United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Volume 4
Number 9
October 1978
EPA JOURNAL
Tie Air You Breathe
n
fin
-.
-------
Air
Cleaning
Highlights of plans to control
pollution discharges from auto-
mobiles and industrial and
municipal sewers in the sky are
reviewed in this issue of EPA
Journal.
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle urges industry to help
persuade States and local gov-
ernment to move forcefully
against air pollution to preserve
the opportunities for expanded
economic development.
He notes that under the Clean
Air Act, tight restrictions will
ruin out the option an industry
once had of moving to another
part of the country with lax
pollution standards.
The Administrator empha-
sizes the importance of keeping
harmful materials out of the air
and out of the lungs of people to
help reduce the Nation's $140
billion-a-year health bill.
Assistant Administrator
David G. Hawkins discusses in
an interview the strategies being
carried out to protect air quality.
Proposed regulations to curb
pollution from coal-burning
plants and the issue of growth
and clean air are reviewed in
two key articles.
Otherair pollution issues
covered include: The high cost
of Los Angeles smog; progress
in State Implementation Plans;
plans to help cities reach clean
air goals, the New Jersey ve-
hicle inspection and mainte-
nance program, EPA's new
mobile car tester, and how bik-
ing gets some people to work
without contributing to
pollution.
Two major articles in the re-
search area are an interview
with Dr. Richard Dowd. Staff
Director, EPA Science Advisory
Board, and a report on a human
testing program at an EPA
North Carolina laboratory.
The magazine also has an-
other in the continuing series of
reports from the Agency's Re-
gional Offices—this time from
Region 9 with headquarters in
San Francisco.
A third-grader's view of air
pollution by Sean Wontworth
of Bristol School, Kansas
City, Mo. Sean received a Presi-
dent's Environmental Youth
Award for his effort, which was
part of a contest sponsored by
the EPA Kansas City Office of
Public Awareness for World
Environment Day.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-1 07)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Volume 4
Number 9
October 1 978
xvEPA 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
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.
Clean Air 2
Administrator Douglas M. Costle
reviews the prospects for reduc-
ing air pollution.
New Air Strategies 4
David G. Hawkins explains in an
interview what steps are being
taken to protect air quality.
Tough Rules for
Mew Coal Burning
Plants 8
A report by Truman Temple on
new regulations to strengthen
standards for new power plants.
Growth and Clean Air 10
A critical air quality issue is re-
viewed by John Heritage.
The High Cost of
Los Angeles Smog 15
A report on the impact of smog
on real estate values.
Blueprint
for Clean Air
An article by Henry Thomas on
revisions needed for State Im-
plementation Plans.
Aiding Urban
Clean Air Goals 19
Deputy Administrator Barbara
Blum has announced plans to
help cities meet clean air laws
without sacrificing business.
The Calm
After the Storm 20
A review by John Elston on the
New Jersey vehicle inspection
and maintenance program.
New Car Tester 22
The uses of EPA's new mobile
car emissions facility are report-
ed by Lori Shelton.
Look Ma,
No Pollution! 24
An article on commuting by
bicycle.
A Matter of
Life and Breath
A report by Chris Perham on
EPA research on the impact of
air pollutants on human beings.
Making
Environmental Science
Work 32
An interview with Dr. Richard
Dowd, Staff Director. EPA
Science Advisory Board.
Stratospheric Problem
Worsens 38
A global meeting has been sche-
duled to review fresh evidence
of ozone depletion.
Report From Region 9 •
Departments
Almanac 29
Update 30
People 35
Nation 36
News Briefs 39
Front cover: Fading moon in a
dawn sky over Boulder, Colo.,
by Henry Lansford
Photo Credits: Gene Daniels,"
Frank Aleksandrowicz,* Paul
Sequeira," Blair Pittman,* Nick
Karanikas, Baltimore Depart-
ment of Housing and Commu-
nity Development, Paul Holder,
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection,
Yoichi Okamoto," Jim
Pickerel," Ron Hoffman," Doug
Wilson,* DickSwanson"
"Documenca
The EPA Journal is published
monthfy. 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: 31 0.00
a year, S1 .00 for single copy,
domestic; S12.50 if mailed to a
foreign address No charge to
employees. Send check or money
order to Superintendent of Docu-
ments. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C. 20402
Text printed on recycled paper.
-------
Environmentally Speaking
Clean Air
By Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
We have made significant progress in recent years in
cleaning up the air in the United States. The long term
declines in particulates and sulfur dioxide are the result of
successful efforts by State and local air pollution control
agencies. Between 1970 and 1976 sulfur dioxide levels
dropped 27 percent. Particulates such as smoke and dust
decreased 12 percent. And carbon monoxide, thanks largely
to auto emission controls, has declined by 20 percent.
But we still have a long way to go before we can claim
that the air is healthy throughout the Nation. Srnog levels
remain high in cities, as this past summer demonstrated,
and are even increasing slightly in some areas. Some in-
dustries still lag in pollution control.
There is no question of the need for continued controls
on environmental pollutants.The more we learn about the
health effects of the mixture of sulfur oxides, carbon mon-
oxide and other airborne pollutants often present in the
16,000 quarts of air we breathe each day, the deeper our
concerns become.
The kinds of problems I have just mentioned do not lend
themselves to quick-fix solutions. They demand thoughtful,
rational, careful analysis and decision-ma king. And this
kind of analysis and decision-making cannot be carried out
in a vacuum. The problems are deeply rooted in our highly
industrialized society, and they must be addressed in terms
that are not just acceptable to, but in fact arrived at by that
society.
And this underscores the importance of a legislative tool
that will help immensely in the battle for improved public
health—the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
The Amendments amounted not only to a major re-affir-
mation of the 1970 law's health-protective intent, but also
laid out an enormous number of new directives which pose
some of our greatest challenges—and some of my highest
priorities. More precisely, what I am speaking of is the
revision of the State Implementation Plans called for by
Jan. 1, 1979—and its implications for new growth. The
growth issue covers a lot of ground—including of course,
energy growth.
For example, let me focus on the thorny issue of how we
are attempting to accommodate new growth while meeting
the requirements of the law. Initially, the 1970 Act
was interpreted as not allowing any new source
construction in areas which were in violation of the primary
standard. However, it became increasingly obvious that a
total ban on new source growth was neither realistic nor
necessary. In December, 1 976. EPA established what is
known as the "offset policy." This balanced the two goals of
economic development and progress toward health stand-
ards. It allowed new source construction in non-attainment
areas provided that there was a net air quality benefit and
that emissions were curtailed from the proposed new
source to the greatest extent feasible. The offset policy was
officially incorporated into the 1977 Act as a viable way of
handling new source growth. EPA's policy is effective until
July, 1979.
At that point, the law requires States to have developed
their own provisions for the review of new sources in non-
attainment areas.
It is imperative that the leaders of industry not only co-
operate with State and local governments in developing
adequate implementation plans, but they must pressure
those local governmental entities to act. It is clearly in their
self-interest to do so because while the States are respon-
sible for developing plans for handling growth, the crunch
—if it comes (and it will}—will be on major new stationary
sources. If the States and local Governments are smart and
want to provide for continuing and expanded economic
development in their communities, they will move quickly
to develop these plans.
There is a great opportunity here for all of the major busi-
ness organizations to provide an important contribution to
the Nation. The Congress has made a clear commitment to
ending the days when industry would have good cause to
move from one area to another because of a new bank of
EPA JOURNAL
-------
clean air upon which it could draw.
Since all the requirements nationwide are very tough—
and particularly so for major stationary sources-it is
simply good business sense to apply some ingenuity to
help the States deal with the growth planning process.
For example, the States will have to devise ways to allo-
cate pollution rights. Most are looking at our offset policy
as the prototype of what they will do. But there are other
possibilities, other possibly more innovative approaches.
One option might be setting up a bank of emissions, going
beyond what we determine is annual reasonable further
progress toward meeting the air quality standard—perhaps
through a rigorous approach to transportation planning. In
many areas, control of automobile emissions will provide
the key measure of how much new source growth will be
permitted in a non-attainment area. So, let rne borrow a
phrase that I keep hearing from Atlantic Richfield Company
(and I assume ARCO means itin the same spirit): "Get in-
volved." I assure the business community that it is in its own
interest as well as all of ours.
The President's Environmental Message directed EPA to
assess how to best handle new construction in non-attain-
ment areas while ensuring fair and expeditious progress
toward the health standards. We have instituted an internal
task force on non-attainment to review alternatives—in-
cluding economic incentives—to achieve this goal. The key
elements of the current act—making annual reasonable
further progress and adopting all reasonable controls—will
be essential parts of any future approaches we take. Making
the implementation plan revision process work now is key.
I believe that there is sufficient flexibility and incentive in
the Act to preserve the approach it takes over the next few
critical years.
EPA's Regional Administrators and Regional Counsels
have met with the Governors to alert them to the require-
ments of the Amendments and to the need to move quickly
on revising their implementation plan and passing conform-
ing legislation, when necessary. We have offered the serv-
ices of our Regional Offices to assist the States as much as
possible. We also have issued grants to the National Asso-
ciation of Counties and other local groups to educate the
public and solicit extended participation in the implementa-
tion plan revision process.
I also want to mention an issue which has always been im-
portant but which will have to be addressed increasingly by
the States—and to the extent that they do not do so—by
EPA: That is the problem of interstate and international
pollution. Quite simply, what can and should we do about
pollutants from a source in one State eating up the incre-
ments or interfering with attainment and maintenance in
another State?
Our present policy is that we will mediate or, if necessary,
arbitrate disputes between States as to the degree of control
required of existing sources or the impact of new sources.
We will not approve an implementation plan revision which
would permit one State to adversely affect the growth plans
of another State through incompatible (less stringent)
regulatory policies.
My concern is that this is a very large problem. In the East,
for example, most power plants are on rivers and rivers tend
to separate States. But even when an emission source is not
terribly close to another boundary, the problem of long-
distance transport—chiefly of sulfates—is very real. Another
major problem is posed by ozone, which often traverses
State lines, inevitably making it a regional issue.
I have had and expect to continue discussions in the near
future with representatives of the Governments of both
Canada and Mexico on the same basic issue: the movement
of pollutants across international boundaries, interfering
with the potential for growth in the United States.
Many people say that the Clean Air Act cannot work and
that by next year the Congress will be forced to revisit the
Act in order to eliminate the growth sanctions. Those who
think the Congress will get them off the hook should look at
the not too distant history. First, when Congress last ex-
amined the Act, it took more than two years. Second, what
emerged was a much tougher law than before. Granted, the
deadlines have been stretched. But other than that, the
sanctions and requirements are stricter than ever, and the
enforcement tools are more potent.
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, n
OCTOBER 1978
-------
New Air
Strategies
An interview with
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Admini-
strator for Air, Noise
and Radiation
Is the air getting cleaner?
Yes. It is most noticeable in the
parts you can see. Controlling
invisible pollutants is the area
where we are making the least
progress.
What do you mean when
you say we're not making
much headway with what
you can't see?
We've cleaned up the big dirty
clouds of smoke in most areas,
and we are dealing now with
many of the pollutants such as
toxic compounds that aren't
visible. Carbon monoxide is a
problem that is getting better,
even though it is not visible.
We still have situations like
Denver, with its brown pollution
cloud. This doesn't come out
of individual smoke-stacks. It's
a product of a lot of pollution
from a lot of sources; from the
automobile, from refineries, and
other sources of hydrocarbons,
such as automobile assembly
plants. Al! of these things emit
pollution that you cannot see.
The point is these substances
are emitted and they react in
the presence of sunlight to form
haze, smog, and brown clouds.
It's that indirect pollution prob-
lem that is the most difficult
challenge that we've got to
solve.
Does that mean it's still
mainly an urban problem?
Yes. The most severe air pollu-
tion levels in the country are in
the urban areas. There are a
couple of exceptions right
around some major smelters in
the West, but for the most part
the biggest problems are in the
urban areas. Major sources like
pulp and paper mills have been
cleaning up, while some power
plants are still not clean.
Is there a major in-
dustry that we're going to
help to develop new
pollution-control aspects?
The major area that will require
new attention is this area of
hydrocarbon emissions from
industrial sources. It's an area
that the air pollution control
community hasn't concentrated
on historically.
What are the primary
sources of industrial hy-
drocarbons?
Almost anything that uses
petroleum or petroleum deriva-
tives. Petroleum refineries are
major sources, and so are sol-
vent users, as well as factories
that make paint, automobile
painting facilities, furniture
painting facilities, major appli-
ance painting facilities. You
don't think about it, but the fact
is that there are an awful lot of
refrigerators and stoves sold
every year in this country and
every one of them is painted
with solvent, which when it
evaporates goes up in the air
and creates an air pollution
problem.
Are those some of the
difficult areas to control?
The technology is available, but
it will require a great deal of
convincing, persuading, and
communication with industry
to adopt the necessary controls
and the investment that it re-
quires will be substantial. So it
won't be a very smooth transi-
tion. We know how to attack a
lot of these problems.
Do you think that the new
emphasis on inflationary
controls is going to delay
some of the actions that
we're planning?
The Clean Air Act is pretty
clear. It says that there's a strict
schedule. If the statute is going
to be obeyed, then that sched-
ule has to be followed. I think
there are ways to do this work
without causing inflationary
pressure. We're talking about
a public health standard and
when one reduces public health
impacts, the fact that it costs
something to do that doesn't
mean that it's inflationary
You're getting something for
the dollar that you are spending.
As far as regulations are
concerned, according to
industry spokesmen the
problems are not the reg-
ulations, but the fact that
EPA is telling people what
to control and how. Do
you care to comment on
this?
Well, in the air area that isn't
correct. We set numbers, which
refer to the amount that can
come out of a smokestack or a
tailpipe, and it's up to the indus-
try to decide how to do that.
There are some limited circum-
stances where you don't have
the ability to measure pollution
as it comes out because it isn't
coming out of a smokestack or
tailpipe. Then you may have to
specify a work practice or an
equipment standard. But these
generally aren't areas of con-
troversy and in fact there is an
industry standard for dealing
with them. For example, oil
storage tanks. These have leaks.
Those leaks are sealed by vari-
ous mechanisms and one mech-
anism used is called the floating
roof tank. And that's something
that is specified in a lot of pollu-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
tion control regulations. It says
that you shall use a floating roof
tank with double seals. That's
basically the latest in industry
practice and there doesn't seem
to be a great deal of objection
to having that spelled out as a
regulatory requirement. People
understand that this is the way
to do it.
Then there may be some cir-
cumstances where the industry
has an idea for a better way to
do it and the Agency is always
open to hearing those ideas.
What we don't want to get our-
selves involved in is a situation
where we write a rule and when
the time comes to comply with
that rule the industry says, wait
a minute I have a better idea for
a different way to approach this.
If they have a better idea they
should say it in advance of the
date of compliance. Otherwise
you wind up with a situation
where it appears to some people
that the industry is coming up
with better ideas in order to
avoid complying by the date
they are required to comply.
That will give this whole con-
cept a bad name. The concept
is a good one in principle, the
industry ought to be able to use
its expertise to develop the best
way to meet an environmental
objective. But if it doesn't use
that expertise on a timely basis,
there will be a lot of people who
will think that is an excuse to
delay putting on any controls.
It's quite important for industry
to recognize that if they are
allowed to use their expertise,
they'd better be prepared to use
it on a timely basis.
Has Congress given EPA
new tools under the Clean
Air Act Amendments to
help deal with areas that
are not going to be
meeting the standards?
There are a variety of tools.
First Congress directed the
States to adhere to a new
schedule for getting in their
implementation plans. It then
established the responsibilities
of local governments as well as
State governments to be in-
volved in this process. It set up
a mechanism where they can be
consulted and where they can
designate themselves as being
responsible for portions of the
plans. It then set up a funding
program for those local agen-
cies. The Administrator has a
request for S25 million for that
particular program. The other
areas in that act that will help
are a ratification of the Agency's
policy on emission offsets or
reducing pollution from existing
sources in order to make room
for growth. In addition Con-
gress allowed the State and
local governments to build a
margin for growth within that
implementation plan so that an
area can reduce its emissions
faster than the minimum re-
quired by law and have in that
accelerated schedule a built-in
margin for growth. Finally in
order to get State and local
governments to assign a higher
priority to this effort, Congress
provided for some sanctions if
the States failed to act.
Those sanctions include re-
strictions on new-source
growth, highway funding, air
quality funding, and on waste
water treatment funding. Those
are there, I think, as a signal by
Congress that they wanted the
State and local governments to
get serious about this major
public health problem and
direct a lot of attention to it.
This is a way of getting the
elected officials in the govern-
ment to pay priority attention
to this issue. I don't think any-
one believes that the country
would be better off by imposing
these sanctions on a wide scale.
They were put in there to make
it clear that this was an im-
portant problem and that Con-
gress wouldn't sit by and let
State and local governments
opt out of the process and leave
the problem unsolved.
As we get closer to the
deadlines does it look like
we will have to use those
sanctions?
Well, we're still hoping that
they won't have to be used. We
are not convinced at this point
that we will because the States
still have several months to go
before those sanctions would be
imposed. That is ample time for
the States to meet the require-
ments that we have set for the
first stage of complying with
this law.
Is this a method of trying
to encourage the States
to get more involved in
air quality management
rather than just con-
centrating on pollution
control systems?
The State and local govern-
ments and the Federal Govern-
ment are all recognizing that
we have a dynamic problem
that needs a dynamic solution.
Los Angeles, for example, has
air quality problems that are
created by the sheer size of the
area. The number of people, the
number of automobiles, the
number of minor sources of
pollution haven't typically been
controlled. Other areas as they
grow have a potential for caus-
ing these same problems unless
some attention is paid to the
environmental implications of
that growth.
We need to manage that
growth in a way that will mini-
mize those environmental prob-
lems. That is something where
the engineer has to be supported
and supplemented by a planner
and the two of them must work
together in coming up with a
total air quality control program.
Would this require antici-
pating what you want to
do in the next ten to
twenty years and then
building it into an air
quality plan?
That's right. It's like a long-
range environmental budget.
There are some new terms
like off-set policy and
banking being used in
these plans. What do they
mean?
Banking is the term that refers
to the margin for growth that I
was talking about. It's saying
that if you do more in the way
of pollution reduction than the
minimum required by law, you
can use that excess control to
make room for some additional
emissions from new growth that
has come into the area. So in
effect you'll have an emission
bank.
Can we say that States
and different regions of
the country are enforcing
their rules as consistently
as they should be?
When you have the 50 dif-
ferent governments, you have
differences and that will always
be the case. The rules them-
selves are different, and when
you have localities you add
hundreds more. The Federal
government basically serves as
a guarantor of the process to
make sure that a State that is
energetic is not going to suffer
because some other State is
less energetic about environ-
mental quality. I think that we
have the tools to be able to do
that. We have the tools to be
able to say that States that want
to have good emission controls
on their sources are not going to
suffer because the sources that
are new are basically subject
to a best technology require-
ment wherever they locate,
whatever the air quality is.
That's important to prevent a
source from saying, "Well if
you don't relax your rules, we're
going somewhere else," be-
cause there isn't anywhere
else in the country they can go
to get more relaxed treatment.
What happens in places
with pollution problems
other than stationary
sources? For example, in
Connecticut there were
objections in the State
legislature to passing ,in
inspection and mainte-
nance program because
they felt that much of the
pollution was blowing in
from New York City.
What is our response to
that.'
There are several responses.
The first is it was heartening
that Connecticut did realize
that there were substantial
benefits in having an inspec-
tion and maintenance program
and they did adopt it. We are
very pleased to see that. The
fact is that air pollution obvious-
ly doesn't respect political
boundaries. Like noise, light,
or any phenomenon transmitted
through the atmosphere, it
becomes diluted the further it
travels. The fact is that even
though there are contributions
from up-wind areas, those
OCTOBER 1978
-------
contributions are not as great
as the contributions from the
areas themselves. For example.
