United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Volume
Public Awareness (A-107) Number
Washington DC 20460 May 1979
The
Vermont
Story
-------
The
Voices of
Government
The developing Federal-State-
local partnership to clean up
the environment is reviewed in
this issue of the EPA Journal.
Recognizing that no agency or
governmental office can correct
environmental maladies alone,
the Journal has asked officials
from several levels of govern-
ment to participate in this
assessment.
EPA Administrator Douglas
Costle sets the tone with his
editorial, "Partners." He ex-
plains that giving State and local
governments increased respon-
sibility is based on old demo-
cratic principles and helps to
meet the vital goal: protection
of the environment.
The Carter Administration's
philosophy and environmental
innovations are explained by
White House aide Jack Watson
in an interview with the Journal.
EPA's Deputy Administrator,
Barbara Blum, shows how the
new partnership is beginning to
work in addressing one key na-
tional concern — the urban
environment.
Five public figures present
views from different levels of
government. Governor Richard
Snelling of Vermont explains
how this New England State is
meeting the environmental chal-
lenge. Congressman Norman Y.
Mineta of California reports
some of Congress' concerns and
goals.
State Sen. Clive DuVal of
Virginia reviews obstacles and
progress from a State legisla-
tive view. Terry Novak, City
Manager of Spokane, tells of
his city's approach. Environ-
mental protection in an entire
metropolis is described by
Walter Scheiber, executive di-
rector of the Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. Council of
Governments.
EPA's role in the partnership
is outlined by the Agency's Ed
Roush, chief of regional and
intergovernmental operations.
Local concerns and initiatives
across the country are reported
by Alan Beals, executive direc-
tor. National Association of
Cities, and Bernard Hillenbrand,
executive director. National
Association of Counties.
EPA's encouraging experi-
ence with areawide environ-
mental impact statements
involving many participants is
presented by William Hedeman.
Elsewhere, EPA's suspension
of most uses of two herbicides
—2,4,5-T and Silvex—is re-
lated by an EPA press officer,
Larry O'Neill. The urgent search
for radium lost in the Denver
environment is related by Rich
Lathrop, Assistant Director for
Public Affairs in EPA Region 8.
Findings of a pioneering
EPA-funded study on environ-
mental cleanup benefits are re-
ported by Administrator Costle.
A citywide restoration effort in
historic Lowell, Mass., is the
subject of an article by Robert
Burke, an EPA Public Aware-
ness officer. Q
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 5
Number 5
May 1979
SEPA 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
Articles
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the Nation's land, air and
water systems. Under a mandate
of national environmental laws
focused on air and water quali-
ty, solid waste management and
the control of toxic substances,
pesticides, noise and radiation,
the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions which
lead to a compatible balance be-
tween human activities and the
ability of natural systems to sup-
port and nurture life.
Partners 2
Administrator Douglas M.
Costle discusses Federal-State-
local relations
A Letter from Alsea 4
Larry O'Neill reports EPA's
action on 2,4,5-T and Silvex.
Urban Pioneers 6
A report by Robert Burke on the
restoration of historic Lowell,
Mass.
Radium Search 9
Solving a mystery in Denver,
Colo., by Rich Lathrop.
A White House
View 12
An interview with Presidential
Assistant Jack Watson.
Helping Cities 16
A report by Deputy Adminis-
trator Barbara Blum.
A Governor's View 18
By Gov. Richard Snelling of
Vermont
A Congressman's
View 20
By U.S. Rep. Norman Mineta
of California
An EPA View 22
An interview with Ed Roush.
A State Legislator's
View 24
By State Sen. Clive DuVal of
Virginia
A Metropolitan
View 26
By Walter Scheiber, Metropoli-
tan Washington D.C. Council of
Governments.
Cleanup Benefits 28
Administrator Costle reports
new research findings.
A City Manager's
View 30
By Terry Novak, Spokane, Wash.
