional
Administrator
As American citizens look at
their environment now,
they are dazzled by the growing
complexity of it. Big problems
have mushroomed out of a
world of big business, big
government, and big institu-
tions. These problems have
been made even larger by
specialized scientific technical
language.
At the same time, the men
and women of EPA have been
increasingly cut off from the
citizens they serve by the mag-
nitude of the task of cleaning
up the environment. The effort
of bringing the two together
has been called public partici-
pation but in simpler times it
would have been called "com-
munication."
All are aware of the problem.
People who work at protecting
the environment worry about
disappearing into a fog of
MOL's, l/l's, AZMA's, red tape,
and FTS numbers. Citizens
worry that the quality of their
air, water, and land will deter-
iorate before they find out whom
to talk to about it. To bring
Government and citizens to-
gether to exchange knowledge
is the problem. As I have met
with citizens ail across the
Region, I found even the most
experienced environmental
groups have trouble getting
help in the EPA and under-
standing the help when it is
given. If the Sierra Club was
baffled, what of the citizen
calling the government for the
first time because of a chemical
spill?
To overcome the jargon and
contact barrier separating the
Region 7 staff from those need-
ing their help, a new communi-
cation channel was established
— a toll-free Environmental
Action Line. With very little
promotion, calls began to flow
in. Because the action line filled
a need, calls soon reached ten
a day. As the Regional Action
Line Consultants know that the
buck stops with them, they are
able to handle 75 percent of the
calls on the spot. The rest are
referred to the appropriate per-
sonnel or an outside agency.
The action line handles calls
about subjects ranging from air-
plane noise to sewer odors.
A good example is the call
from Nancy McConnell. Nancy
was upset, worried and bewil-
dered by the situation at her
parent's farm. Her parents had
been forced to move, cattle had
died, a great deal of money had
been lost and her mother was
suffering from possible lead
poisoning. The family felt that
oil and gas runoff from a nearby
truck stop was causing the
problem. But how to get action?
Nancy heard about the En-
vironmental Action Line and de-
cided to give it a try. When the
phone call was received at the
Regional Office, it was immedi-
ately referred to the Region 7
Emergency Response section,
which began work. The State
Department of Environmental
Quality and local officials were
alerted. Two members of the
EPA Region 7 staff went to
solve the problem. They found
that the creek was contaminated
with oil from the truck stop
parking lot. The oil had accu-
mulated over the winter. When
the snow melted, it washed the
oil from the parking lot into a
ditch. The ditch carried the oil
to a creek which flowed across
the McConnell's property.
Action to clean the creek up
began immediately. The result
was a successful removal of
the oil.
Not all the results have been
this successful, but many of the
problems can be solved in short
order and all are followed up.
EPA is able to give service to
many citizens this way, but an
unexpected benefit has been
citizens coming forward to help
protect the environment by re-
porting violations such as fuel
contamination and tampering
with automobile pollution con-
trol devices. The fact that the
Environmental Action Line has
become a source of two-way
communication promises to ex-
tend the Region's ability to im-
prove the environment.
In areas where specific
groups will have an interest in
technical subjects, Region 7 is
trying other new approaches.
A group of interested and
knowledgeable farmers is lend-
ing its knowledge of agriculture
and farm situations and has
joined with EPA personnel to
form a working group. This ex-
change helps the Region to
work for realistic regulations in
rural areas.
When EPA was forced to as-
sume primacy for water supply
in the State of Missouri, city
officials had a difficult time with
new forms and some of the new
regulations. Eight workshops
were set up across the State and
all water suppliers were invited.
n Q. Cam in
40
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Regional water supply person-
nel discussed the new situation
in depth. Representative opera-
tors appeared on the program
and asked all the questions that
were on their minds. As a result,
the operators understood the
law better and the quality of
their reporting improved. The
Regional personnel came away
with a good understanding of
the operators' problems.
Because of the deep interest
of city councils, civic clubs, and
environmental groups in how
air quality regulations affect
their community's future.
Region 7 has established a pool
of speakers on the Clean Air
Act. This group is drawn from
all fields but is specially trained
by the air pollution staff. These
speakers will talk to all inter-
ested groups on the vital need
for clean air and what will be
needed to clean it up.
The communication problem
is still ahead of us. The toxic
effect of minute quantities of
pollutants over a long period of
time must still be explained.
Complex water pollution trade-
offs must be made understand-
able. EPA still is heavily work-
ing in many very narrowly spe-
cialized technical fields which
almost defy communication.
However, Region 7 strongly
feels that the Environmental
Action Line and other public
participation efforts are a good
start. While serving the people
of the Region, we are also able
to see better their first hand re-
action to environmental issues.
This clarifies our thinking on
priorities and methods. Quite
often too, we find that people
want to help clean up the envi-
ronment themselves if given the
opportunity. D
Flocks of blue
geese and snow geese at the
Squaw Creek National Wildlife
Refuge near Mound City, Mo.
Back Cover: Children romp in
the surf at Henlopen Point, Del.,
beach.
-------
- •- ;• '' I
•0
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
„,, '.ID,
Penalty for Private Use S300
Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 335
Bulk
[__ ~\
^
U.S.MAIL
"""""^y
------- |