Bridgeport, or Hartford, Conn.,
are each putting a lot of pollu-
tion into the air. Even though
there may be contributions from
areas outside the State, the air
quality in Connecticut will be
better if it controls its own
sources. Moreover, the air
quality in down-wind States
would be somewhat better. The
fact is that everyone is going
to have to control. We're telling
Connecticut as well as its sur-
rounding States that they have
to control.
It's a cooperative venture and
a little bit like the story of the
tragedy oi the commons where
you have the village green and
everybody puts their sheep out
there. If too many sheep are
placed there the green is de-
stroyed. No family wants to take
its sheep off the green because
they won't get any benefits.
However, if they take that atti-
tude all that happens is that
their sheep don't get any grass
and the green is destroyed
because no one has cooperated.
EPA will try to help all the
State families to come up with
a program that will allow pru-
dent use of our air resources
and avoid destructive competi-
tion for limited resources. We
think the States recognize that
and that Connecticut recognizes
that we are going to be asking
the other States to do the same
thing as it is doing.
The Clean Air Act Amend-
ments do provide, for ex-
ample, for inspection and
and maintenance as a tool
for getting those sources
that really have not been
touched before. It is a
corrective action in some
ways, isn't it?
The maintenance program is
basically following through on
an investment that you made
when you purchased a car.
When you purchase a car you
purchase it now with pollution
control equipment which costs
a couple of hundred dollars
and that's an investment in air
quality. Now that investment
will be lost if that air pollution
control equipment is not prop-
erly maintained. The inspection
program is designed to help a
motorist know that his vehicle
needs additional maintenance,
and know that his neighbor will
also maintain his vehicle. Again
you've got the same problem.
Why should I fuss with my car
if everybody else on the high-
way doesn't? I don't mind mak-
ing a sacrifice or doing some-
thing inconvenient if I know that
that is going to have some real-
world effect. And if it's one car
out of a million that does it, it's
obviously not going to have a
real-world effect. You need a
program that says that every-
body and their neighbor will be
doing the same thing and that's
what the inspection program
helos to do.
Do you have any evidence
that it indeed works?
Yes. In New Jersey, which has an
inspection program, the carbon
monoxide level has been de-
creasing and the hydrocarbon
level for automobiles has been
decreasing. In Arizona we have
similar evidence. They have an
inspection program in Phoenix.
In Portland we have a program
that's underway and we are
doing a very detailed survey of
the vehicles there—to deter-
mine at exactly what rate they
improve and how long they stay
clean and how long they can go
before being reinspected. We
are gathering more and more
evidence but the fact is that we
already know that you can get
substantial improvements and
these are real-world improve-
ments we are seeing in those
areas.
Will there be anything
new coming out of the
memorandum of coopera-
tion that EPA just
signed with the Depart-
ment of Transportation?
Yes, I think there will. The
memorandum of understanding
that EPA and DOT have signed
is a very significant develop-
ment. In the past years, EPA
and DOT have often gotten into
battles with each other over
highway projects, which EPA
believes may contribute to an
air quality problem, and the De-
partment feels have been
planned for a long time and are
needed.
The difficulty has been
caused because the two agen-
cies and their counterparts at
State and local levels have not
started talking to each other at
an early enough stage. The en-
vironmental agency starts off on
its comments, historically, at
the point when the highway
project is ready to be built—
and that's simply too late. It
causes disruption; it comes into
the process at a point where
there has been substantial in-
vestment—both in terms of
money and political prestige—
behind the project. It becomes
very disruptive and controver-
sial then.
What the memorandum does
is set the stage for a remedy to
that by having the groups talk to
each other and satisfy each
other through a process of nego-
tiation at the earliest stage of
the transportation planning
process, when the very early
analytical work is being done to
study transportation needs
within the area. It points up
what questions have to be asked
about those transportation
needs. And one of the things
the memorandum says is that
one of the very important ques-
tions that has to be answered
is the environmental question,
the air quality question in par-
ticular. It will be asked, and
the answers will be developed
and there will be a negotiating
process that will involve some
compromise, and recognition
of the fact that there are a va-
riety of competing demands
here which can be resolved in a
way that we hope will make
sense. The issue will be raised
at the start of the process rather
than at the end of the process.
I have a lot of hope that this will
avoid the battles that you read
about so much in the news-
papers and that decisions will
be made at the local level, not
in Washington.
That does mean that the
air program will be having
effects on land use
planning and urban
growth?
The transportation system cer-
tainly has an effect on land use.
Recognition of that effect is
necessary in order to deal with
the air quality problems associ-
ated with it. These issues are all
bound up with each other-
transportation is something that
is designed to move goods and
people. Land use is aided by
transportation. The American
West was opened up by trans-
portation, by the railroad. The
rivers provide a basis for com-
merce and that's why most
major American cities in the
East and Midwest are located
on rivers. For example, Wash-
ington is located just below the
falls of the Potomac. That is as
far as the barges could get. The
same is true of Pittsburgh and
other cities along the Eastern
seaboard. The availability of
transportation has always deter-
mined where people will settle
and where commerce will pros-
per. You just have to make the
connection and recognize that
there is a full circle here. If you
want to have environmental
quality you have to recognize
that transportation decisions
will affect that goal.
This interview was conducted
by Inez Artico, OPA Associate
Director for Air, Noise, and
Radiation; Truman Temple,
Associate Editor and Chris
Perham, Assistant Editor of
EPA Journal.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
The Team Leaders
Four Deputy Assistant Administrators help David Hawkins
run EPA's program for clean air, noise control, and radiation
protection. They are responsible for a national effort
involving some 1,300 positions and about $1 75 million a year.
The Journal will review the radiation and noise control
programs in future issues.
Walter C. Barber, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Air Quality Planning and
Standards'
Responsible for developing
national standards for air qual-
ity and emission standards for
new stationary sources and
hazardous pollutants; for de-
veloping national programs,
technical policies, regulations,
guidelines, and criteria for air
pollution control, and for
assessing the national air pollu-
tion control program and also
weighing the success in achiev-
ing air quality goals.
Also responsible for helping
States, industry and other or-
ganizations through manpower
training activities and technical
information; for providing tech-
nical direction and support to
Regional Offices and other or-
ganizations, and for evaluating
regional air quality programs.
Responsible for developing and
maintaining a national air pro-
grams data system, and for
translating technological devel-
opments into improved control
program procedures.
Previously, Barber served in
EPA's Office of Planning and
Evaluation, first as Director of
the Energy Policy Staff and then
as Director of the Standards
and Regulations Division. He
left his own consulting firm
to become a budget examiner in
the Office of Management and
Budget. He also was a civil
engineer with the U. S. Naval
Facilities Command and a
consulting engineer.
Charles L. Elkins
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Abatement and
Control
Responsible for the Agency's
noise reduction policies and
programs for source categories,
such as aircraft, surface trans-
portation, construction, and the
workplace. Includes developing
noise protection criteria, label-
ing, standards, and policies;
developing research require-
ments for EPA's noise control
and abatement efforts; coordi-
nating all Federal noise control
programs, and providing tech-
nical assistance to States and
to other agencies with noise
management programs.
Prior to this job, Elkins was
the Director of Program and
Management Operations for
EPA's former Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials. He
also served as Acting Assistant
Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Control and directed
Program and Management Op-
erations for the former Office of
Hazardous Materials Control.
Elkins joined EPA as Special
Assistant to the Administrator,
after working with the Presi-
dent's Advisory Council on
Executive Organization (Ash
Council), where he was in-
volved in the establishment of
EPA. Previously, he was the
Budget Examiner for environ-
mental health and consumer
protection programs for the
Office of Management and
Budget.
William David Rowe
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
Responsible for EPA's radiation
protection criteria, standards
and policies; measurement and
control of radiation exposure,
and assuring that research re-
quirements for radiation pro-
grams are fulfilled.
The responsibility also in-
cludes providing technical as-
sistance to States through EPA
Regional Offices and other
agencies with radiation protec-
tion programs; establishing and
directing a national program
measuring radiation levels;
evaluating the impact of new
radiation technology; helping
train personnel for radiation
protection programs, and main-
taining legal liaison with other
public and private organizations
interested in environmental
radiation.
Before joining EPA, Dr. Rowe
directed the Environmental Sys-
tems Department of the MITRE
Corporation. Previously, he was
Director of Independent Re-
search and Development Pro-
grams with Sylvania Electric
Systems. He started his career
as a supervising engineer with
Westinghouse Electric
Corporation.
Currently, Dr. Rowe holds
eight patents and in 1977 pub-
lished a book, An Anatomy of
Risk. A registered professional
engineer in Massachusetts, Dr.
Rowe has written numerous ar-
ticles, is a marathon runner, and
served two terms as elected
Highway and Public Works
Commissioner in Sudbury,
Massachusetts.
Michael P. Walsh
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control
Recently named to this post,
Walsh will be primarily con-
cerned with implementing the
requirements of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments for auto
pollution control. An area of
special interest will be support
to States that require regular
inspection and maintenance
programs to reduce emissions
from in-use vehicles.
Also responsible for classify-
ing emissions from mobile
sources, developing programs
for their control, and assessing
the status of control technology.
Responsible for developing
emission standards and related
test procedures for mobile
sources, and for carrying out a
regulatory compliance program.
In previous EPA jobs, Walsh
was Special Assistant to the
Assistant Administrator for Air,
Noise and Radiation, and Chief,
Technical Support Branch, Mo-
bile Source Enforcement
Division.
Earlier, he was Director of
New York City's Bureau of Mo-
tor Vehicle Pollution Control,
with a key role in the develop-
ment of New York's transporta-
tion control plan to attain
health-related air quality stand-
ards. Walsh also worked as
Project Coordinator at the New
York Bureau.
OCTOBER 1978
-------
Tough
Rules
for New
Coal Burning
Plants
By Truman Temple
-------
P P/V Administrator
L. I /"\ Douglas M. Costle,
in what he termed "the most
significant environmental judg-
ment that I'll make this year,"
has proposed air pollution
standards for new coal-fired
power plants to help assure
clean air as the Nation moves
to more coal use.
The standards, required by
the 1977 amendments to the
Clean Air Act, are expected to
affect a pattern of coal use for
many years and help control
sulfur dioxide, which causes
billions of dollars worth of dam-
age. They also signal that EPA
is determined to continue pro-
tecting public health and wel-
fare in a critical area—the con-
trol of emissions from the many
coal-burning electric generating
stations now planned or under
construction. About 200 new
fossil-fuel power plants are
expected to burn nearly 1.5
billion tons of coal by 1990.
The Administrator's proposal
set forth several alternatives.
The first and only one drafted
as a regulation would require
an 85 percent reduction in po-
tential sulfur dioxide emissions
from all new fossil-fuel plants.
This has been termed a "full
scrubbing" option. The proposal
also sets forth for public com-
Truman Temple is Associate
Editor of EPA Journal
ment various partial scrubbing
alternatives which would allow
less than 85 percent removal at
plants burning low-sulfur coal.
"I want to emphasize strong-
ly," the Administrator said at a
news conference on the subject,
"that today's proposal is not
final and that all the options
under discussion will continue
to receive serious
consideration."
The proposed standards also
would reduce nitrogen oxides
and particulates.
The principal source of sul-
fur dioxide is combustion of
coal, primarily for generation of
electric power. In 1976 fossil-
fuel power plants contributed
65 percent of the sulfur dioxide
emissions on a national basis.
Sulfur is an element found in
coal, and when this fuel is
burned the sulfur joins with oxy-
gen in the air to form gaseous
sulfur oxides including dioxide
and trioxide.
Sulfur oxides can cause harm
to humans, materials, and plant
life. In combination with mois-
ture and oxygen, they damage
plant leaves, dissolve marble,
and eat away iron and steel.
The pollutant can affect breath-
ing in humans and in certain
concentrations can irritate the
respiratory tract and damage
lung tissue. In the form of acid
rain, sulfur oxides have been
found to damage or even des-
troy vegetation and aquatic life
in areas hundreds of miles from
the pollution source. No precise
figure is available on the annual
cost of damage by sulfur oxides,
but it runs in the billions of
dollars, for the pollutant attacks
a wide variety of building ma-
terials, including limestone,
roofing slate, and mortar, as
well as statuary and other works
of art, clothing fabrics such as
cotton, rayon, and nylon, and
even power lines and house
paint.
The new proposed standards
would require the installation of
highly efficient gas scrubbers to
remove sulfur oxides from the
stack gas of coal-burning plants.
Many utilities now use scrub-
bers to clean up stack emis-
sions, but the new standards
would require them even if a
power plant uses relatively low
sulfur coal.
The issue has broad energy
and transportation implications,
since Western coal fields pro-
duce lower sulfur fuel, which
has raised fears among Middle
Western and Eastern coal inter-
ests that they might lose some
of their traditional markets.
However, under the proposed
regulation the regions would be
largely equalized because utili-
ties would have to remove sub-
stantial amounts of sulfur from
all types of coal, regardless of
origin.
Following a 60-day period
for comment and a hearing to
allow for public participation,
EPA will promulgate final
standards.
Industry, the general public,
and other Federal agencies al-
ready had shown intense inter-
est in the issue well before last
month's decision. EPA had in-
vited public participation in
January, 1977, in a Federal
Register announcement which
indicated its intent to study
revision of the standards. A
public hearing was held May
25-26, 1977, and last Decem-
ber additional testimony was
received from many groups and
individuals at a meeting of the
National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory
Committee.
Under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, Congress
required that the new source
performance standards be
based on "the best technologi-
cal system of continuous emis-
sion reduction" of pollution.
The Administrator also was
required to set standards for
the percentage of sulfur oxides
to be removed from new plant
emissions and an "emission
standard" or limit on the
amount of pollutants for each
unit of heat generated. The
Department of Energy, while
agreeing that the amendments
required some scrubbing in new
plants, had urged that softer
standards be imposed to per-
mit much less sulfur dioxide to
be removed from low-sulfur
coal.
Prior to announcing the pro-
posed standards, Costle on July
28 had made a special trip to
Louisville, Kentucky to inspect
scrubber units at the Louisville
Gas and Electric Company's
Cane Run plant. The utility has
gained a national reputation in
the field of scrubber operations.
Pointing out that LG&E was one
of the first in the United States
to use a scrubber, Costle said
the company "has demon-
strated that high-sulfur coal
can be burned cleanly and
cheaply." Q
OCTOBER 1978
-------
Growth
and
Clean Air
By John Heritage
Cities and States across America have
until Jan. 1 to tighten plans to meet
national air quality standards and to devise
ways of permitting growth without generat-
ing lung-poisoning fumes.
It's the biggest challenge yet for the
Nation's clean air effort. Progress has been
made in improving air quality, based on the
levels of five key pollutants. But no city in
the continental U.S. has yet met the stand-
ards for all five of the health-threatening
wastes.
The closer the clean air drive comes to
its goals, the harder the job has gotten.
Experience is showing that the measures
needed to actually close the clean air gap
are extensive and complex. They raise the
question: Can we have economic develop-
ment while gaining clean air?
The answer is that growth is possible
while catching up with clean air standards.
But society must make choices regarding
the location and type of new industry, the
alternatives in transportation, the kind of
urban development, whether to expand in
areas where the air is not yet polluted, and
how this should be done.
It has become a question of wisely allo-
cating a scarce resource. "Our air is not a
free good to be used by anyone as he sees
fit," says EPA Administrator Douglas
Costle. "A big part of our job now is good
management and use."
In a major project, EPA is directly facing
the issue of whether urban areas can reach
the clean air standards while growing.
Three cities are being studied: Houston-
Galveston. Philadelphia, and Chicago.
Here are the preliminary results on the first
two:
Over the last ten years, Houston-Galves-
ton has been a fast growing metropolis. It is
a major area for refineries and petrochemi-
cal manufacturing. Like most urban areas,
the community is heavily dependent on the
automobile for commuting and daily
errands.
(John Heritage is ;in Assistant Editor of
EPA Journal)
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The metropolis has high ozone levels.
This compound—which aggravates respi-
ratory problems—is formed from reactions
with hydrocarbons. In turn, the hydrocar-
bons come from such sources as cars, re-
fineries, paint shops, and petrochemical
making. Suspended particulates also ex-
ceed the national heaith standards.
The study, conducted by an EPA task
force, says that Houston-Galveston can
meet national air standards and grow. But
to control hydrocarbons, the metropolis first
will need to expeditiously impose all rea-
sonably available technologies on major
pollution sources.
These measures won't be enough. An
improvement in pollution control technol-
ogy will also be needed, says the study.
It will have to be 20-40 percent better than
the known technology when the study began
in August, 1977.
The challenge is not unrealistic if enough
research and development is applied and
existing control technologies are better
used, the study concludes. With improved
clean-up methods, Houston-Galveston
coutd continue to develop as a refining and
petrochemical center while gaining clean
<'iir, the study found.
Philadelphia is an older, slower-growth
metropolis. In recent years it has lost popu-
lation from some of its denser areas. The
pollution sources are those of every large
city—printing, painting, service stations,
and the automobile. Petrochemical and
refining industries have declined compared
to other sources. Steel mills and grain ele-
vators also pollute.
City officials want Philadelphia to grow.
They favor a number of strategies
such as encouraging new business which
could reduce inner-city unemployment.
There is room for growth, the EPA study
found. For instance, programs to help
individuals start inner-city businesses
would be possible. Such efforts might be
aided by cooperative Federal projects to
People mingle at n flea market nnar
Independence Hall in Philadelphia ;u; new
oftici' buildings go up in the background.
support economic development consistent
with clean air goals. These initiatives were
encouraged by the President in his urban
policy message in March.
The metropolis could achieve both its
projected growth and clean air with pollu-
tion control technology that is already
known, the study says. The problem pollu-
tants are hydrocarbons, suspended particu-
lates, and sulfur dioxide.
The project's analysis of the third city,
Chicago, is not far enough along for
answers now.
One possible result in the Nation's effort
to protect the air and public health would be
severely limited growth. This has often
been cited as a possible danger in the clean
air effort. But as the cases of Houston-
Galveston and Philadelphia show, this
doesn't seem likely.
Another, more positive, result would be
a new kind of growth, respecting the en-
vironment and other priorities at the same
time. "It will be a shift not to no growth but
to good growth," predicts David Hawkins,
EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise.
and Radiation.
Such a trend is already underway in
some cities. It may stem from air clean-up
measures. But it also may be caused by
energy conservation or steps to revitalize a
local economy. The results are similar
though: Air quality is often helped; energy
can be saved; transportation may improve;
the local tax base can be strengthened.
Here are some cities that are trying to
improve the environment and the economy
at the same time:
— Baltimore is trying an approach to
growth that provides alternatives to the
automobile without restricting it. The proj-
ect is a new town-in-town called Cold-
spring, designed by widely-known architect
Moshe Safdie.
In Coldspring, residents will be able to
walk across the community without ever
crossing a street. They will be served by a
pedestrian walkway network entirely
separate from the street system.
City buses and later a mini-bus system
will also serve residents. A stop on the
second leg of the region's mass transit
system also is planned. Parking places
aren't restricted though, because of the
still-heavy dependence on cars.
Coldspring represents a philosophy of
growth that could strengthen city econo-
mies while achieving environmental goals.
Its aim is to make the city more attractive
for middle income taxpayers.
—The goal of the District of Columbia's
Transportation Director, Douglas Schnei-
der, is to curb the single commuter, alone
in his or her car. The methods include bans
on commuter parking in some residential
areas, bus-only lanes on major streets
during rush hour, and a 1 2 percent sales
tax on commercial garage parking.
Schneider isn't worried about hurting the
city's growth. "If we move people better,
we'll improve the city's vitality," he says.
"With congested streets, the promise of
new development couldn't come true." He
adds that the one-to-a-car commuter has
alternatives, including a new rail transit
system and the rush hour buses.
The transportation chief expects the
District's air quality to improve as the
commuter control measures have their
effect, although he adds that success will
depend on the whole urban region taking
similar steps.
—In Oklahoma City, a way was found to
allow a major new industry without increas-
ing the city's air pollution. In this approach,
the emissions that a new General Motors
assembly plant would have added were
more than offset by reductions in nearby
sources such as crude oil storage tanks.