The City Link 32
By Alan Beals, National League
of Cities
The County Link 33
By Bernard Hillenbrand,
National Association of Counties.
Building
Cooperation 34
William Hedeman outlines a new
EPA strategy.
Departments
News Briefs 11
Almanac 31
Nation 36
Update 38
People 40
Cover: This is a countryside scene
in Vermont, a leader among States
in protecting the environment
(Story on P. 18)
Opposite: A springtime view of the
Nation's Capitol, where passage of
recent legislation has helped EPA
delegate increasing cleanup re-
sponsibility to the States. (Story
on P. 2)
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan,
Donna Kazaniwsky, and Ron Far-
rah Photo Credits'. "Hank Morgan,
Kevin F. Harkins, Virginia State
Travel Service, Ernest Bucci, Nick
Karanikas, Larry Smith, 'ENTHEOS,
Vermont Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, National
Park Service, Eugene (Oreg.)
Register-Guard Richard Guimond,
Charly Dickerson, Luther C. Gold-
man/Fish and Wildlife Service.
•Docum&rica
The EPA Journal is published
monthly, with combined issues
July-August and November-Decem-
ber, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Use of funds for
printing this periodical has been
approved by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy. Con-
tributions and inquiries should be
addressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall. 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. No per-
mission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials. Subscription
$10.00 a year, SI .00 for single
copy, domestic; S1 2,50 if mailed to
a foreign address. No charge to
employees. Send check or money
order to Superintendent of Docu-
ments, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C, 20402,
Text printed on recycled paper
-------
Environmentally
Speaking
Partners
eshing
overnment
ears
By Douglas M. Costle,
EPA Administrator
-------
DA is giving the States and local
C I /~\ governments increased respon-
sibility in the quest for a cleaner environ-
ment because this is the sensible thing to
do. Nothing could be more foolish than to
assume that the Federal Government alone
can correct our environmental maiadies.
We are going to trust the States to do
much of the work because they are in a
better position to do it. That may seem to
be a radical concept for a Federal adminis-
trator. But it would probably seem quite
familiar to the folks who set up our govern-
ment 200 years ago.
President Carter came to office with a
mandate to make the government work
better. Although centralism lingers on, the
real thrust now in the Federal Government
is towards responsible decentralization.
Over-control doesn't work.
In its environmental laws, Congress has
strongly supported government by partner-
ship. It has emphasized the role of State
and local officials in carrying out the Clean
Air and Water Acts, the solid waste, drink-
ing water, and pesticide programs, and still
other environmental activities.
As the former director of a State environ-
mental agency, I know why a major State
and local role is essential:
• States and cities are on the front lines.
Their officials know the local facts and are
often in a position to act more quickly,
flexibly, and realistically than a Federal
Government that is far removed from the
problems.
• States and cities have the bulk of the re-
sources—about ninety percent of all gov-
ernmental dollars and people working for
environmental cleanup.
• State and local governments were in
pollution control years before the surge of
Federal environmental programs in the
1 960's and '70's. Now, the new Federal
programs are increasingly being delegated
to the State and local level. Thirty-one
States have authority for issuing permits to
control water pollution discharges. Thirty-
six States have been granted responsibility
for regulating air pollution from newly built
industrial facilities.
EPA has put a top priority on meeting the
obvious need for a stronger partnership
with the States. In just two years, we have
taken actions such as:
• More than doubling our grant dollars for
State and local programs to a total of
S304 million. We are also making up to
090 million a year available to help States
assume responsibility for managing the
wastewater construction grant program.
• Cutting by more than 30 percent report-
ing requirements on States and localities.
• Negotiating State/EPA Agreements—
annual contracts between a State agency
and EPA defining program objectives and
milestones.
• Strengthenino our Regional Offices with
such actions as the appointment of 40
supergrade level managers in these offices.
This is a first for a Federal agency.
These steps are already paying off. But
they are just a start. It will take more
patience, initiative, and innovation to make
a Federal-State partnership work better for
a clean environment. EPA has set a number
of goals to increase further our support of
this vital government partnership.