With the reductions in existing sources,
the net effect of the new plant locating in
the city was an actual improvement in air
quality."
Some other cities around the world are
also taking steps that can improve both
clean air and economic vitality. In Singa-
pore, a simple regulatory step has affected
the whole city, from the businessman to
'See EPA Journal September, 1977
"A Tale of Two Cities."
OCTOBER 1978
1 i
-------
inner
the pedestrian. From 7:30 until 10:1 5 every
morning cars entering the downtown must
have a pre-purchased S1.60-a-day sticker
on their windshields. The so-calied "area
licensing system" is designed to control
the traffic that clogs streets, pollutes the air,
and wastes fuel in many central business
areas.
The results: The number of cars entering
the downtown district during the morning
rush hour has dropped by 73 percent. Car-
pooling has increased 80 percent. Buses
run more frequently and on time. Carbon
monoxide pollution has dropped sharply.
People who walk to work enjoy cleaner air
and are less exposed to the hazards of
heavy traffic.
With such initiatives, these cities are
providing a key lesson: Growth does not
have to mean more air pollution from indus-
try or transportation. Or, turning it around,
air cleanup does not have to cripple local
growth or economic health.
Hawkins sees hopeful signs that these
innovative urban trends will gain momen-
tum. Forces seeking clean air, energy con-
servation, and revitalized cities have similar
goals and solutions, he says. They all want
cities that are clean, healthy, efficient, and
livable. Their strong mutual interest adds
weight to the effort to achieve this aim.
One key solution for everyone involved
is transportation systems that are "more
efficient at moving people and goods," adds
Hawkins. Up to now. he says, most of the
attention has been on "moving the vehicles
efficiently." With this priority, transporta-
tion alternatives from bicycles to car pools
have been mostly overlooked and many
human and environmental needs forgotten,
he believes.
EPA will be making major decisions soon
in the double-edged problem of gaining
both clean air and economic growth. By
July 1, 1 979, the Agency must decide
whether to approve the changes States
submit by this January in their plans to
meet air quality standards.
If EPA rejects a State's plan for not in-
cluding key provisions, strong growth-
limiting sanctions go into effect. Depending
on the pollutants concerned, Federal high-
way and EPA funds may be cut off and new
major stationary sources of pollution might
not be permitted in an area.
The national deadline for the States to
clean up their air is December, 1982, with
a possible extension for transportation-
related pollutants. The urban areas are the
main trouble spot. Their often-severe pol-
lution problems have made the air quality
standards hard to achieve.
The answer to the riddle of air quality and
growth in the Nation's cities will lie
in the State plans. Their strategies will in-
clude clean-up technologies for new indus-
try, better control of existing pollution,
provisions for growth, and transportation
measures. It will be "the first step in a
continuing comprehensive planning proc-
ess." says Hawkins.
In their revised plans, the States can
choose the strategy they prefer in allowing
growth in areas not meeting the air quality
standards. The approach they use must
guarantee continuous progress toward the
standards.
Two basic tools to permit deveiopment
while cleaning up the air are the so-called
emissions offset and the margin for growth.
States could adopt either method or a
combination of the two.
The "emissions offset" permits the con-
struction of a new industry if the owner can
guarantee emission reductions from exist-
ing sources in the area. The reductions
must more than equal the added emissions
from the planned new facility. This was the
approach for GM in Oklahoma City.
The "offset" policy was established by
EPA specifically to balance the goals of
economic development and progress to-
ward the air quality standards. It has been
used by the States under EPA guidance.
(Under earlier interpretations of the 1970
Clean Air Act, no construction of new
sources would have been permitted in areas
violating the air rules.)
In addition to Oklahoma City, the suc-
cess with offsets includes a Volkswagen
assembly plant in New Stanton, Pa. The
plant emits an estimated 900 tons of hydro-
carbons yearly into air considered by EPA
to be already polluted. But it was found
that if the State used a type of asphalt with
less polluting fumes in its road maintenance
operations, the necessary reductions could
be achieved.
The second approach is to create a mar-
gin of growth for new sources. The margin
is built up by reducing emissions from some
existing sources faster than the law re-
quires. The technique was authorized by
the 1977 CleanAirAct Amendments.
For example, through the rapid accelera-
tion of control strategies for transportation
or other sources of pollution, a growth
margin could be created for industrial and
commercial expansion. The margin would
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Perhaps in protest against tie-
ups like this, voters in Houston,
Tex., voted recently to approve
a tax increase, which will
finance a new metropolitan
transit system.
be like a citywide "bank" of clean air in
reserve, which could be drawn on to allow
new development.
in this more flexible method, all the exist-
ing sources of pollution—major and minor,
stationary and transportation—are inven-
toried and a plan of growth is drawn up.
Many choices are then available on what
emissions should be cut and what kind of
economic expansion encouraged.
As the emissions offset and growth mar-
gins show, industry growth and dirty air
don'thave to go together. New industry
can result in a cleanup of existing sources.
The prospect of new growth can be an
incentive for an urban area to clean up
faster in order to make room. To make it
easier for cities to take advantage of such
benefits, EPA and three other Federal agen-
cies will be providing a total of $4 million
in demonstration grants this December.
In addition to accommodating industrial
growth, the State air ctean-up plans must
also address transportation, which affects
the whole urban environment.
The transportation problems related to
clean air are so tough in many of the larg-
est cities that a five year extension of the
national clean-up deadline of 1982 is avail-
able, if EPA agrees. Theextratimeistodeal
with two pollutants, carbon monoxide and
photochemical oxidants.
To get an extension beyond 1 982, States
have to implement programs for motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance, with
testing of individual vehicles to assure that
they meet specific emission limits. Many
vehicles on the road are poorly adjusted
and maintained, increasing their pollution
output.
Inspection and maintenance programs
will help to insure the maximum effective-
ness of the Federal motor vehicle control
effort which establishes standards for new
cars. By minimizing motor vehicle emis-
sions, the I/M programs can cut the over-
all pollution load in a major urban area,
increasing the chances of gaining a margin
for growth.
In another key area, EPA and the Depart-
ment of Transportation recently issued joint
transportation guidelines to help urban
planning agencies in their efforts to attain
the national air quality standards.
In this guidance, the emphasis is on
making better use of the transportation re-
sources that cities already have—the high-
ways, cars, public transit. The aim is to
make transportation less polluting and
more efficient.
Hawkins estimates that to clean their air,
a number of large urban areas will have to
improve transit systems, build bus lanes,
establish car pools, adopt staggered work
hours, start van pool programs, and take
other similar measures.
Cleaning up the Nation's dirty air while
attaining urban growth is only part of the
job. Most of the country meets the national
ambient air standards. Even many suburbs
and cities meet the standards for one or
more pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide
and sulfur dioxide.
In those vast areas where the air is still
clean, the problem is to keep it that way
while achieving a healthy economy. A 1 973
Supreme Court decision drew the line:
Under the air quality law, the Nation's
clean air must be protected.
Under EPA regulations issued in 1974, a
strategy was adopted to prevent significant
deterioration of clean air. Three classes
were established for clean air areas.
"Increments" of pollution were permitted
in each class up to a level considered sig-
nificant for that area. In the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments, a similar approach was
written into law, with recent EPA rules to
implement it fully.
For all three classes of clean air lands,
some growth is possible. In or near the
Class I areas, which include most national
parks and national wilderness, growth is
tightly managed. But Class II areas allow
moderate, well-controlled growth. Class III
areas allow even greater development. In
no case can ambient air quality standards
be exceeded, however.
Under the program to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, some growth
has been turned down. An example was the
denial of a construction permit this year by
EPA's Region 8 office for Montana Power
Company's proposed Colstrip Power Plant
Units 3 and 4. The power plants' discharge
would have degraded the air beyond the
limits set by Congress for a Class I area.
(The action does not preclude a future
construction project with strict pollution
controls.)
But growth alternatives exist in the clean
air areas. Last year, EPA's Region 8 told tin;
Intermountain Power Project that the
Agency felt it would have to deny a permit
to build near Capitol Reef National Park
in southern Utah. The Intermountain Proj-
ect, with State support, is now investigating
a site in central Utah. Meanwhile, permits
have been issued for the Pawnee Power
Plant in Colorado, the Laramie Power Plant
in Wyoming, and the Coyote Power Plant in
North Dakota.
OCTOBER 1978
13
-------
The key to growth in the clean air areas,
which reach from Maine to California, is
the pollution increment available. Only if it
is used up would growth be prohibited,
though even in this situation growth would
be possible if existing sources cut their
emissions.
But even in a little-developed clean air
area, growth questions can include
many complex issues. Competing economic
interests may be involved. State and local
attitudes are a factor, along with future
needs and the absolute protection of air
quality.
One way to resolve such growth alloca-
tion issues could be the marketplace, an
approach now being weighed in an EPA
study. Permits might be auctioned off by
the administering agency, with the aim of
ensuring the most efficient use of the air
resource. Land might be zoned for allow-
able pollution density, with an industry buy-
ing enough air rights over the land to cover
its emissions.
Among the benefits of this approach:
Pollutants could be removed at a cheaper
price by the most efficient industry. Better
clean-up technology would be encouraged,
because it would save money. The competi-
tion for the increments would indicate
future growth demand, aiding decision-
makers.
EPA intends to provide guidance to the
States with what it has learned about such
growth allocation tools. Wiser decisions
could be the result, allowing more growth
without exceeding clean air capacity.
(While EPA now decides whether to issue
an air permit for a new facility, most States
are expected to take the responsibility for
the permits beginning in 1979.)
Hawkins sees another benefit to growth
in the air quality program, whether develop-
ment is in a polluted city or a clean rural
area. The key is putting very good controls
on new sources as they are built, he says.
With such controls, pollution is cut to a
minimum and options are preserved for
future growth.
1 ooay's new source controls are tough.
In clean air areas, a category called the
Best Available Control Technology is re-
quired. In nonattainment areas, another
stringent class. Lowest Achievable Emis-
sion Rate, applies. But such measures are
an insurance policy for clean air and future
economic growth, Hawkins emphasizes.
In sum, growth can proceed while dirty
air is cleaned up or clean air is protected.
Careful development is possible both in
cities and the countryside. At the same
time, public health and the environment
can be protected.
Air pollution limits may affect growth.
But they needn't stop it. The tools are avail-
able to encourage clean development. The
methods include the emissions offset for
new industry and the more flexible margin
for future growth. Transportation steps
such as improved public transit can lead to
less congested, more economically-
attractive cities.
Other measures include the inspection
and maintenance programs to reduce motor
vehicle pollution, which can help cities
build an air quality reserve for economic
growth. Meanwhile, in clean air areas,
pollution increments allow growth, and
marketplace techniques could increase that
growth without violating air standards.
State and local governments have a big
share of the job in achieving growth with
clean air. Under the 1977 Amendments, the
States will have the responsibility for the
emission offset or growth margin programs
in dirty air areas. They also will have the
option of taking over the permit program in
clean air areas. More responsibility is given
to local elected officials to participate in
the entire air clean up process.
The Federal Government is the guaran-
tor, says Hawkins. Its role is to ensure that
one State's growth isn't penalized because
other States are permitting dirty growth.
"We are there to ensure that every area of
the country has equal opportunities to
attract clean growth."
Whether it is the air, the water, or the
land, the task is the same, Hawkins adds.
"In partnership, we must find a kind of
growth that doesn't transform the environ-
ment into a threat." He believes we are
learning such an approach. D
14
EPAJOURNAL
-------
The
High Cost
of
Los Angeles
Smog
I f clean air gives the economy a
' boost, what does dirty air do?
One way to find out would be to
measure the difference air pollution
makes in property values and peo-
ple's spending views. An EPA-funded
study is doing just this, picking smog-
ridden Los Angeles for the review.
The air pollution price tag is high,
the study is finding. Los Angeles smog
is costing the average family up to
52,000 a year due to lower property
values, said Ralph d'Arge, a principal
investigator for the project. D'Arge
is an economics professor at the
University of Wyoming.
"In these really smoggy areas, you
are getting a lower value for housing.
People with money and a preference
for clean air are moving out," said
d'Arge , who recently presented the
preliminary findings to EPA. Such
trends are a major factor in pushing
once prime residential areas into an
economic slide, he adds.
To doublecheck the property value
differences, panels of residents were
interviewed about what they were
willingtopayto live ina clean air area.
The figures almost equalled the actual
difference in property values that
d'Arge found and provided strong
evidence of smog's economic drag.
D'Arge called the near-match be-
tween property values and people's
attitudes on air quality "really strik-
ing."He said it indicates that "at
least experimentally we have a way to
measure the costs of air pollution."
Donna Crippen, a 48-year-old na-
tive of one suburban community. El
Monte, told from first-hand experi-
ence how smog has changed the life
and character of that area. She said
the smog started pouring over the hills
from Los Angeles on a regular basis
a little more than a decade ago. "You
used to be able to go up in this valley
and see Mount Baldy 50 miles away,"
she recalled. "Now you can't even
see the stars at night because of the
smog," she said in a Washington
Post report.
Before the smog came, Crippen,
whose husband Jack is mayor, said
El Monte was overwhelmingly a com-
fortable community of well-kept
houses surrounded by walnut groves
and fields of strawberries. Today,
many once-substantial homes are run-
down, littered with trash and scarred
by graffiti, a deterioration due in part
to the smog.
The EPA-funded study, according
to D'Arge, found similar negative ef-
fects on communities all along the
Los Angeles "smog belt," stretching
40 miles east and downwind of down-
town. At the same time, d'Arge
added, many once-deteriorated sec-
tions in less smoggy areas, particular-
ly near the beaches, are experiencing
an unprecedented boom in real estate.
Bob Lowes, a spokesman for the
California Association of Realtors.
agreed that there is no question that
prices in "clean" areas are climbing
above those in residential areas once
considered more fashionable but that
now are blanketed by smog.
In the working-class Mar Vista
area, in the "clean" west side of Los
Angeles, for instance, prices for mod-
est homes have risen in the past de-
cade from 625,000 to more than
$11 0,000, according to real estate
agent Joe Viestra. The average price
for a home in Upland, a suburban area
deep in the "smog belt," today is
553,000, or half that in the "clean"
areas, according to figures provided
by Vernon Riphagen, president of the
local realtors association.
While they won't publicly admit
concern, businessmen in the San
Gabriel Valley privately say that the
almost daily reports about their area's
air quality could be chasing away
affluent residents and businesses.
"They call the valley unhealthful on
the radio and Santa Monica and the
beaches healthy. Somebody hears
that and you've got to admit it's not
encouraging them to come to San
Gabriel," one businessman said.
"Nobody wants to admit it but there's
no question it bothers one."
To do the EPA study, investigators
picked seven pairs of subcornmunities,
mostly inside the city of Los Angeles.
The pairs were identical in their hous-
ing, income, distance from the Pacific
Ocean beach, and other factors, ex-
cept that one was in a smog area and
the other had clean air. For instance,
one pair was El Monte and Canoga
Park, moderate income, inland com-
munities. Another pair was Irvine and
Pacific Palisades, high income, beach
communities.
The Los Angeles economic findings
are part of a three year study under
contract from EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development.fl
OCTOBER 1978
-------
Blueprint
for
Clean Air
By Henry Thomas
C P/V s Air program staff is
L r/"A workingclosely with
a variety of State and local gov-
ernment agencies to develop air
pollution control strategies for
areas that don't meet national
ambient air quality standards.
These are limits set for levels
of particulates, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, oxidants, and
nitrogen oxides in the ambient
air to protect the public health.
Much of this current effort is a
result of new requirements con-
tained in the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 regarding
State Implementation Plans.
In order to fully understand
the issues and problems
being faced in the effort to
revise those plans in areas
that don't meet the standards,
it would be helpful to look
briefly at the background of the
implementation program.
The Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1970 envisioned two
major approaches to air pollu-
tion control: (1) national emis-
sion standards, and (2) air
quality management. National
emission standards are set for
new sources of air pollution,
both mobile and stationary, and
regulate the amount of any pol-
lutant which a new source may
emit. Air quality management,
on the other hand, involves
emission limits that are set spe-
cifically for a geographic area,
based on the need to attain am-
bient air quality standards in
that area.
The Amendments of 1970
called on all States to develop
,ind ;idopt air quality manage-
ment plans, which would result
Henry C. Thomas, Jr. is Assist-
ant to the Director, Control
Prwjtnnis Development Divi-
sion, Office of A ir Quality
PI .inning Standards.
in the attainment of national
ambient standards by 1 975.
These plans, called State
Implementation Plans, can be
though of as a unifying element
in air pollution control because
they bring together many differ-
ent types of regulations in one
management plan. A State, for
example, may take credit for
national emission standards as
well as its own regulations in its
plan.
Since the plans were first
submitted to EPA in 1971, they
all have been revised periodi-
cally. Generally, these revisions
were a "fine-tuning" of the con-
trol strategy. There were, how-
ever, a few major revisions that
represented significant changes
in strategy. The addition of
transportation control measures
by EPA in 1973 was an exam-
ple. The Agency also issued
regulations dealing with Air
Quality Maintenance (1976)
and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (1 974) that af-
fected the State plans.
In general, the first five years
of the State Implementation
Plan program saw widespread
reductions in emissions from
traditional stationary sources
and a resulting improvement in
nir quality. Levels of particu-
lates and sulfur dioxide dropped
in most parts of the country.
There are few remaining prob-
lems with sulfur dioxide emis-
sions. These come from specific
sources, often difficult to con-
trol. However, many fewer
people are now exposed to air
which does not meet health
related air quality standards for
sulfur dioxide,
Yet, there remain many areas
where the standards are still
exceeded. Nationally, the most
widespread problems are par-
ticulates and ozone, in passing
the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977, the Congress dealt
with the issue of non-attain-
ment of standards and laid out
a program to remedy it. The
program envisioned by the Con-
gress is a very careful balance
of the public health and envi-
ronment on the one hand,and
economic growth on the other.
The Amendments called for
areas where air quality does not
meet standards to be desig-
nated in early 1 978 and for re-
vised State Implementation
Plans to be submitted to EPA
in January, 1979. The revised
plans must show how standards
will be met by 1982, although
extensions to 1987 will be
allowed for the particularly
difficult carbon monoxide and
ozone problems.
The plans will generally have
to contain all the regulations
needed for attainment. Some of
the more difficult control meas-
ures such as Inspection and
Maintenance for automobiles
and transportation control
measures (bus lanes, carpool-
ing, mass transit systems) can
be phased in after January,
1979.
New sources of pollution
proposing to locate in the non-
attainment areas will be subject
to the most stringent controls
and even then will be allowed
to build only if the existing
emissions have been reduced
enough to accommodate
growth.
Finally, the plans must dem-
onstrate that the emissions
reductions will take place
throughout the plan period and
will not be concentrated at the
end. Congress specified that if
States don't assume respon-
sibility for cleaning up the air,
then permits for new industrial
plants cannot be issued, and
under certain conditions Fed-
eral highway and sewer funds
will be withheld.
EPA Administrator Douglas
M. Costle outlined the Agency's
interpretation of the Amend-
ments' requirements in a mem-
orandum Feb. 24, 1978. That
memo gave the States as much
flexibility and time to complete
their plans revisions as is per-
mitted by the Act.
The problems which the
States now face in revising
those plans are considerably
more complex and difficult than
those faced during the initial
round of planning in 1 971. The
initial plans and control regula-
tions focused on the reduction
of emissions from the stacks of
basic industry (power plants,
steel mills, foundries, etc.).
Many of the traditional sources
have either been controlled or
are on compliance schedules.
For particulates, there are
some remaining traditional
source problems. However, EPA
and the State air pollution offi-
cials are increasingly finding
that the remaining violations are
associated with fugitive emis-
sions and urban fugitive dust.
Fugitive emissions are indus-
trial omissions that are not vent-
ed to the air through the plant's
primary exhaust system. These
emissions escape from win-
dows, roof monitors, materials
handling and transfer points
and in most cases are not
passed through any control
equipment. Urban fugitive dust,
on the other hand, is dust
stirred up by general urban ac-
tivity (e.g., construction site
activity, roadway dust, etc.).
By their very nature these types
of paniculate sources are ex-
tremely difficult to even quan-
tify, much less control.
In EPA's Region 1, the State
of Massachusetts has a major
study underway, including spe-
cial sampling and filter anal-
yses, to better characterize
these problems. In Region 10a
similar study is underway in
Oregon. In many areas of the
country, the States and EPA
Regional Offices are using new
techniques, such as micro-
inventories, to better under-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
stand the problems involved.
Control strategies and measures
being considered range from
the more traditional measures
such as controls on coke ovens
in Birmingham to road-paving
and windbreak and ground
cover planting in some of the
Western States.
It now appears that due to
the technical complexities of
the particulate problem many
States will have great difficulty
in meeting the deadlines con-
tained in the Amendments of
1977. Nonetheless, progress is
being made in many areas that
will lead to the eventual attain-
ment of the standard.
The oxidant problem is per-
haps even more difficult and
complex. It involves emissions
from automobiles as well as
stationary source emissions.
Most of the urban areas of the
country are considering strat-
egies that will include station-
ary source regulations, inspec-
tion and maintenance programs
for automobiles and a wide
range of transportation control
measures.
Oxidants have proven to be
extremely difficult to reduce.
They are secondary pollutants,
formed when hydrocarbons re-
act with nitrogen dioxide in the
presence of sunlight. The exist-
ing standard was established
for the complex mix of com-
pounds that make up photo-
chemical oxidants, but there
are no satisfactory methods for
accurately measuring this mix
of pollutants. The principal con-
tituent of oxidants is ozone and
the Agency is currently propos-
ing to change the photochemical
oxidants standard to an ozone
standard and to adjust the al-
lowable levels of the pollutant.
"Wefeel itismoreaccurateto
call this pollutant ozone," said
Administrator Costle. "Aside
from the chemical peroxyacetyl
nitrate (PAN), which is an im-
portant part of the oxidant mix,
the non-ozone oxidants remain
essentially unidentified, cannot
be measured, and have not been
uniquely associated with ad-
verse health effects."
Costle proposed to change
the primary standard to 0.10
parts per million, one hour aver-
age, from 0.08 parts per million,
because reevaluation of health
evidence shows that significant
effects occur at higher concen-
trations. The changed standard
still leaves a margin of safety
as required by law.
Many States will be control-
ling hydrocarbons for the first
time. This will involve control-
ling stationary sources which in-
clude, for example gasoline
handling and storage facilities,
industrial surface coating
plants, petroleum refineries and
chemical plants. In the past the
control of hydrocarbons tended
to focus on the substitution of
less reactive compounds for
more reactive ones. The empha-
sis has now shifted to require
positive controls and some 25
States around the country are
drafting regulations for inclu-
sion in their plans. It is still too
early to know whether EPA can
approve regulations in all cases.
Nevertheless, this activity in
hydrocarbon regulation repre-
sents considerable progress,
since in the past many States
were unwilling to undertake
any control of such sources.
The control of these sources
will not only serve to reduce
oxidant levels, but may also
result in the control of toxic
compounds, since more and
more hydrocarbons have been
found to have significant health
effects. The development of
regulations will continue for
several years as EPA continues
to provide guidance on addi-
tional source categories.
Automotive emissions con-
stitute 50 percent or more of the
oxidant precursor emissions in
most urban areas. Automotive
controls in the State Implemen-
tation Plans also will include
the reductions achieved through
the gradual tightening of the
Federal automotive emission
standards.
In addition to the Federal
standards, the Congress man-
dated that States rely on
inspection and maintenance
programs and transportation
control measures. The first
program involves the periodic
inspection and maintenance
of automobiles to ensure that
the control systems operate as
designed. Portland, Oregon;
Phoenix-Tucson, Arizona; New
Jersey and others already have
such systems operating.
Other States, such as
Connecticut, Kentucky,
and Utah have the legal author-
ity to begin their programs and
are at varying stages of develop-
ment. This is a difficult program
to initiate since it usually re-
quires vehicle owners to pay
annual fees and repair costs.
However, in the areas where it
has been started public accept-
ance has generally been good.
In addition to the air quality
benefits to be derived, inspec-
tion and maintenance results in
fuel savings to the individual
motorist through better tuned
cars.
The development of trans-
portation control measures is
a key part of the overall ozone-
control strategy. These meas-
ures range from establishment
of bus and carpool lanes to
provision of bicycle lanes and
staggering of work hours. In
most of the major urban centers
of the country such planning is
being conducted by metropoli-
tan planning organizations.
The inclusion of metropolitan
planning organizations in the
development of State plans is
significant as it brings to air
pollution control a fresh set of
perspectives and new ap-
proaches, which will be es-
pecially important to future air
quality. The Congress and the
Agency have recognized that
the air pollution problems of
our cities cannot be solved
apart from other general urban
problems. This facet of air
quality planning appears to be
progressing very well. How-
ever, the really difficult task of
implementing transportation
control measures lies ahead.
Clearly the development of
State Implementation Plans has
posed many new challenges.
The deadlines contained in the
Amendments are extremely
tight when measured against
the complexity of the job to be
done.
It is still too early to accu-
rately predict what success
individual States and citios will
have in meeting the initial
deadlines. The ultimate suc-
cess of the program will be
measured in 1982 and 1987
when the health-related am-
bient standards are to be met.
What is clear at this time,
however, is that a massive
effort is taking place to develop
an air pollution control blue-
print for the next five to ten
years. D
OCTOBER 1978
!
-------
IE
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Aiding
Urban
j Clean Air
I Goals
I he Environmental Protection
' Agency is joining three other
Federal agencies in providing a
total of $4 million in demon-
stration grants to help cities
attract new business while
meeting clean air standards.
Deputy Administrator Bar-
bara Blum in announcing the
program said the grants are the
first step in fulfilling a pledge
by President Carter last March
that he would provide technical
aid to cities facing both poor air
quality and a continuing need
for economic development.
The cooperative venture by
EPA, the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development,
and Departments of Commerce
and Transportation, is called
the Air Quality Technical As-
sistance Demonstration Pro-
gram.
"I firmly believe that the
strengths of each of these
agencies will create a success-
ful program to help cities work
out solutions to the double-
edged problem of achieving
clean air and economic
growth," Blum declared.
The technical assistance
grants will be awarded to four
to eight cities of more than
100,000 population to test
innovative ways that can be
duplicated elsewhere to meet
Federal clean air standards
while maintaining the ability to
attract and retain business and
industry. All U.S. cities over
100,000 population have been
asked to submit a brief letter of
intent outlining their plans. The
Planning for bus systems is
one of the transportation
control measures that EPA
and other Federal agencies
could fund through a new dem-
onstration program for clean
air in the cities.
agencies will select about 20
cities from these and narrow
the choice to four to eight on
December 1.
Selection will be based
chiefly on three criteria: eco-
nomic or social distress; sever-
ity of air pollution; and commit-
ment to economic development
and to attainment of air quality
standards. The agencies will
try to ensure geographic variety
in awarding the grants.
"While the program focuses
on problems in cities, some
projects may be more appropri-
ately carried out on an area-
wide or regional basis," Blum
said. "We fully encourage such
projects, as long as they are
properly coordinated with ap-
propriate State and areawide
agencies and other local gov-
ernments."
Designated cities will have
until the end of 1980 to carry
out their demonstration proj-
ects. It is expected that Federal
funds for similar projects will
be available for all cities under
existing economic and commu-
nity development grant pro-
grams.
General direction of the
program including final deci-
sions on grant recipients and
eligible activities, will be by a
Board of Directors composed
of Blum; Robert C. Embry, Jr.,
HUD Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Economic Devel-
opment; Robert Hall, Com-
merce Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development; and
Mortimer Downey, DOT Assist-
ant Secretary for Budget and
Programs. The program will be
administered by Commerce
and HUD.
Some examples of activities
that will be eligible for funding
under the program are:
• Ranking industries in terms
of their relative attractiveness
from an air quality and eco-
nomic development perspec-
tive. This information would
be valuable to economic devel-
opment offices in developing
their strategy for attracting
industry.
• Setting up a clearinghouse
to simplify the process of locat-
ing and negotiating an emission
offset. (When a company wants
to build a new facility in a dirty
air area, EPA policy requires
that the new pollution emission
be more than offset by reduc-
ing emissions from an already
existing facility).
• Reducing unnecessary con-
straints on industrial zoning
and siting.
• Establishing pollution emis-
sion fees for industry, as a sup-
plement to direct regulation.
This could provide an incentive
to companies for further pollu-
tion reduction, which, in turn,
could provide "room" for ad-
ditional economic development.
• Carrying out stringent trans-
portation control plans to dis-
courage automobile use. To be
eligible for funding, these plans
would have to be tougher than
transportation measures nor-
mally required under existing
regulations. Q
OCTOBER 1978
I!)
-------
With the passage of the
Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1 977, it appears that
inspection and maintenance has
finaliy come of age.
My State—New Jersey—has
employed a mandatory auto
emission inspection program
since 1974. The program began
on a voluntary basis in July
1972. During the past years,
programs have been started in
Phoenix-Tucson, Ariz., Port-
land, Ore., and Chicago, III. and
a wealth of data has been col-
lected. Also I have gained per-
sonal insights and observations
about New Jersey's program
and inspection and maintenance
in general, as it relates to air
quality.
Healthy air in the urban areas
of this country is still a far-off
quest. Transportation controls
relating to traffic improvement,
mass transportation and many
less palatable ideas promise
some relief but not much. Reli-
ance on curbing automobile
emissions will still be the main-
stay of the control efforts in the
foreseeable future.
If we are ever to approach air
quality goals, auto emission
controls must prove to be more
than a carbon copy of a few
prototypes which have demon-
strated compliance. Instead of
only a fraction of the new ve-
hicles being able to meet stand-
ards, mass-produced vehicles
must be able to maintain low
but rigid emission levels
throughout their useful lives—
often 100,000 miles or more.
Thus, a new perspective must
be developed in the Federal
emission control program.
The solution requires not
only an agreement between the
Federal EPA and the automobile
industry but also the participa-
tion of State and local govern-
ments. In the private sector, not
only the auto industry must be
involved but also the dealer,
service mechanic, teachers,
and, of course, the motoring
public.
John Elston is Supervisor of the
Mobile Source Control Division,
Bureau of A ir Pollution Control,
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
The Calm
After
the Storm
By John Elston
The question now is not so
much how to meet motor ve-
hicle emission standards, as
how to use effectively the motor
vehicle emission controls that
exist, by coordinating the effort
of the automobile industry, gov-
ernment, and the public.
A number of regulatory
schemes in addition to inspec-
tion and maintenance are de-
signed to enforce vehicle emis-
sion standards in the field.
Some of these include vehicle
recalls for emission control de-
fects, warranty protection and
intensive anti-tampering cam-
paigns. I suspect, as time goes
on, that EPA will stress these
enforcement mechanisms more
and more.
One of the most important
aspects of an inspection and
maintenance program is a good
air monitoring network, which
can answer the question "Is the
air getting any cleaner?" Yet,
the effect of new cars replacing
old. long and short term mete-
orology, and a myriad of vari-
nbles a!l make the relationship
between air monitoring and
control strategies evaluation
difficult.
In New Jersey since the in-
ception of the inspection and
maintenance program, carbon
monoxide in the air has been
rnriuced by about 28 percent or
about 8 percent per year.
EPA has estimated that for
the rest of the country where
this program is not used, there
has been a carbon monoxide re-
duction of about 5 percent each
year. Can the difference be
ascribed to the State inspection
and maintenance program?
We think so but we can't say
for sure. Data from other States
that are consistent with our
own are hard to come by and
often subject to considerable
error because of a lack of basic
information about the monitor-
ing site. Recently, EPA con-
tracted with the Statistical De-
partment of the University of
Wisconsin in an attempt to
verify the carbon monoxide re-
duction in New Jersey. Their
report concluded:
1) statistically significant im-
provement was monitored from
all the carbon monoxide sta-
tions examined;
2) the improvement in carbon
monoxide levels could not be
attributed to meteorological
conditions;
3) the improvement in carbon
monoxide occurred at a time
when traffic volume was in-
creasing (apart from a tempor-
ary and short-lived reduction in
traffic due to the oil embargo of
1973-74); and
4) the improvement can be
attributed to the progressively
more stringent Federal motor
vehicle program and the New
Jersey I/M program.
Wisconsin concluded, how-
ever: "Their . . . [Federal New
Car Program and I/M] ...rela-
tive contributions to this reduc-
tion, however, are. . . best
interpreted jointly."
This leads to my next prem-
ise that the Federal motor ve-
hicle control program and State
inspection and maintenance
programs are, by definition,
complementary and that stress-
ing the relative differences be-
tween the two programs is an
exercise in futility.
One issue that is increasingly
clear in today's world of
"throw-away" commodities is
that shoddily-built or carelessly-
maintained vehicles are more
prevalent than once believed.
I guess this should not be sur-
prising. Until a few years ago,
a new motor vehicle cost about
$1 per pound. Compared with
other commodities and consid-
ering that this is a finished,
manufactured product delivered
with warranty, the auto is a
bargain indeed. Even in this day
of rapid inflation the cost of pri-
vate transportation is a bargain.
This low cost is surely a cred-
it to the resourcefulness of the
automotive engineer and good
managers. Technical ingenuity,
mass production methods, ex-
cellent distribution, appealing
merchandising and liberal cre-
dit policies, have all contributed
to a means of private transpor-
tation at minimum cost.
But yet within this resource-
fulness there are gaps. For ex-
ample, Detroit has learned that
customers don't like the incon-
venience of breakdowns or
frequent repairs. Therefore, the
auto engineer has designed an
engine with broad tolerance
ranges to accept a wide range of
driving conditions and various
abuses. In other words, a car
works in spite of what people do
or don't do to it. But as the auto
engineer has been forced to
tighten up tolerances in order to
accommodate emission control,
smaller differences in engine
settings have resulted in greater
relative changes in emissions.
The car of ten years ago with
high emissions would run rea-
sonably well under many condi-
tions of engine setting such as
timing, RPM, and carburetor
adjustment. Today's vehicles
must be kept within tight speci-
fications for emission and per-
formance deterioration. The
catalyst has helped somewhat
by providing the dumping
ground for emissions that can't
be tuned out in the engine. But
the catalyst has limitations. In
order for it to work, it too must
operate within strict limitations
and, of course, impurities such
as lead cannot be tolerated.
Another insight is that in-
spection and maintenance may
not have the same benefit for all
regions of the Nation. My obser-
vation is that the auto service
and repair industry maintains
vehicles to a level of customer
acceptance—and that's all. I
suspect, in many areas of our
Nation, this level of acceptance
varies considerably just as it
does within a region, State, or
city. I suspect education and
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
the social influence of the public
have a lot to do with it. Pride
in the car you drive, knowledge
of how it works, and an under-
standing of the environment in
which we live are key factors.
Last year, the Governor of
my State formed a Commission
to study the inspection program
in New Jersey (safety and emis-
sions) and report to him any
recommendations for change. A
contractor made a survey for
the Commission of public atti-
tude toward vehicle inspection.
A total of 83.9 percent thought
that mandatory vehicle inspec-
tion (safety and emissions)
should be continued. Relatively
greater proportions of the
educated, affluent, and aged
supported the system.
Not surprisingly, those who
failed most of the time liked
the program least.
Another regional influence
is climate. If, as I suggest, the
average motorist responds to
vehicle maintenance only when
necessary, those areas in the
southern part of our country
receive less maintenance than
those in the north. Those of us
who live in the cold northern
belt of the Nation remember
each year that first cold October
morning and the emergency
phone call to the neighborhood
repair garage begging assist-
ance to start the car. Climate,
in effect, forces many of us into
annual mandatory maintenance.
How this affects a State inspec-
tion and maintenance program
is difficult to say but I believe it
does.
Undoubtedly, the most dis-
cussed topic in starting I/M
programs is the fear of public
resentment. At this time, many
State and local government offi-
cials are hearing from elected
officials and, I suspect, a not-so-
small proportion of the public,
describing the woes of inspect-
ing vehicles and obtaining re-
pairs.
Of course, many of these
same arguments raged in New
Jersey when the program was
about to begin. With an assem-
blage of news media, I can recall
visiting an inspection lane on
the day emission testing began
for the first time. A motor ve-
hicle inspection examiner who
Since 1 974 New Jersey drivers have had their car emissions
tested as part of the State mandatory annual safety inspection.
had obviously been with the
system for many years casually
remarked to me, "You people
are going to create a hell of a
hornet's nest this year." But
then he added, "But don't
worry, next year it will blow
away. The same thing happened
in 1938 when safety inspection
began."
What the examiner said was
exactly true. After the first cycle
when everyone got their car
tested at least once, the novelty
was gone and with it the politi-
cal doomsayers. The second
cycle engendered appreciably
less resentment as did the third
and now the fourth. The survey
cited earlier shows that two-
thirds of the public now think
emission inspection in New
Jersey is fair. This percentage
is much higher than similar sur-
veys conducted in States about
to establish an inspection and
maintenance program. Starting
one of these programs is much
harder than continuing one.
But some of the fears are not
groundless. The problem of
overcharging, fraudulent, or
incompetent repair, is still with
us in New Jersey, as it will be
elsewhere around the Nation.
These problems can be and are
being dealt with in an earnest
and intelligent way. Auto emis-
sion control training programs
are proliferating throughout the
vocational education school
system as the need for them
expands. Spot enforcement by
our motor vehicle agencies.
along with threat of stiff fines
by the EPA for those who tam-
per with vehicles have had their
effect. In a continuing survey of
vehicles in New Jersey checked
for tampering, we have found
less than 1 percent involved.
Also, the EPA Regional Office
reports fewer complaints about
tampering in New Jersey than
in other States.
The point is that now people
in New Jersey are aware of auto
emissions. Their opinions and
their motivations are, of course,
not always the same. But they
recognize that once a year they
and their cars must pay their
dues. The learning process has
been completed. Those so in-
clined have found ways to beat
the system. Others have found
ways to live with it. And appar-
ently, a fairly large percentage
have grown to respect it or at
least think it's fair. Inspection
and maintenance in New Jersey
is no longer a defensive issue
and thus, the title for this article
"The Calm After The Storm."
Because the program has
been in effect for some time
doesn't mean that it is without
problems or that no changes
should be made. Making the
program more efficient remains
the key issue in New Jersey.
Standards that are fair for all ve-
hicles, while allowing the State
to find polluters and .tampered
vehicles, still must be achieved.
Accurate and consistent tests
must be found if the motorist
is not to bounce back and forth
between the garage and the in-
spection station. Vehicle pre-
condition and temperature
variables and their effects on
emissions are still a problem;
and, of course, an enforcement
presence in the auto repair in-
dustry must be accepted if the
integrity of the program is to be
maintained.
Earlier, I spoke about carbon
monoxide emissions while inten-
tionally omitting hydrocarbons.
The effect of inspection and
maintenance on ambient oxi-
dant levels is certainly less
clear than for carbon monoxide.
For one thing, motor vehicles
make up about one-half of many
sources of ambient hydrocar-
bons which, in turn, lead to the
formation of oxidants. For an-
other, the chemical reactions
producing oxidants occur at
varying speeds in the atmos-
phere. This air mass can be
moved long distances from the
source of the pollutants by pre-
vailing winds. Unfortunately, we
have not experienced a meas-
urable reduction of oxidants
from the emission inspection
program. There is, however,
evidence to show that hydro-
carbon sources do contribute
to the oxidant level. Further, it
is reasonable to assume that
reduction of these hydrocarbon
emissions will ultimately lead
to lower oxidant levels.
To demonstrate that assump-
tion, it will eventually be neces-
sary to have regional control of
oxidants. Thus, whole regions
whose hydrocarbon emissions
contribute areas in excess of
oxidant standards will have to
adopt additional emission con-
trol regulations, including I/M
programs. At the present time:,
EPA is involved in lawsuits
in a number of States in an effort
to encourage adoption of in
spection and maintenance pro-
grams. In addition. New Jersey
is petitioning the EPA to adopt
a national strategy for the con-
trol of oxidants. Joint action in
motor vehicle emission control
will surely have to bematched
in all affected jurisdictions for
the calm after the storm to
continue, fl
OCTOBER 1978
21
-------
'.is M .
'.;ition
(if the new Motiilo Emiv,
••.illoon-
: Ton!
chnicians \>i<:\>nr<
auto testing f;trility ,it ,1
;!('.
• licint]
Mioiiik: fiiciltty
EPAJOURNAL
-------
New Car
Tester
By Lori K. Shelton
P D A recentfy unveiled a
L 1 /~\ new unit capable of
measuring automobile air pollu-
tion emissions and fuel econ-
omy.
The Mobile Emissions Test
Facility will allow the Agency
to conduct the Federal auto
emission test anywhere in the
country. In the past, cars had to
be shipped to the nearest fixed
facility for emission tests.
"While providing mobility to
Americans, the automobile has
left a haze of harmful pollutants
over most cities," said EPA
Administrator Douglas Costle.
"This new facility will add an-
other dimension to our ability to
ensure that cars are meeting
Federal air pollution standards,
both as they come off the as-
sembly line and as they are
operated on the road."
Auto emissions testing is
conducted to determine
whether vehicles are in com-
pliance with the emissions re-
quirements of the Federal Clean
Air Act. The harmful pollutants
of hydrocarbons, carbon mon-
oxide and oxides of nitrogen are
controlled under this Act.
EPA has a fixed test site in
Springfield, Va. and will have
another in Texas in 1979 to
measure emissions from auto-
mobiles. EPA also hasa facility
in Ann Arbor, Mich, to certify
new car emissions performance.
The new mobile unit, de-
signed and produced in Califor-
nia by Automobile Environmen-
tal Systems, Inc., cost the EPA
$694,000 for design, develop-
ment, and construction. A com-
parable stationary laboratory
costs $300,000 to $500,000,
but can only be used in one
specific location.
This mobile facility consists
of a 40-foot expandable Dyna-
mometer Van in which to per-
(Lori K. Shelton is an EPA
Assistant Press Officer)
form the tests, a mobile labora-
tory to receive and interpret
data, and a Soak Test tent for
temperature control.
Emission testing under the
Federal Test Procedure pro-
vides accurate results, but re-
quires very sophisticated and
expensive test equipment,
highly trained technicians and
precise environmental controls
for factors such as temperature
and humidity. The procedure
has three stages: Pretest,
Driving Cycle and Analysis/
Calculations.
In the Pretest stage, the auto-
mobile is fueled with test gaso-
line, driven on a dynamometer
to warm it up and then is stored
in a temperature controlled area
(68°F) for at least 12 hours.
The vehicle is then moved back
onto the dynamometer and
driven over a representative
urban driving pattern for about
43 minutes. This simulates the
freeway and stop-go driving a
suburban commuter is likely to
encounter on a trip to the city.
During the driving phase, a
sample of the automobile's ex-
haust is collected by a "con-
stant volume sampler" and
stored in plastic bags.
The Analysis/Calculations
stage occurs when the exhaust
sample is removed from the
bags and is analyzed to deter-
mine the concentrations of the
pollutants. Emissions are cal-
culated in grams per mile and
the results are compared with
the standards to determine if
the vehicle is in compliance. The
full test requires 14 hours, but
several cars can be checked in
one day by staggering the test
stages. The cost in the mobile
laboratory—about $2,000 per
test—is comparable to that in a
fixed facility.
The mobile facility supports
three EPA programs to reduce
auto-related air pollution—
Assembly Line Testing, Recall,
and Inspection/Maintenance.
The assembly line testing
program tests production-line
cars from auto plants. In this
program, EPA selects automo-
biles directly off the assembly
line to insure that they are being
produced as they were designed
—and that the Federal air pollu-
tion standards are being met.
Currently, these cars are tested
by the manufacturer in the
presence of EPA observers after
shipment to the manufacturer's
test facilities. The mobile fa-
cility can be used to test the
cars at the production site, thus
providing a check on the manu-
facturer's testing.
Recall testing measures the
emissions of cars presently on
the road to determine if they
continue to comply with the
emission standards during their
useful life. Car owners are
selected at random from motor
vehicle registration lists, and
then are invited to participate
on a voluntary basis. For doing
so, they receive a replacement
car, a tank of gas, a tune-up and
a U.S. Savings Bond. If a sub-
stantial number of any class of
vehicles fail to meet the emis-
sion standards, EPA will require
the manufacturer to remedy the
emissions problem by notifying
owners that their vehicles will
be repaired by the manufacturer
free of charge. This program
can be expanded by using the
mobile lab.
"A third and perhaps most
important use for the mobile
facility is in support of the State
Inspection/ Maintenance pro-
gram," said Costle. Even if an
automobile is properly designed
and built, its emissions may in-
crease if it is not properly
maintained.
"The authority to require
individual owners to have their
cars periodically emission test-
ed and, if necessary, main-
tained, rests with the States.
The test used by States for this
purpose is simpler than the
Federal test procedure, allow-
ing more cars to be tested at
less expense. However, the
"short test' is less comprehen-
sive than the Federal test.
The mobile facility can be used
to demonstrate the benefits of
I/M in a particular location.
Further, it can be used from
time to time to determine corre-
lation of results between the
State and Federal tests so that
air quality benefits of an inspec-
tion/maintenance program may
accurately be assessed. This
will help the States achieve
maximum results at a minimum
cost. The mobile laboratory will
also be used to buttress efforts
to stop tampering with vehicle
emission controls.
"The mobile tester will allow
EPA to increase the effective-
ness of these programs to en-
sure that automobiles comply
with emission standards in all
climates and at all altitudes." (
r
OCTOBER 1978
-------
Ma
No
Pollution!
n June26, 1819, William
K. Clarkson of New York
City was granted a patent for
a "velocipede" or "swift-
walker." That same year his
device was banned by the Com-
mon Council, which passed a
law "to prevent the use of ve-
locipedes in the public places
of the city of New York." Over
a century and a half later the
city is changing its stance and
moving to support the use of
the velocipede, or bicycle, as
we know it.
This move is one of many,
changing the view of the bicycle
from that of a recreational di-
version to that of serious com-
muter vehicle.
Last July New York Mayor
Edward Koch announced the
opening of special bike lanes
along Broadway and the Avenue
of the Americas. A 4-foot wide
lane adjacent to the left side
parking lane has been set aside
for bikers. It is marked off by
street signs and diamond-
shaped symbols in the roadway,
an international symbol of a
bicycle lane.
The three-mile downtown
route is an acknowledgement
of the increasing numbers of
urban cyclists who defy taxis,
trucks, and potholes to ride
their bikes to work. The lanes
are being introduced on a one-
year test basis, according to the
mayor, and if successful they
could be expanded to cover
500 miles in the New York
metropolitan area.
Bicycles are becoming a
more important form of trans-
portation for energy and envi-
ronment-conscious people all
across the country. While snow
and ice can make biking a sea-
sonal thing in the northern
climes, bicycle use is on the
increase year-round in central
and southern areas. A Washing-
ton D.C. Council of Govern-
ments study recently estimated
that there are some 30,000 bike
commuters in the capital area.
Some 7,000 people bike to
work regularly in Denver.
EPA has its own corps of
bikers, active since the Agency
moved into its Waterside Mall
Headquarters in 1971. There
are about 100 people who bike
to work and use the bicycle
lockers, racks, and shower fa-
cilities that the Agency pro-
vides. Three EPA Assistant Ad-
ministrators, William Drayton,
Thomas Jorling, and David
Hawkins, have bicycle lockers
and use them often. Administra-
tor Douglas M. Costle has re-
cently written a letter to the ten
EPA Regional Administrators
encouraging them to make bik-
ing facilities available to EPA
employees.
Hawkins, Assistant Admin-
istrator for Air, Noise and Radi-
ation, is a biker who found out
the hard way about the increas-
ing cycle commuter traffic. He
told enthusiasts at the 1978
Bike Days Rally in Washington,
"When I came to EPA they told
me I had a parking space wait-
ing for me in the garage, but I
had to get on a waiting list for a
bicycle locker." Hawkins bikes
to work several days a week.
Since 1973, under the Fed-
eral Aid to Highway Act, States
may build bikeways in conjunc-
tion with highway construction
projects. Also States may de-
velop independent bikeway
projects costing up to $2.5 mil-
lion per State, with a national
ceiling of $45 million. Many
studies of bikeways have been
sponsored by the Department of
Transportation, which has a $6
million bikeway demonstration
program. An increasing number
24
EPAJOURNAL
-------
of Federal agencies, in Wash-
ington and around the Nation,
are providing facilities for
their employees, as are many
private companies.
Bicycle commuting is stand-
ard transportation in many Old
World countries and some in-
crease in bike traffic there is
attributed to the energy crisis of
the early Seventies. During that
period some countries banned
auto traffic on Sundays and
bikes were the only transporta-
tion available. Bicycle racks are
a common sight in Europe and
people often carry their bikes
aboard trains.
In Japan over 50 percent of
all households have bicycles.
The Japanese government
passeda lawin 1970 to im-
prove bicycle-riding roads.
Millions of citizens in the Peo-
ple's Republic of China use
bicycles almost exclusively.
Furthermore, there the bicycles
and three-wheel cycles are used
to transport goods as well.
Many bicycle studies and
surveys have indicated that
people would bike to work more
often if there were safe bike-
ways and secure parking. Bi-
cycles account for over one-
quarter of all trips made by any
form of transportation in the
towns of Copenhagen, Den-
mark; Upsala, Sweden; Rotter-
dam, Holland, and Stevenage,
England. Stevenage is a new
town that has incorporated bike-
ways as part of the town plan.
In Holland one third of the
roads have speciaf provisions
for bikes. Many main streets
there have lanes designed
solely for bicycles and have
special stop and go signals for
bikes at large intersections. In
Holland and Sweden commut-
ers can check in their bikes at a
train station and rent others at
their destination.
One of the best examples of
successful bike use on a large
scale in this country is the city
of Davis, Calif. Davis has a flat
terrain, mild weather condi-
tions, wide streets, and a large
youth population due to the lo-
cation there of a campus of the
University of California.
The need for integration of
bikers' requirements into city
traffic planning came to a head
there in 1 966. A citizen group
got petitions signed asking the
city council to establish bike
paths along principal streets
and to make bicycle rights-of-
way part of the city's transpor-
tation system. Candidates sup-
porting the bikeways won in
the next city election and the
first paths were established
nlong wide streets.
The bicycle boom in Davis
has continued since, with the
result that there are no park-
ing meters in the city and the
motor traffic at rush hour is
tolerable. Some 28 miles of
bicycle paths, with about 7
miles completely separate from
roadways, exist in and around
Davis. A city ordinance requires
that bike paths be included in all
new subdivisions. Davis has
the highest per capita bicycle
ownership in the country, with
about 28,000 bikes in a city of
36,000 people.
Some of the bikeways in
Davis are along the sides of
existing streets. A solid 6-inch
white line sets off the bikeways
from auto traffic. According to
David Pelz of the Davis Depart-
ment of Public Works, cars may
enter the bike lanes only to
make right-hand turns, enter
driveways, or park. He adds
that Davis authorities are work-
ing to make traffc signals more
responsive to bikers. Adjust-
ments to the traffic signal trig-
gering devices can change the
light sequence to allow bikers
more time to cross an inter-
section. The California laws
relating to bike use have been
standardized, says Pelz, and
information on bikeways is
being integrated into State
driver education and driver
testing manuals.
Other Davis bikeways are
macadam paths that wind
through the UCLA campus and
various subdivisions of the City.
The bike paths are heavily used
by commuters, students, and
housewives. A Davis study
found that one-quarter of all
travel in the city is accom-
plished on bicycles. On some
heavily traveled streets bikes
make up over 50 percent of the
traffic.
It is estimated that 40 per-
cent of the "vehicle miles trav-
eled" in rush hour are done on
bicycles, and most (90 percent)
of the riders at that time are
adults. College students going
to classes and university em-
ployees on their way to work
make up a large proportion of
the traffic.
A study of a nearby town that
has no bike lanes, but the same
mild climate, flat terrain, and
wide streets, showed that al-
most all bikers there were
school children and that less
than 38 percent of them used
their bikes regularly. In Davis
school children usethebike
paths as heavily as their elders.
Some 60 percent of high school
students and 80 percent of
junior high students ride their
bikes to school often. A poll of
parents also showed that they
nllow their older children to use
bikes for transportation to rec-
reational events and movies on
a regular basis.
Bike enthusiasts cite many
advantages to the modern ver-
sion of the velocipede. They
will remind you that biking is
non-polluting, energy efficient,
space efficient, and economical.
Says Nina Rowe, a long-time
EPA biker, "In a number of situ-
ations, especially in inner-city
traffic, a bicycle is faster than
a car. It preserves my sense of
independence, by keeping me
free from the gas pump and the
parking meter. Best of all, bi-
cycling provides healthy and
pleasurable exercise, while it
gets me from place to place."
Administrator Costle con-
curs. He said, "I strongly
support the idea of making bi-
cycle commuting more conven-
ient. After all, if we are encour-
aging people to consider alter-
native forms of transportation
in our efforts to clean up the air,
we must set an example for
others to follow." D
OCTOBER 1978
25
-------
A Matter
of Life and
Breath
By Chris Perham
| ho intercom crackles and a
' voice says, "Ready to begin
testing." A young man in cover-
alls steps up to a row of ma-
chines in a stainless-steel cham-
ber. Under the scrutiny of a
closed-circuit TV camera he
grasps a plastic hose and places
it in his mouth. Then, following
the instructions coming over the
intercom, he takes a deep
breath, pinches his nose closed,
and blows into the machine
again, and again, and again,
until he can force no more air
from his lungs.
In the next room the staff of
EPA's Clinical Studies Division
—doctors, nurses, and tech-
nicians—watch the computers
and television screens that
simultaneously record, monitor,
and display the results of this
test.
The young man is a volunteer
in an environmental health
study that the Agency is con-
ducting to document the effects
of air pollution on the human
body.
Chris Per hum is ,in Assistant
Editor of EPA Journal.
The medical staff can tell how
his lungs function by follow-
ing the line on the TV screen
that registers the force and vol-
ume of each breath as peaks on
a graph. After several hours of
breathing air that contains
ozone the volunteer coughs fre-
quently and doctors note that
lung action declines as pollution
increases. A computer analyzes
each breath in great detail, pro-
viding information for later
interpretation.
By noting the effects of ozone
on healthy young bodies, EPA
scientists hope to assess the
harsher impact this pollutant
might have on millions of other
Americans, particularly the very
young, the elderly, and the
chronically ill.
At its Clinical Laboratory for
Evaluation and Assessment of
Noxious Substances (CLEANS),
EPA has one of the most ad-
vanced and complete facilities
in the world for human testing.
The testing lab, on the campus
of the University of North Caro-
linaat Chapel Hill, isthesiteof
research that helps Agency
scientists determine if air pollu-
tion standards, as they are now
set, protect the health of Ameri-
cans the way Congress intended
when it passed the clean air
legislation. The program is con-
ducted by the Health Effects
Research Laboratory (HERD,
one of four labs making up
EPA's Environmental Research
Center at Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
The people who volunteer to
participate in this research are
helping EPA study the subtle
effects that specific pollutants
and combinations of pollutants
have on the working ability of
the heart and lungs. An added
benefit, according to Dr. Ralph
Stacy, Senior Health Scientist
in HERL's Clinical Studies Divi-
sion, is that the information
gathered during the studies fills
gaps in medical knowledge
about the normal functioning of
heart and lungs in healthy young
adults.
Researchers at Chapel Hill
work closely with the staff of the
Medical School at the Univer-
sity of North Carolina. A de-
tailed protocol, or design, for
each study is submitted to the
Committee on the Protection of
the Rights of Human Subjects
at the University for approval.
The protocol is a step-by-step
breakdown of exposure times,
exercises, and pollutant levels
used in the experiments. All
EPA experiments conform to the
regulations of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and
Welfare on human testing.
The volunteers for EPA's
health effects research are uni-
versity students. They are paid
a small stipend for their time
and undergo a complete phys-
ical examination before taking
part in the study. Each volunteer
meets with one of the staff doc-
tors and receives a thorough
explanation of the protocol of
the experiment before signing a
consent form. "I had a long talk
with Dr. Haak before I started
the experiment," said one. "He
told me what we would be do-
ing and why, answered all my
questions. It doesn't worry me
any, besides now I know why
it's important to find out about
these things."
Preliminary studies conduct-
ed at the facility show impaired
lung function in volunteers ex-
posed for brief periods to ozone
at levels comparable to those
experienced in urban areas dur-
ing air quality alerts. EPA analy-
sis of blood drawn from these
volunteers indicates that expo-
sure to ozone can hinder the
ability of white blood cells to
fight off infection for up to eight
weeks after the time of expo-
sure. These detrimental effects
were documented on healthy
young volunteers, and EPA
scientists are concerned that re-
actions could be more pro-
nounced in people suffering
from chronic heart and lung
disease.
The experiments conducted
on people are coordinated, to
the extent possible, with vari-
ous studies involving animals.
The animal studies give re-
searchers some indication of
the reaction they can expect.
. Says Dr. Stacy, "We can take
animal studies a long way, but
the crucial question is, 'How ap-
plicable are these results to
humans?' Somewhere along the
This voluritci-r :•; huMlhiruj inln
a testini
lists
lrr>;i<|
mill while cornputi ••
Hit .-iiiiounl .-IIH) ::on|i:iit of ,'iii
from his luru):;.
l)r R.itph Stiicy. .icliix) director
of the Clinic.-]! Studies Division,
obSlMVOS till! luiH] fullClii"
voluni' monitoring
si reen
Banks of computers th;H mom
tor ;ind trcmd a of tin-
liHMtc'd just outside
tit th>- tt:Sl i
26
EPAJOURNAL
-------
line we need human exposure
studies, and these must be care-
fully controlled,."
The two chambers at the
CLEANS facility were designed
to include state of the art con-
trols and precautions. Plans
were drawn up based on a re-
view completed in 1973 by Dr.
John Knelson, Director of
Clinical Studies, of the five
chambers then existing in the
U.S. for human air pollution ex-
posure experiments. The com-
plex design and construction
took more than three years and
the facility was turned over to
EPA in May, 1976.
At that time Dr. Knelson set
up a task force to evaluate the
system and run control studies
to find any defects or quirks that
might exist. Questionable data
would produce bad research.
After checking the accuracy of
the system the staff began their
first pollution effects (ozone)
studies late last year. After 500
subject/exposure days, the
study was completed and re-
ports will be published in early
1979.
The CLEANS chambers pro-
vide completely controlled en-
vironments for the research
studies. Computers set and
maintain temperature, light, and
humidity. Air that enters the
two 13 x 20 foot stainless-steel
rooms is specially filtered, heat-
ed, cooled, and constantly
monitored to remove unwanted
contaminants and add back
those needed for the study
at hand. By programming
the computers, scientists can
specify air that is pristine, con-
tains one pollutant, or combines
different levels of several pollu-
tants, including water-soluble
particulates.
Scientists emphasize that
they need to know not only the
responses of the body to indi-
vidual pollutants but also the
synergistic effect of combined
pollutants. This is especially
important since urban air pollu-
tion almost never comes from
just one source, and research
indicates that combined pollu-
tants can present an increased
health risk.
The atmosphere inside the
chambers can be manipulated
to maintain the concentration of
a given substance to within nar-
row limits. The precise control
of concentration levels is re-
quired to ensure the validity of
the research and to protect the
well-being of the volunteers.
Safety precautions built into
the chambers include large
viewing windows, closed-cir-
cuit TV, constant intercom com-
munication between volunteers
and the doctor conducting the
tests, continuous heart-monitor-
ing of subjects and alarms con-
nected to automatic shut-down
systems that activate if the pol-
lution exceeds a predetermined
level. Huge fans in the space
beneath the chambers recircu-
late the air and can exhaust both
chambers in a few seconds, if
necessary.
EPA scientists use three
mini-computers to control the
operation of the research ex-
periments. They monitor and
record the reams of data pro-
duced by the spirometer and
other physioiogical testing in-
struments, govern the operation
of the chambers and constantly
watch over more than 250 ele-
ments that make up the system.
Computer capacity and tech-
nology at the lab is continually
being expanded and updated to
cope with the huge amounts of
information that the experi-
ments generate.
Volunteers and medical per-
sonnel enter the chambers
through an "air shower", a clo-
set with a wail of high-powered
air nozzles that blow away loose
dirt, bacteria, and surface con-
taminants. The entryway also
has brushes in the floor, which
when activated scrub the shoes
of anyone entering or leaving
the chamber to prevent cross-
contamination.
Each CLEANS chamber has
work-study areas, bathrooms,
and sleeping areas for long-
term experiments. As many as
six volunteers can live in the
chambers for up to two weeks
at a time while breathing con-
trolled amounts of pollution
under computer-controlled con-
ditions of temperature, humid-
ity, and day/night cycles.
Volunteers who take part in
the extended tests will receive
food through an air-lock "pass
through" into the chamber and
will be able to read and watch
TV to help pass the time when
they are not involved in
research activities.
No long-term experiments
have yet been performed in the
CLEANS facility. The most re-
cent study series, which was
held in 5-day increments, in-
volved exposing volunteers to
clean air on one day and to
.4 parts per million of ozone for
four hours on four other days.
The volunteers were able to
return home each night.
According to Dr. Stacy the
volunteers are not told which
substances they will be breath-
ing on a given day, but he adds,
"With ozone you can't fool
them. They can tell when we
use it because of the smell."
The ozone is produced by en-
closed ultra-violet lights in the
control room above the cham-
bers. It has a sharp, fresh smeil
something like the air after a
thunderstorm.
OCTOBER 1978
-------
The volunteers also say they
know when they're breathing
ozone. "It makes my throat burn
a little," said one, "and some-
times I cough at the end of the
day." Another noted, "My eyes
get watery and itch. I didn't
think much about it until I real-
ized that the last time I felt that
way I was in Washington, D.C.
caught in a traffic jam."
Coughing, chest tightness,
and eye irritation are common
reactions to pollution some-
times dismissed as trivial. But
researchers see them as clues
to the more subtle effects-the
changes in heart and lung re-
sponse when pollution puts a
strain on the body. They use a
number of exotic devices to
measure the responses of the
body under different circum-
stances-at rest, during, and
after exercise, in clean air and
with pollutants added.
While taking part in the ex-
periments the volunteers are
fitted with heart monitors at-
tached to transmitters that look
like transistor radios tucked into
the breast pocket of their cover-
alls. These ECG telemetry de-
vices provide constant reporting
on cardiac response. Staff mem-
bers monitoring the experiment
from the computer consoles
outside the CLEANS chambers
can see the electrocardiogram
of each volunteer on a screen.
In addition, all data are analyzed
and recorded on the computer
system and a photocopy can be
obtained of anything displayed
on tho operator's console
screen.
In
-------
Environmental Almanac: October 1978
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
The
Elm
Battle
This is the time of year when
the rasping sound of a tree
surgeon's saw can often be
heard in the towering heights of
one of our most beautiful and
threatened trees, the American
elm.
This fall pruning of limbs in-
fected with the spreading Dutch
elm disease is often vital as part
of the treatment process if the
tree is once again to produce in
the spring the glorious green
canopy which has ornamented
so many of the Nation's parks,
city streets and private lawns.
The massive effort underway
to save this tree noted for the
ballerina grace of its branches
has sparked considerable emo-
tion and controversy.
There are an estimated 34
million American elms present-
ly growing in incorporated areas
of the United States. Of all the
elm species, the American is
the loveliest and the most sus-
ceptible to the Dutch elm
disease.
Millions of elms have been
killed in the United States since
the disease fungus was acciden-
tally brought into this country
on imported logs in 1930.
The impact of the problem
has been particularly devasat-
ing in the twin cities of St. Paul
and Minneapolis, where practi-
cally all street shade trees are
elms. St. Paul lost 50,000 elms
to the disease last year and
Minneapolis 32,000.
The disease fungus clogs the
water-conducting vessels in a
tree's cambial growth layers.
As a defensive mechanism the
tree seals off afflicted cells.
However, the disease spreads
relatively swiftly and the tree
closes off cells behind it until
it literally chokes itself to death.
The plague is spread from
tree to tree by elm beetles
which carry the spores of the
fungus.
Although the fungus is a
native of Asia it became known
as the Dutch disease somewhat
unfairly because scientists in
the Netherlands first identified
the cause of this strange
malady.
Efforts to contain this dis-
ease which has also decimated
elms in Europe and Canada gen-
erally center around two major
approaches—area control and
individual tree control. In the
first system, a unified authority
attempts to contain the disease
within a specific area such as a
city. Emphasis is concentrated
on prompt removal of diseased
trees and chemical spraying to
kill the carrier bark beetles and
eliminate their breeding sites.
Treatment to save individual
trees which have an unusual
historical or esthetic value
usually consists basically of
cutting out infected fimbs and
injecting fungicides.
Among the pesticides ap-
proved by EPA for use against
the Dutch elm disease is Lig-
nasan, a chemical product. A
non-profit research and educa-
tional organization, the Elm
Research Institute, Harrisville,
N.H., has reported good results
with this product when it is
promptly and properly used.
However, its use is approved
by EPA only by trained arborists
because special pressurized in-
jection equipment is needed to
apply the compound correctly.
The product can also be hazard-
ous to people if not properly
used.
The Elm Research Institute
stresses the importance of early
preventive treatment of elms
but warns that no integrated
program for care can be fully
implemented without the advice
of a trained tree expert.
The first visible signs of in-
fection of an elm with the dis-
ease is the wilting or yellowing
of leaves known as "flagging."
When this symptom appears the
institute urges the prompt in-
jection of the tree with an
approved fungicide.
Another product registered
by EPA for use by injection is
Arbotect 20-S. Some sprays
such as methoxychlor are also
registered by EPA to help
protect the elms.
Several other chemicals pesti-
cides are now being tested
under EPA permits. Extensive
efforts are also being made to
find suitable elms which are
resistant to the disease.
However, the authorities gen-
erally agree that while treat-
ments are available which can
help control the disease, so far
no miracle cure has been found.
One of the major authorities
on Dutch elm disease, Dr. Frank
S. Santamour of the U.S. Na-
tional Arboretum, stated in a
report on the current state of the
art of control of this disease that
the lesson to be learned from
the Dutch Elm disease is that:
"It will be a mistake if we ever
allow the planting of any single
species ... no matter what its
credentials, to the near exclu-
sion of others. We are not going
to 'replace' American elm.
Diversity of planting with re-
gard to species, cultivar, size,
form, growth rate, texture and
color will help us to avert an-
other Dutch elm disease
tragedy."—C.D.P.
OCTOBER 1978
29
-------
Update
A review of recent major EPA
activities and developments in
the pollution control program
areas.
Auto"--
manufac-
turers must
"immediately face
up to the fact that
have defined their job too
narrowly and have shirked
their responsibilities" with
regard to the compliance of
autos with emission standards
while in use, said David Haw-
kins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation.
Automakers have focused
only on very specific EPA re-
quirements, Hawkins told the
Auto Newsworld Conference
recently. They need to focus as
well on "their broad respon-
sibility to refrain from market-
ing products which will not
meet the law's requirements in
use," he said. "Many of the
vehicles that exceed standards
in use do so because they are
defectively built, or poorly de-
signed, or because they drive so
poorly or won't start on cold
mornings. . . ,"
EPA Hears
Coal Issue
EPA held its second public
hearing in Ohio August 22 on
the source of coal for the State.
Because most Ohio coal is high
in sulfur content, several utili-
ties have indicated that they
intend to buy out-of-state low
sulfur coal to comply with the
clean air law. The aim of the
hearings is to help the EPA
Administrator decide whether
such a step will cause economic
disruption or unemployment.
A key issue is whether or not
Ohio utilities should be ordered
to burn coal mined in the area.
"EPA shares the concern of
every person in this room for
the welfare of Ohio citizens.
And that means jobs as well as
clean air," said Marvin Durning,
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement, in opening the
hearing.
Air Rules For
Grain Elevators
Final air pollution regulations
have been issued by EPA to
protect people living around
large grain elevators from the
dangers of dust pollution, which
can cause breathing problems
and respiratory illness.
The rules apply to any large
grain elevators (storage capac-
ity greater than 2.5 million
bushels) whose construction
began after Aug. 3, or may start
in the future. The final rules will
apply to the 500 existing large
elevators only if these struc-
tures are modified or
reconstructed.
Reg-
ulations
will beissued
early next year to
control noise from
railroad yards and rail-
road equipment,Charles Elkins,
EPA's Deputy Assistant Admini-
strator for Noise Abatement and
Control, has disclosed.
The rules would set overall
noise limits for railroad yards.
Some of the equipment affected
would be: (1) retarders, which
are parts of tracks used to brake
the speed of railroad cars
(2) refrigeration units in rail-
road cars, and (3) locomotive
service facilities. Noise rules
already have been set for loco-
motives and railroad cars.
After
taking "a
long, hard look
at EPA's pesticide
program,"Steven Jellinek",'
Assistant Administrator for
Toxic Substances, has conclud-
ed that the competency of
its staffing is not the cause of
its problems. "To my pleasure,
I have found that the Office
of Pesticide Programs
is staffed by many capable
scientists and other profes-
sionals . . . ," hetolda meeting
of the Southern Commodity
Producers Conference. "The
program is dominated neither
by lawyers nor unscientific
types who are ignorant of the
realities of modern agriculture
and out of touch with the most
advanced science."
The program has a number of
basic deficiencies, Jellinek con-
tinued, but the Agency is work-
ing hard to overcome them.
The provisions of the amend-
ments to the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act give reason to be
optimistic about the program's
future, he said.
Industrial Pesticide
Gets EPA Review
EPA has started a review of the
risks and benefits of a common-
ly used industrial pesticide to
decide whether to allow con-
tinued use. The pesticide is
2,4,5-TCP, a chemical with
some of the same characteris-
tics as the herbicide 2,4,5-T,
which is now undergoing a
similar safety review.
Both compounds contain the
dioxin TCDD, a toxic material,
which even in extremely small
amounts is capable of killing
laboratory animals. Also, a
number of laboratory studies
have shown that TCDD is a
suspected source of birth de-
fects and cancer among people.
The pesticide 2,4,5-TCP is
used in several industries, from
textiles to pulp and paper mills,
and in small amounts to dis-
infect facilities such as hospital
rooms and equipment.
Pesticide Action
The EPA has cleared the way
for western States to broaden
the use of four EPA-approved
pesticides to combat serious
grasshopper outbreaks on
crops. On July 26, the Agency's
pesticides chief, Edwin L. John-
son, informed Kansas and
Nebraska officials that the
States could allow farmers to
use the pesticides on all major
crops being eaten by the
"hoppers."
The compounds are dimeth-
oate, Furadan (carbofuran),
Dursban (chlorpyrifos) and
orthene. The same permission
applies to other States afflicted
with the pests, such as Colorado
and Oklahoma. EPA checked
before acting to insure the pesti-
cides wouldn't leave unsafe
residues.
Deputy Administrator Bar-
bara Blum said it was "highly
uniikely" that EPA would grant
requests for emergency use
against the grasshoppers of
another pesticide, heptachlor.
EPA stopped most uses of hep-
tachlor in 1975 because itwas
judged a suspect human cancer
agent and persistent environ-
mental contaminant.
is final-
izing rules
carry out a pro-
gram of Federal grants
toheipurban areas develop^
resource recovery projects. At
press time, final regulations
were expected soon, along with
Congressional action on a $15
million appropriation requested
by President Carter.
The grants will enable cities
to hire capable managers and
obtain adequate consulting
services for preparatory steps
in projects such as burning
trash to create fuel for energy.
Lack of specialized knowledge
and skills has often caused
cities to fail in resource re-
covery efforts.
Solid Waste
Guidelines
EPA has proposed guidelines
for States to use in preparing
plans to manage solid wastes.
Included are requirements
which States would have to
meet to gain EPA approval of
their plans. With Agency ap-
proval, the States could receive
funds to carry out the solid
waste management efforts.
"We are giving States an
opportunity to develop strate-
gies which will assure that
wastes are managed in a safe
manner, and which will provide
for resource recovery as well,"
said Steffen Plehn, EPA's
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste. To be approved
by EPA, each State plan would
have to provide for the environ-
mentally-acceptable disposal of
solid wastes and include a
strategy for resource recovery.
JC
' EPAJOURNAL
-------
An •
era of
massive
dumping of
industrial wastes
into the Gulf of Mexico
has ended with an industry
decision following an
EPA Region 6 ruling. The indus-
try, Ethyl Corp., has withdrawn
a Federal permit application for
dumping at sea. Ethyl was the
last industry anywhere along
the Gulf to hold such a permit.
The company decision came
after an EPA ruling that six
Ethyl reports related to the
permit are public information
under Federal law. The corpo-
ration had attempted to exclude
the press and public from por-
tions of a permit hearing last
May, claiming the application
documents contained confiden-
tial business secrets.
Protect Croplands
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle has ordered EPA to take
valuable, higher-yield crop-
lands into account in the Agen-
cy's actions. Such croplands
are as important to the environ-
ment as they are to agriculture,
said Thomas Jorling Assistant
Administrator for Water and
Waste Management.
The order's aim, Jorling said
in a speech explaining the
policy, is to help prevent the
loss of such lands as an environ-
mental or food-production
resource. For example, under
the new policy, EPA will be
looking at the possible impact
of new sewage projects on uses
of agricultural lands, Jorling
told the annual conference of
the Soil Conservation Society of
America.
EPA Grant
to Ohio
A grant of $709,950 has been
authorized by EPA to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agen-
cy. The grant—to help sup-
port the State's water pollution
control program—was an-
nounced by Deputy Ad linistra-
tor Barbara Blum after intensive
negotiations between the Fed-
eral and State agencies.
"We are confident that the
grant agreement reached today
should result in a significant
upgrading of the Ohio water
permit and enforcement pro-
grams," said Blum. The funds
were withheld by EPA because
the Agency was concerned
about apparent deficiencies in
Ohio's Fiscal Year 1978 plan in
the areas of enforcement and
permit issuance.
Priority to
Drinking Water
Financial aid to improve the
drinking water systems of small
rural communities will get prior-
ity consideration, says a new
agreement between EPA and
the Farmers Home Administra-
tion. Although such funding is
available for other purposes,
the agreement assigns priority
to the funding of health-related
drinking water projects. The
Farmer's Home Administration
funding will be provided from
$1 billion available this year to
help rural communities build
or improve waste treatment and
drinking water facilities.
Wetlands Session
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle is among the scheduled
speakers at a national sympo-
sium on the value of U.S. wet-
lands and their protection. The
symposium will be at Lake
Buena Vista, Florida,
November 7-9.
The aim, according to the
National Wetlands Technical
Council, is "to achieve a na-
tional consensus among scien-
tists on the research priorities
and values of wetlands, inland
and coastal, in the United
States." The Council is organ-
izing the symposium. About
1,000 scientists, environmen-
talists and educators are ex-
pected to attend.
convinced
that government'
can be made to
well and to meet the
needs of citizens," Adminis
trator Douglas M. Costle told
the Public Citizen Forum.
"It won't be easy. But my
experience at EPA
so far has given me grounds
for cautious optimism that it
can be done."
Costle gave two key exam-
ples of EPA policies responding
to public needs. One is to give
high priority to enforcing the
law, showing that the Agency is
serious about its mission and
won't accept excuses for un-
necessary delays. The second
is giving high priority to meas-
ures primarily aimed at protect-
ing public health, affirming that
EPA's main concern is with
people and the direct effects of
environmental pollution on
their lives.
Minorities,
Women
Recruited
Since October, 1977, EPA has
hired 80 persons in a special
program to recruit college grad-
uates. Of the total, 37 were
members of minorities. Also 28
women were hired, including
12 minority members. The spe-
cial effort is a joint headquar-
ters-field program to recruit
candidates for hard-to-fill posi-
tions, mostly in engineering and
science. The emphasis is on
hiring minority persons and
women.
The continuing employment
effort, started last October, is in
compliance with EPA's Affirma-
tive Action program. For addi-
tional information on the special
program contact Gene Harris
(202) 755-2663.
Strong Public Role
EPA held an informal public
meeting August 24 on its pro-
posal to improve the Agency's
process of developing regula-
tions. While EPA has been a
leader in regulatory reform,
"now we're proposing reforms
that go beyonrl those we had
previously adopted," said Ad-
ministrator Douglas M. Costle.
A key EPA interest, Costle
said, is ensuring maximum
public participation in the early
stages of regulation develop-
ment. "We want to be sure that
the public will have every
chance to have its views heard
and considered by this
Agency," he said.
The proposal presented at the
public meeting would give addi-
tional chances for public
comment as regulations are
developed, consider possible
reporting burdens on groups
affected by the regulation, and
analyze the possible impacts of
a new regulation on such areas
as public health and energy.
Air Cases Settled
Two Virginia Volkswagen deal-
erships have settled out of court
on cases involving alleged vio-
lations of Federal air pollution
control law. The dealerships
were among 1 3 charged nation-
wide with allegedly tampering
with pollution control equip-
ment on 1975 and 1976 Rabbits
and Sciroccos.
The Justice Department filed
the complaints after EPA inves-
tigation and referral and the
settlements wore negotiated
with EPA approval.
Water Rules Upheld
EPA regulations limiting water
pollution by paper mills have
been upheld by the U. S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Washing-
ton, D.C. With one minor excep-
tion, the court ruled that tho
Agency's rules were legal and
had been properly adopted.
The recent decision covers a
iargc majority of the Nation's
paper mills which had previous-
ly been unregulated. The court
found that "the EPA properly
construed and rationally exer-
cised the authority delegated to
it by Congress" with the one
exception.D
OCTOBER 1978
31
-------
Making
Environ-
mental
Science
Work
Interview with Dr.
Richard Dowd, Science
Policy Advisor, Office
of the Administrator,
and Staff Director of
the Science Advisory
Board
What would you say is the
main scientific challenge
that's facing EPA now?
Probably the most challenging
scientific issue we have to deal
with is how to lay a solid
ground-work for making valid
risk assessments. We must be
careful because the whole ques-
tion of risk assessment and the
judgment of risk is more than
simply a scientific question. It
includes other important issues
such as economics, political
policies, and social welfare con-
cerns. We are addressing new
areas, and we must move care-
fully to make surethat decisions
are right. Yet the Agency has to
make decisions on a daily basis
to deal with a myriad of risks
about which, if decisions are
not made, there is a chance that
either some segment of our
environment or the public health
is going to be irretrievably in-
jured. So we cannot pause too
long because we don't have the
information. On the other hand,
the scientific adequacy of the
information has to be assured,
and we must find methods of
assessing the risks in such a
way that the Administrator can
use them to make his
judgments.
The main procedural scien-
tific challenge is to assess the
quality of the science that is
carried out in the Agency and
improve it. There are instances
where research is not carefully
done or our data is sloppy, and
this needs to be improved. I
think that is a procedural issue
that crosses all areas of
substance.
What is the role of EPA's
Science Advisory Board?
The key role is to help maintain
the high quality of the scientific
research that goes on in the
Agency. The Board also re-
sponds to Agency requests for
advice on its scientific pro-
grams, and, where appropriate,
to developmental issues that the
Board feels the Agency should
address. In those cases, the
Board provides advice to the
Agency, but it is advice only.
The Agency does not have to
follow it.
Has the role or the make-
up of the Board changed
recently?
Congress supported the Science
Advisory Board by legislative
establishment last fall and some
changes followed. We have
combined all of the committees
under a single charter, but the
functions remain pretty much
the same as in the past. The
Board is made up of about 80
scientists when all appoint-
ments are filled. Those scien-
tists are broadly divided into
several different committees.
There is an Executive Commit-
tee, which is chaired by the
Chairman of the Science Advi-
sory Board. The chairmanship
is a major job, and the person
who fills it is to give advice to
the Administrator. The Execu-
tive Committee acts as a sort of
steering committee for the
whole Board and, where appro-
priate, sets up sub-committees
or selects issues to be ad-
dressed by specific standing
committees. Then there are five
standing committees respon-
sible for the following areas:
environmental health, ecology,
pollutant transportation, tech-
nology, and measurements. In
addition, last fall we estab-
lished a new sub-committee on
toxic substances. That sub-
committee is like a small stand-
ing committee, except that it is
not built into the charter, and
we can dissolve it at will. Also,
inthe CleanAirActAmend-
ments of 1 977, the Administra-
tor was asked to set up an inde-
pendent committee to evaluate
the scientific adequacy of cri-
teria and the regulations and
standards for control of the cri-
teria pollutants. So we are in the
process of establishing a new
committee called the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee,
members of which will be mem-
bers of the Science Advisory
Board. All of the chairpersons
of the standing committees
serve as members of the Execu-
tive Committee, and, in addition
to them, we have several
members-at-large.
V
EPAJOURNAL
-------
How do you choose your
chairpersons?
The Administrator chooses
them. The Administrator
chooses all members of the
Science Advisory Board as well
as all chairpersons. Members
are appointed for staggered
terms ranging from 1 - 3 years.
They may serve up to four years,
and, in some rare cases, more.
You said the Adminis-
trator picks people on
the Board. Is it because of
the community they
represent or the various
facets within the scien-
tific community they are
concerned with?
With an 80-member Board, we
haveafair amount of flexibility
and we have to select our mem-
bers to reflect diversity: scien-
tific, geographic, institutional,
racial, sexual, and so on. We
have to pick a Board that is
broadly representative of the
scientific consensus and also in-
cludes women, blacks, minori-
ties. We have to be sure that we
do not represent only the East
Coast elite establishments, that
we do not represent only ecolo-
gists, and that we also include
chemical engineers and ground-
water specialists. With only 80
people we cannot represent all
specialties, but we do try to
represent a broad spectrum, and
we have a fair number of Na-
tional Academy of Science
members on the Science Ad-
visory Board. We try to get emi-
nent scientists, as well as work-
ing-level scientists. We started
with the premise that the reason
for picking a person is because
of scientific training, talent, and
expertise. But we don't want to
pick all of the members from
one university or laboratory.
How often does the
Board meet, and where?
The Board as a whole does not
meet. It is each of the commit-
tees that meets. The Executive
Committee normally meets in
the Administrator's conference
room. Usually the Administra-
tor, the Deputy Administrator,
and several of the Assistant
Administrators spend some
time with the Executive Com-
mittee. Each of the other com-
mittees meets 3-4 times a year
usually in Washington. All of
these meetings are open to the
public.
Do you get much public
attendance at the
meetings?
Yes, depending on the issue.
Often representatives from in-
dustry and public interest
groups attend. Much of the work
of the Science Advisory Board
is carried out by ad hoc sub-
committees and work-groups
that are set up to deal with
specific issues.
If a document needs to be
reviewed, we set up a sub-
committee which has its chair-
person drawn from one of the
standing committees and mem-
bers drawn from any of the
committees depending on the
expertise needed. We may also
draw upon our long list of con-
sultants. That allows us to cover
many more issues because
those subcommittees may meet
as often as necessary to resolve
an issue.
Do you think the Board is
satisfied with the kind of
progress that EPA's
scientific program is
making and the direction
that it's going in?
I think so. It is always a struggle.
Keep in mind that they are a
group of outside advisors, and,
as advisors, there is always the
question of how much is your
advice taken. The Science Ad-
visory Board is like any group;
sometimes advice is taken and
sometimes it is not. When the
advice is not taken the Board
feels less happy than when its
advice is taken. But I think gen-
erally the Board feels that the
Agency is moving in the right
direction and is try ing to im-
prove the adequacy of informa-
tion. There has been a very good
working relationship set up
between the Office of Research
and Development and the Sci-
ence Advisory Board. Steve
Gage, EPA Assistant Adminis-
trator for Research and Devel-
opment, has worked very hard
to make that happen.
Do you see the Science
Advisory Board working
more with the R&D pro-
gram on theoretical
problems than with the
air and water programs in
the enforcement of appli-
cation of pollution
control?
Historically that has been true.
When I joined the Agency in
June, 1977, it seemed that most
of the impetus was to work with
the Office of Research and De-
velopment. There is a traditional
association between the Sci-
ence Advisory Board and the
Office of Research and Develop-
ment. But I am trying to move
the Board to deal more closely
with the programs and divi-
sions. That is important partic-
ularly since Congress is ex-
pecting the Science Advisory
Board to look at such things as
regulations, and regulations are
clearly within the aegis of the
programs. If we do not get in-
volved in looking at the scien-
tific adequacy of regulations, as
well as working with the Office
of Research and Development,
we will be missing a strong bet
to help the Agency. My thrust is
to move the Science Advisory
Board from a very strong em-
phasis on R&D to a somewhat
reduced emphasis. Although it
is clear that when you have one
group of scientists, such as our
members, they are most sirrtpa-
tico with another group of
scientists, and the majority of
the scientists in the Agency are
located in the Office of Re-
search and Development.
I would like to see us con-
tinue to move into the area of
the programs in ecology. Our
Ecology Committee has met
several times with people from
water programs, and I think
there are some clear ways in
which that committee can ad-
vise and help water programs on
some of the important things
that are coming up. We have
been having briefings from the
Office of Toxic Substances and
have been working closely with
them.
Do you think that the new
committee that's being
drawn up because of the
Clean Air Act will help the
move in that direction?
Oh, yes. That committee explic-
itly has to review both the
criteria documents for air pol-
lutants, which are produced by
R&D, and the standards that
follow from them, which come
from the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. So we
have the same committee being
given a mandate from Congress
to review something that comes
from two different organizations
within the Agency. I have been
in fairly close contact with the
air quality program in putting
together this committee and in
trying to figure out the best way
for the committee and the pro-
gram to work together so the
advice can be of the highest
value.
Is there a comparable
mandate for water and
pesticides, or do you
think that will be incor-
porated into the upcoming
legislation?
In addition to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 that es-
tablished this new committee,
the Environmental R&D Au-
thorization Actof 1977 gave life
to the Science Advisory Board.
Before that it had been an ad-
ministrative decision whether
the Board should exist. But at
that point. Congress said, "Yes,
we agree and we hereby author-
ize and ask you to create a sci-
ence advisory board modeled
very much like what you have
now." In the conference report
they said, "We want to make
clear this authorization is not
meant to change the Science
Advisory Board's operation, but
merely give it statutory life."
That Act asked that the Science
Advisory Board review the sci-
entific adequacy of all manner
of things including criteria
documents, regulations—
everything the Agency does. It
is a mandate that crosses all
lines, and it certainly overlaps
with the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments, which is why we took the
committee and pulled it into the
OCTOBER I 978
-------
Science Advisory Board so that
wewill beableto satisfy both
mandates at the same time.
Otherwise we would have two
committees looking at the same
things. The Agency also has a
Science Advisory Pane! for pes-
ticides, but it is separate and
outside of the Science Advisory
Board, at the moment.
Do the members of the
Board see a need for more
contract activities, more
research activities outside
the Agency? Are they
pretty happy with what
they have?
I think that they would be hap-
pier if we could do more of our
research in-house. They recog-
nize, however, a real problem
with that in the sense that if
your research dollars go up but
your staff stays the same, re-
search has to become extra-
mural. That is a fact of life. But
I think the Board would be hap-
pier if there were some way EPA
could do more of its work in-
house. The Board has encour-
aged innovative programs that
would provide for that, such as
drawing scientists in under the
Inter-governmental Personnel
Agreement.
Do you find that Board
members act as a channel
back into their various
communities for informa-
tion about the Agency?
Not nearly as much as I would
like. I was talking with a mem-
ber of the Board recently and
raised the issue of more institu-
tional cross-fertilization be-
tween us and the universities.
is the Board reviewing
EPA's efforts in health
research?
Congress explicitly, in the R&D
Authorization Act, asked the
Science Advisory Board to do a
review of the Agency's health
effects research. That commit-
tee has begun meeting to review
all of the Agency's health ef-
fects research. We expect that
to be a very large and compre-
hensive effort, and the result
will be a report to the Adminis-
trator, the President, and Con-
gress, according to the Act.
This is a real opportunity for the
Agency because so many things
have shifted in the last several
years that a strong look at our
health research is a good thing.
The Administrator has empha-
sized that he wants this done
because he wants to see where
we have strengths and where
we have weaknesses. He feels,
and I agree, that this is a great
opportunity to see just what is
going on.
It seems in the last couple
of years, that the Agency
has become more aware
of the health implications
of all the things that we
do?
Well that brings up an interest-
ing issue. The Ecology Commit-
tee, for example, is unhappy
with that. They would like to
see more emphasis placed on
the environmental bases of
things, because they see the
environmental structure as be-
ing the basis for all human life.
And if we don't concern our-
selves with that we are not go-
ing to have the underpinnings to
keep ourselves going. They
have expressed that feeling very
strongly to the Administrator.
They know at the moment that
the Agency must focus on hu-
man health because of the man-
dates recently placed by Con-
gress. There is a very high em-
phasis on health, but it is un-
likely that we are going to lose
interest in ecology.
The Ecology Committee gave
some advice which said, in ef-
fect, "We really would like to
increase emphasis on ecology
and not keep taking away from
ecology for health." We all rec-
ognize that the environmental
conditions that exist in the real
world, even if they are not di-
rectly related to human health,
are very important. They are
important to our survival as a
species on this planet and to the
survival of all life on this planet.
We can't let it go. But on the
other hand, human health has
got to be of a very high concern.
This is an example where we
have two vitally important is-
sues that came up. The Ecology
Committee gave some advice,
but for the moment we can't
follow it because we have other
mandates that are driving us.
What kind of staff sup-
ports the Board?
We have a small staff to help
the Board, a total of 1 4 posi-
tions. Each of the standing com-
mittees has an executive secre-
tary, who is a staff officer for
the committee and a profes-
sional in the field. So that
means I have 5 professionals
plus an IPA, a person who nor-
mally teaches at Penn State who
is here for a year, an editor, and
secretarial support. I am the
Staff Director and also serve as
the Administrator's Science
Policy Advisor. This arrange-
ment has, I think, strengthened
the connection between the
Agency and the Board in the
sense that I have actually be-
come the Administrator's repre-
sentative to the Science Advi-
sory Board. I have also become
the window for the scientific
community to the Administrator
so that there can be meaningful
interchange. My real job and
responsibility 10 the Agency is
to be a kind of scientific om-
budsman; to look around and
pick up scientific problems and,
where appropriate, ask the
Board to deal with them, and,
where not appropriate, to deal
with them within the Agency
and see what happens.
How do you perceive the
Board's role in the future?
As the Agency turns increasing-
ly to areas in which the scien-
tific uncertainty is great, such
as toxic chemicals, we will
need the advice of outside emi-
nent scientists. Without a back-
stop of scientific credibility, the
Agency would have a difficult
time making the decisions that
will be necessary. In some
cases, of course, information
will still be uncertain, but if the
range of uncertainty is known,
then prudent decisions can still
be made. Q
This interview was conducted
by Chris Perham, Assistant
Editor of EPA Journal.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
People
Stanley Williams
The Director of EPA's Personnel
Office is retiring after three
years in that position. He was
previously Assistant Director of
Personnel for Executive Man-
power and Personnel Evalua-
tion. Williams began his career
in the field of personnel with
the Department of the Army in
1955. In 1962 he assumed
positions in personnel manage-
ment evaluation and career
development with the Federal
Aviation Administration. He
joined the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration, an
EPA predecessor agency, in
1 965 as Deputy Director of the
Division of Personnel Manage-
ment. Williams received his
bachelor of science degree
from the University of Mary-
land. Richard Cocozza has been
named Acting Director of
Personnel.
Dr. Delbert Barth
The Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trator for Health and Ecological
Effects has accepted a post as
Visiting Professor of Biophysics
at the University of Nevada.
He will take the position under
the Intergovernmental Person-
nel Act, which allows the ex-
change of people between the
Federal Government and State
and local organizations. As a
professor in the University's
College of Science, Mathema-
tics, and Engineering, Barth will
teach biophysics and will serve
as a guest lecturer in courses in
air quality, physics, and envi-
ronmental physiology. He will
also maintain ties with EPA's
Office of Research and Develop-
ment, according to Assistant
Administrator Dr. Stephen J.
Gage, who said that in addition
to helping the university de-
velop an expanded environ-
mental curriculum, Dr. Barth
will assist in developing a ma-
jor EPA program between the
Agency's research facilities in
Las Vegas and in Corvallis, Ore.
Barth has served as the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Health and Ecological Effects in
EPA for the last two years. Prior
to this he was the Director of
the Agency's Las Vegas labora-
tory, and Director of the Na-
tional Environmental Research
Center at Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Previously he held
several research and manage-
ment assignments in the U.S.
Public Health Service.
Douglas M. MacMillan
The Director of the Agency's
Management and Organization
Division in the Office of Plan-
ning and Management has been
selected by the U.S. Civil Serv-
ice Commission to participate
in their training program, Fel-
lowships in Congressional Op-
erations. The program is co-
sponsored by the Civil Service
and the American Political
Science Association to give
selected Federal executives an
opportunity to study and learn
the functions of Congress. The
nine-month training includes
seminars with leading Congres-
sional, governmental, and acad-
emic figures as well as work
with Congressional and Sena-
torial staffs. MacMillan has
served as Management Division
Director in EPA Region 1, and
in other positions in that office.
He has an undergraduate degree
from the University of Wash-
ington at Seattle, a J.D. from
George Washington University
Law School, and a Master's
Degree in Public Administration
from the Kennedy School at
Harvard.
John McGuire
Administrator Costle has named
McGuire to head EPA's opera-
tion in the Midwest. As Regional
Administrator for EPA's Region
5, based in Chicago, McGuire
will be the top Federal environ-
mental official for Illinois, In-
diana, Ohio, Michigan, Min-
nesota and Wisconsin.
"I am confident that John
McGuire will serve with distinc-
tion as Regional Administrator
for Region 5," said Costle. Cur-
rently in private law practice,
McGuire succeeds George
Alexander who has returned to
private life.
McGuire's previous experi-
ence includes serving as assist-
ant to the Illinois Governor,
Director of the Illinois Depart-
ment of Conservation, and as
a senior research associate with
the Urban Institute in Washing-
ton, D.C. A graduate of North-
ern Illinois University, McGuire
got his law degree at the John
Marshall Law School in
Chicago.
McGuire, 36, was in private
law practice in Springfield, III.,
before his appointment to the
EPA post.
OCTOBER 1978
35
-------
Around the Nation
Cooling System
Approved
Region 1 has ruled that an
open cooling system is
adequate for Boston Edi-
son's Pilgrim I nuclear
power station in Plymouth,
Mass, and for the pro-
posed Pilgrim II plant.
Regional Administrator
William R. Adams, Jr.,
concluded that the com-
pany had demonstrated
that the cooling systems
for both stations meet the
requirements of the Clean
Water Act and adequately
protect fish, shellfish, and
wildlife in and on the
water that might be af-
fected by the plants.
Refinery Clears Air
Hurdle
The Regional Office has
determined that signifi-
cant deterioration of air
quality will not result
from the construction of
the Pittslon Company's
proposed 250,000 barrel
per day petroleum refin-
ery in Eastport, Me. The
Agency has concluded
that the refinery can oper-
ate, with certain condi-
tions, without violating
the increments for pre-
vention of significant de-
terioration of air quality
standards. EPA has yet to
consider the company's
application for a waste-
water discharge permit.
Saving Water
The Boston Regional
Office recently issued a
new publication "Water
Conservation in New
England: It Begins At
Home." The booklet dis-
cusses why New England
faces potential water-
supply shortages and
why water conservation
is essential. It also con-
tains water-saving sug-
gestions that can be used
in the home.
Sewer Cost Study
Region 2 will make an in-
depth study of the econo-
mic impact of the Agen-
cy's pretreatment regula-
tions for industrial wastes
on the Buffalo, New York
area, at the request of
Congressman Henry J.
Nowak (D-Buffalo).
Speaking for his constitu-
ents, Nowak said, "We
want to ensure that Buf-
falo receives every envi-
ronmental benefit it needs
to fulfill its obligations
toward cleaning up the
Great Lakes and protect-
ing the health of its resi-
dents. However, we want
at the same time to keep
the costs to industry and
our citizens at a
minimum."
Regional Administrator
Eckardt C. Beck pointed
out that the Buffalo re-
gion "is a prime example
of the environmental and
economic problems fac-
ing the Agency in the
Northeast. On the one
hand, we have the serious
impact of toxics and pho-
sphorus discharged by
concentrated industry and
population into the fragile
and vital ecosystems of
the Great Lakes. On the
other, we have the impact
of cleanup costs on an
older city with a shrinking
tax base and older indus-
trial plants."
The Buffalo Sewer Au-
thority is upgrading its
Bird Island sewage treat-
ment plant from a primary
to a secondary system
that will remove phospho-
rus. Operating and main-
tenance costs will be al-
most doubled. Many area
businessmen worry that
costs of meeting stand-
ards for pretreatment of
indirect discharges and
discharges into a second-
ary treatment system will
be high, forcing them to
shut down or relocate.
The study will address
claims of economic hard-
ship in a way that should
be applicable to many of
the Nation's older indus-
trial urban areas. EPA will
seek information from
public officials, industry
and public interest groups
for the study. It will evalu-
ate cleanup costs for each
of the different types of
industry discharging to
the municipal sewer sys-
tem. Special attention will
be given to potential plant
closures or relocations.
These individual plant
effects will be combined
to develop an estimate of
the overall impact on
Buffalo's economy of the
regulations affecting in-
direct discharges.
Air Agreement
Reached
EPA has agreed to grant
$400,000 to the State of
Pennsylvania for pro-
grams in the Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh areas that
will test pollution emis-
sions of all cars and light
trucks. Owners of vehi-
cles failing to meet State
emissions standards
would be required to
make corrective repairs.
The Agency signed a
consent decree with the
Penn. Departments of
Transportation and En-
vironmental Resources,
the Delaware Valley Citi-
zens Council for Clean
Air, and a coalition of
citizens' and environ-
mental groups. The con-
sent decree settles two
suits brought in U.S. Dis-
trict Court in Philadelphia
by EPA and the citizens'
groups to enforce the in-
spection and maintenance
(I/M) regulation issued
by the Agency in 1 973 as
part of transportation
control plans for the two
cities. According to re-
gional Administrator Jack
J. Schramm, "There is no
doubt that motor vehicles
are a major source of car-
bon monoxide and hydro-
carbons in Philadelphia
and Pittsburgh. In Phila-
delphia, for example, EPA
estimates that motor vehi-
cles produce 90 percent
of the hydrocarbon and
carbon monoxide emis-
sions from light duty vehi-
cles. The I/M program is
expected to reduce emis-
sions by 25 percent in
these two cities by March,
1987. In addition to the
pollution-related benefits,
consumers should realize
that I/M can result in
savings up to 10 percent
in fuel consumption as
shown in Phoenix's in-
spection program."
One version of the I/M
program that the State
could implement would
have a private company
perform all inspections at
facilities in the Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia area. If
authorizing legislation for
this program is adopted
inspection will begin with-
in 21 months of enact-
ment, and mandatory
repairs of failing vehicles
will be required one year
later. If legislation for a
private franchise system
is not passed by July,
1979, Pennsylvania offi-
cials have agreed to start
an I/M program at State-
licensed private garages
by August 1, 1 980 as part
of the safety inspection
program, which has been
in operation since 1929.
Phosphate Ban
Possible
The Atlanta metropolitan
area may join the hand-
ful of population centers
across the Nation that
have banned the sale of
home laundry detergents
containing phosphates.
The Atlanta Regional
Commmission, an area
development agency, has
launched a campaign to
convince city and county
governing bodies in the
sprawling metropolitan
area that such a ban is a
good idea. The commis-
sion has scheduled a
series of public hearings
on the proposal. A spot-
check with citizens by the
Commission reveals that
most people prefer clean
water and healthy fish to
the cleanest possible
wash, even if they have
to spend slightly more
for nonphosphate deter-
gents. According to some
reports the phosphate in
detergents passes through
sewage treatment plants
and acts as a nutrient,
causing growth of green
algae in downstream
lakes. An overabundance
of algae can use up avail-
able oxygen and contrib-
ute to fish kills. Detergent
manufacturers have de-
veloped nonphosphate
formulas for all major
brands, which they mar-
ket in areas where phos-
phate bans are in effect,
but they often point out
that the nonphosphate
soaps do not clean as
throughly. Dade County,
Fla. is another area in
Region 4 that has a ban
on phosphate detergents.
Pollution control authori-
ties there believe the
action by and large has
been a good thing. How-
ever, they acknowledge
they lack solid data be-
cause much area waste-
water is currently dis-
charged into the ocean.
EPA Sues Power
Plant
At the request of Region
5, U.S. Attorney James C.
Cissell of the Southern
District of Ohio has filed
a civil suit against Ohio
{,;
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Edison Company and
Duquesne Light Company
for air pollution violations
at the companies' W. H,
Sammis Station in Strat-
ton, Ohio. The suit was
brought under the Clean
Air Act to enforce Feder-
ally-approved State regu-
lations that restrict emis-
sion of soot, ash, dust,
and other particles. Re-
gion 5 enforcement offi-
cials call the plant "the
largest in the Nation."
They say air quality in the
vicinity of the plant in
both Ohio and West Vir-
ginia does not meet the
national standards for the
protection of public
health.
when free access to facili-
ties is denied.
The coroner's report
listed asphyxiation by
hydrogen sulfide poison-
ing as the cause of death.
The State Health Depart-
ment requested an injunc-
tion from State Court or-
dering the site to cease
operation immediately.
The site operators have
been ordered to clean up
the area within 60 days
and cleanup must meet
the approval of the State
Health Department, which
has asked for EPA assist-
ance in overseeing the
operation. Region 6 made
lab findings and expert
witnesses available to the
State Health Department
and will continue to give
assistance.
in Athens, Ga., informed
participants about current
Agency research in water
pollution from agricultural
sources. Both EPA offi-
cials and university rep-
resentatives agreed to
develop long-range plans
to identify research needs
in the Region and to gear
research programs to
meet those needs.
Toxics Kill Youth
Region 6 is cooperating
with State and local agen-
cies in the investigation of
an incident where a teen-
age boy died last July 25
as he emptied a tank truck
of waste chemicals at a
Louisiana disposal site.
According to two wit-
nesses the 19-year old
boy slumped in the cab of
his truck, overcome by
toxic fumes. Worker safe-
ty is under the jurisdiction
of the Occupational Safe-
ty and Health Administra-
tion and citations have
been issued in regard to
this incident. The State
and EPA have jurisdiction
over the operation of such
disposal sites and the Par-
ish sheriff asked EPA to
investigate the situation.
The Enforcement Division
obtained a search warrant
from the U.S. District
Court, sampled the dis-
posal site, and is analyz-
ing the samples. The case
is significant because the
warrant is probably the
first for the Agency since
the Supreme Court's land-
mark Barlow Decision, re-
quiring search warrants
Agricultural Meeting
Region 7 recently spon-
sored a meeting between
EPA officials and the
Deans of the Schools of
Agriculture, the Directors
of Extension Services, and
the Iowa Agricultural Ex-
periment Station. The
meeting was an effort to
increase agricultural em-
phasis in EPA's environ-
mental programs, recog-
nizing that a lot of issues
in the Region involve both
agriculture and the envi-
ronment. Dr. Kay Camin,
Region 7 Administrator,
called the meeting to in-
crease communication be-
tween EPA and the State
land grant colleges. She
wanted to find out what
role the universities can
play in EPA's agricultural
programs and how to in-
crease understanding and
participation by those af-
fected by EPA's programs.
University representa-
tives explained their en-
vironmental research pro-
grams. Dr. George Bailey
from the EPA laboratory
Field Office Opens
Region 8 has opened an
EPA program operations
office in Helena, Mont., as
a pilot project. Ten people
representing Agency pro-
grams in water, air, water
supply, pesticides, en-
forcement, Federal activi-
ties, solid waste, public
awareness, and energy
moved into Montana's ca-
pital city to begin working
closely with the State De-
partment of Health and
Environmental Sciences.
People will work in the
Helena office on two to
four-year rotating assign-
ments. Deputy Regional
Administrator Roger Wil-
liams and the operations
office director will coordi-
nate specific program ac-
tivities with the State.
Regional Administrator
Alan R. Merson said,
"If this operations
office concept works well
in Montana, I may later
consider proposing simi-
lar offices in other
States." Merson said ho
placed a high priority on
enhancing the relationship
between EPA and the
people at the grassroots
level, and he felt that the
operations office would
foster better relations with
the people of Montana.
Region 10also has State
operations offices.
Air Pollution Woes
The Los Angeles area has
experienced its worst
smog levels in over five
years this past summer.
Even though second-stage
smog aterts can now be
predicted in advance, the
new emergency traffic
control plan was not effec-
tive. The plan calls for
employers to advise their
workers to form car pools
when a smog alert is pre-
dicted, so that a normal
day's commuting traffic
would be cut by two-
thirds, with three passen-
gers in a car that normally
carries one. Thousands of
drivers obviously did not
get the word. Some lone
drivers were turned away
from company parking
lots and returned home,
adding to the pollution, or
parked on the streets, add-
ing to the confusion. Com-
panies that did not have
approved plans to cut
back on the number of
vehicles used by employ-
ees, or that did not imple-
ment their plans were
cited for violations. One
official was quoted as say-
ing, "Maybe we needed
this to get the kinks out of
the system. The compa-
nies now know what is
expected of them and
why."
Pesticides Violators
Fined
More than $8,400 in civil
penalties were collected
by late summer in Region
1 0 from 1 1 producers,
sellers, and users of pes-
ticide products in Wash-
ington, Oregon, and Idaho
for violations of Federal
pesticide law. The largest
penalty, $3,600, was paid
by the Western Farmers
Association of Seattle for
holding and offering for
sale an unregistered, mis-
branded and adulterated
wood preservative. One
active ingredient, instead
of being at a strength of
38 percent as shown on
the label, was actually
only 12 percent of the
mixture.
Lake Restoration
Region 10 has completed
three lake restoration proj-
ects and has five others in
progress. Recently the
Seattle office awarded
$4.1 million for the clean-
up of Lake Vancouver in
southwest Washington
State. The project will in-
volve dredging up 9 mil-
lion cubic yards of sedi-
ment from the lake bot-
tom. When restoration is
complete hundreds of
thousands of people in the
Portland-Vancouver area
will be able to use the
newly cleaned lake for
recreation.
Water Permits
Enforced
At the request of Region
10, the U.S. Attorney in
Seattle has filed suit
against three seafood
processors in Cordova,
Alaska, for their failure to
screen fish and crab
wastes from their dis-
charges into Orca Inlet.
Their wastewater dis-
charge permits required
installation of screening
equipment. When they
applied for permits the
firms reported they proc-
ess an average of 335 tons
of fish a day, with an aver-
age daily dischaicn' of
209,400 gallons of
ground-up wastes mixed
with water. D
OCTOBER 1978
37
-------
Stratospheric
Problem
Worsens
P P A officials will join
EZ, I r~\ representatives
from nearly a score of other
countries and global organiza-
tions in a regulatory meeting
December 4-6 on the worldwide
problem of protecting strato-
spheric ozone from depletion by
chlorofluorocarbons.
The meeting, which will take
place in Bonn, West Germany,
has taken on a new note of ur-
gency since estimates last July
by some scientists specializing
in atmospheric problems
showed a startling increase in
probable ozone depletion.
Stratospheric ozone can be
depleted by fluorocarbon gases
released from aerosol cans,
refrigeration, air conditioning,
and also by nitrous oxide re-
leased from nitrogen fertilizers.
The scientific community has
warned in recent years that the
cumulative effect on the layer
ofozoneabout 10 to 15 miles
above the Earth could cause a
substantial rise in the incidence
of skin cancer. The layer of
ozone now acts as a shield
against biologically harmful
ultraviolet radiation from the
sun, and scientists fear that
even a small percentage loss of
this screen will have serious
health effects around the world.
In 1 975 a Federal task force on
the Inadvertent Modification of
the Stratosphere warned that
not only could skin cancers in
humans increase but also other
damaging biological and agri-
cultural effects might occur.
Dr. Herbert L. Wiser, EPA
Principal Physical Science Ad-
visor in the Office of Research
and Development, is U.S. rep-
resentative to the Coordinating
Committee on the Ozone Layer,
a unit of the United Nations En-
vironmental Program (UNEP).
He will attend a coordinating
committee of scientists in Bonn
November 28-December 1
when the most recent findings
on the world problem will be
reviewed, in preparation for the
December regulatory meeting
there. John DeKany, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Chemical Control, Office of
Toxic Substances, will attend
the regulatory meeting.
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle and Deputy Administra-
tor Barbara Blum chaired the
initial meeting of regulators
from participating nations in
Washington in March, 1977.
In 1976 a National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) study, fund-
ed by EPA and several other
agencies, had estimated that
depletion of the world's ozone
layer by fluorocarbons could
range from 2 to 40 percent,
with the most probable value at
about 7 percent. In December,
1977, in its report to the Con-
gress pursuant to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977, NAS
stated: "As a result (of new
knowledge) the estimated seri-
ousness of ... ozone reduction
has been roughly doubled" to
about 1 4 percent.
More recently, a World Mete-
orological Organization sympo-
sium in Toronto last June heard
fresh estimates by several ex-
perts of an 1 8 percent depletion.
It is estimated that an increase
of approximately 4 percent in
the incidence of non-melanoma
skin cancers among Caucasians
is predicted for each 1 percent
reduction in average ozone
concentrations, with a dispro-
portionately greater increase in
cancer expected for higher per-
centages of reduction in ozone
levels. Non-melanoma skin
cancers rarely cause death, but
are considered serious and
should not be neglected. Per-
sons with fair complexions and
outdoor workers are more vul-
nerable to them, especially in
southern latitudes where strato-
spheric ozone concentrations—
and therefore protection from
solar ultraviolet radiation—are
lower.
There are now about 300,000
cases of non-melanoma skin
cancers annually in the United
States, according to the Na-
tional Cancer Institute. If the
currently estimated most prob-
able ozone reduction value pre-
vails, it implies more than
210,000 additional annual
cases of non-melanoma skin
cancer. The incidence of mela-
noma, a much more serious dis-
ease, is about 1 to 3 percent
(about 6,000 cases annually in
the United States) of all skin
cancers. Its cause may not be
solely ultraviolet exposure, but
this is considered a factor. The
mortality rate for melanoma is
high.
Depletion of the ozone layer
also could cause other effects
such as climate changes;
effects to some plant and ani-
mal species; disturbances in
aquatic and land ecosystems;
alteration of the stability and
effectiveness of farm chemicals
such as pesticides and fertiliz-
ers; increases in eye cancer in
livestock, and reduction in the
yield of some crops, especially
in areas of marginal production,
according to the IMOS report.
The UNEP committee last
year held meetings in Geneva as
well as Washington on the
ozone question. Dr. Wiser also
has worked with the Depart-
ment of Transportation and with
the British and French in prepar-
ing a Tripartite Report (1977)
on the potential impact of SST
flights on stratospheric ozone.
In addition to representatives
of 1 3 industrialized nations at-
tending the regulatory meeting
in Washington last year, five
international organizations sent
delegates: The Commission of
the European Communities, the
Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, the
World Health Organization, the
World Meterological
Organization, and UNEP. G
38
EPA JOURNAL
-------
News Briefs
Gas Mileage
Rankings
EPA Administrator Douglas Costle recently
released the miles per gallon figures for
1979 model year cars and trucks. The projected
overall average for the 1979 models tested so
far is 19.9 miles per gallon (mpg), slightly
over last year's average of 19.6 mpg. EPA used
a single "estimated miles per gallon" figure
for each car. The cars tested were those
certified by EPA as of Sept. 1, 1978, as
meeting the Federal pollution standards for
1979 models. For the 1979 cars tested so far,
the top ten miles per gallon ratings are:
Progress at
Lake Tahoe
Manufacturer Car Line
Engine*
41
40
36
35
34
34
33
33
32
32
*Cubic-
Volkswagen
Volkswagen
Volkswagen
Datsun
Dodge
Plymouth
Dodge
Plymouth
Dodge
Plymouth
-inch-displacement
Rabbit Diesel
Rabbit Diesel
Dasher Diesel
210
Colt Hatchback
Champ
Colt Hatchback
Champ
Colt Hatchback
Champ
**5 speed manual
90
90
90
85
86
86
98
98
86
86
tra
CID**
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
CID
nsmiss
Negotiators for California, Nevada, and the
Federal government have worked out an
agreement that would prevent additional
gambling casinos at pollution-threatened
Lake Tahoe, it was announced recently. The
proposed new bistate compact would "assure
the preservation and enhancement of Lake
Tahoe as one of the \i7orld's great natural
assets," said Charles Warren, Chairman of
the Council on Environmental Quality. The
lake is suffering increasing environmental
degradation due to mounting growth pressures.
Under the agreement new casino development
would be prohibited and growth of all kinds
would be carefully moderated to meet
environmental requirements. The compact
must be ratified by the legislatures of both
states and consented to by Congress before it
becomes official.
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
Regions (San
Francisco)
Arizona. California,
Nevada. Hawaii
415-556-2320
Region 10 (Seattle)
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
206-442-1220
OCTOBER 1978
39
-------
Report
The
Maturing
of an
Agency
By Paul De Falcp, Jr.
Regional Administrator
When you drive into California,
you can pick up at an inspection
or welcoming station an official
California tourist map that touts
California as "The World With-
in a State," and calls it "the his-
toric, nostalgic, energetic world
of America's youth." There is a
bit of puffery in that claim but
also a large element of truth. In
terrain, climate, and geography,
Califorina has some of almost
everything to be found else-
where in the world.
We often feel the same way
about the EPA's Region 9,
which stretches eastward be-
yond California to Arizona and
Nevada and westward to
Hawaii, American Samoa, the
Trust Territories, Guam and the
Northern Marianas Islands. We
have not only a little bit, but a
lot of everything.
Much of Region 9 is famous
for its scenic beauty, and some
of my friends in the northeast-
ern part of the United States,
where I worked for many years,
tend to doubt that we have any-
thing like the severe pollution
problems of some other re-
gions. Perhaps not. But we have
our share and the potential
causes for all the rest are to be
found here. In addition we have
the equally important respon-
sibility of protecting the high
quality environment found in
vast areas of this Region as
well as repairing the environ-
ment in the polluted areas. In
this sense Region 9 is a micro-
cosm of the United States. This
Region is no more than a small
part of the EPA, but it is a rep-
resentative part, in its efforts
and challenges, of the Agency
as a whole.
Now the EPA has reached
the ripe young age of nearly
eight years. For a person or a
Federal agency, eight years is
not the age of maturity, but it
is far from infancy. EPA is
growing up and learning to face
the responsibilities of maturity
in a complex and often unfor-
giving world.
Much has happened in en-
vironmental management in the
past eight years. For one thing,
we are charged with the admin-
istration of somefifteen different
pieces of legislation. And much
has not yet been done that we
thought could and should have
been done by now. Yet, when
we view the EPA's history in a
temporal perspective, we see
that much has been accom-
plished. In Region 9 we have
solved a few problems in the
past eight years—at least to the
extent of permitting us to work
on problems stil! harder to
solve. If we have success
stories, they are the Agency's
success stories, of course, and
we can recall a few. s
It is safe to say that the trade-
off concept for achieving less
polluted air while allowing new
industries to be built in problem
areas was developed first in
Region 9, and it is now a section
of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1977. The use of the
Environmental Impact State-
ment process in the construc-
tion grants program as a means
for drawing together all environ-
mental aspects along with many
social and political aspects has
resulted in the development of
mitigation measures to protect
air quality.
The early use of Section 208
of the Clean Water Act as an
environmental management
process (as a Regional philos-
ophy) has been extended to
other metropolitan areas
throughout the Nation. We
are seeking, together with State
and local governments, to de-
velop a set of environmental
programs that fit within the
existing political and social
structure. We are not giving up
any of our aggressiveness, but
at the same time we are not
shooting from the hip as some
would have us do.
Our purpose in looking back-
ward briefly is solely to find
clues, if not instruction, on how
to move ahead. We don't have
the luxury of only one kind of
problem that we can concen-
trate on to the exclusion of all
other kinds of problems. We
have many inter-related prob-
lems. We have to recognize
and hear from a variety of con-
stituencies which have many
priorities and desires and,
working with State and local
governments, districts and
other organizations of govern-
ments mefd these desires to-
gether into a workable program
of environmental management
for the areas affected.
Preventing deterioration of
the environment is one of the
most challenging problems in
the Region. We see it as our job
to ameliorate the problems that
face us now but, what is even
more important, to prevent new
problems from occurring. We
believe that it is in prevention
that we can make our most
effective investment of time,
energy, and resources. Our goal
is not only to solve all of yester-
day's environmental problems.
Some of the damage to our en-
vironment is, we believe, be-
yond repair. We will do all in
our power to repair it if we can,
but our main objective now is
to help prevent that damage to
the environment, which if un-
checked, will be the unsolvable
problems of 20 years from now.
Because our Region has so
many desirable locations to
live, people crowd into them
and place heavy burdens on
sewage facilities. Industries,
too, tend to locate and expand
where the people are, close to
large markets, to highways
and ocean shipping lanes. Es-
calating housing costs in Los
Angeles, for instance, have
caused some to buy homes in
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Smog hangs low over
San Gabriel Valley, Calif.
San Diego or Riverside, and
drive 75 miles each way to
work, leading to increased auto
traffic and to air pollution.
The recent drought also has
taught more of us that water is
a precious and limited com-
modity—and that the drought
will come again. But these are
by no means problems exclu-
sive to this Region. The prob-
lems of our States and terri-
tories, in terms of limited
resources, of land, water, and
air, and the pressure of increas-
ing population, are also the
problems of Florida, Texas, the
Virgin Islands, and even of
Alaska. They are, in short, the
problems of the United States
and, for that matter, of the
world.
As I see it, EPA is responsible
for leadership down the path-
way that will minimize adverse
impact of this development on
the environment and thus pro-
vide for maximum protection
of the public health. We can do
this by placing the facts on the
table of public opinion saying,
in terms of the trade-offs in-
volved, "This is what it will
cost you if you do not act to
control this pollution. This is
what it will cost you if you do
act. This is what you can do to
minimize impacts— and this is
the threshold of intolerable
costs in health, life, and money,
that you may not want to pass."
And we must do this in a co-
operative leadership role with
State, local, and other Federal
agencies. Our desire for a bal-
anced approach must demon-
strate our understanding of the
problems, and the intricate re-
lationships of people, their
elected and appointed officials,
their governmental and social
organizations, and the finite re-
sources of the Region and
Nation.
Obviously, we could use
more resources than those we
have. But these resources have
limits, not only in the form of
tax cuts of which California's
Proposition 1 3 is in the van-
guard, but limits also in other
political, economic, and social
facts of life. The most useful
tools in solving environmental
management problems, once
the problems are understood by
all concerned, are patience,
perseverance, responsibility,
and imagination. These re-
sources are unlimited if we can
instill or inspire them in our
people. D
Back cover: Cactus silhouottod
against the sunset outside Tuc-
son, Ariz., by Henry Lansfoul.
-------
Postage and .
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Aaencv
EPA 335
' '-
:
m
m
-• •
.
.
. m
-.. . •
--: I .'"''. S
------- |