First, the President has asked Congress
fora new law—the Integrated Environmen-
tal Assistance Act. The measure would
provide States and localities with flexibility
in managing their grants, encourage greater
creativity and program integration, and
simplify grant paperwork. It would author-
ize an additional S25 million to help start
such changes.
Second, we intend to increase State-
Federal interchanges of personnel. The
loan of Federal staff to the States is being
sharply increased.
Third, we must provide better and more
timely information for States and localities
on existing policies and new developments.
We must also develop better mechanisms
to involve them in EPA decisionmaking.
Fourth, EPA needs to provide more tech-
nical assistance to certain areas faced with
unusually complex environmental program
and technical requirements.
In these efforts, EPA is not trying to de-
vise a new approach. We are simply going
back to basics, trying to make governmen-
tal relationships work as the Founding
Fathers intended.
A clean environment is a fundamental
objective of our society. We believe that
only if the Federal, State, and local govern-
ments learn to work together more effec-
tively can we achieve this goal. D
MAY 1979
-------
A Letter
from
Alsea
By Larry O'Neill
i *\ A le are not trying to make rash, un-
V V substantiated claims, but we are
interested in seeing if there is a cause-
effect relationship. Some of us do know
that large acreages near our homes and in
our water drainages were sprayed within
a month before our miscarriages."
From an April 11,1978, letter to EPA from
Bonnie Hill and seven other women from
Alsea, Oreg.
This appeal received a response. Too
many times, at whatever level of govern-
ment, pleas aren't heard: phone calls aren't
returned, letters aren't answered, problems
aren't investigated. But in this case of a
group of women from a rural area writing
for Federal help to determine whether
herbicide spraying was causing their mis-
carriages, the system worked.
While it wasn't just the letter from part-
time school teacher Bonnie Hill and her
neighbors that led to EPA's recent suspen-
sion of most uses of two common weed and
brush killers—2,4,5-T and Silvex—the
letter sparked a further study that provided
a sort of "missing link" on the risks of
these herbicides. Years of earlier research
on the potential hazards of these com-
pounds, both of which contain the highly
toxic contaminant, "dioxin", and which
were introduced in the late 1940's, played
a key part.
As EPA Deputy Administrator Barbara
Blum said at a Washington, D.C. news con-
ference announcing the suspension: ". . . It
was their {Alsea women) concern, and their
writing in to us during the public comment
period that exposed this, so that we were
able to begin to make that first link that
we were looking for."
What was the link? It was the "high
probability," to quote Blum, of ill effects
among people, apparently attributable to
exposure to the dioxin poison in 2,4,5-T.
Larry O'Neill is an EPA Headquarters
Press Officer
The Alsea research did not prove that
women were exposed to dioxin, but it did
uncover the kind of ill effect (miscarriages)
that scientists would expect to find among
women exposed to this toxin, as predicted
by the animal studies.
Researchers under contract to EPA from
the University of Miami and Colorado State
University found that between 1972 and
1977 women in a three-county area around
Alsea—a western Oregon town, surround-
ed by forests regularly sprayed with herbi-
cides—experienced a significantly higher
rate of miscarriages than women in an
unsprayed control area in eastern Oregon.
These investigators further found that
this elevated miscarriage rate peaked
dramatically in June, roughly two months
after the heaviest spraying in March and
April. They determined that a significant
relationship existed between the amounts
of 2,4,5-T applied and the rise in spontane-
ous abortions or miscarriages.
Prior to these indications of direct hu-
man harm from the use of herbicides con-
taining small amounts of dioxin, informa-
tion on the toxic effects of low level expo-
sure consisted primarily of animal studies.
During the past decade, numerous experi-
ments on mice, rats, monkeys, and other
animals have shown that minute quantities
of dioxin can cause fetal deaths, birth
defects, and cancer.
These studies clearly signalled that peo-
ple exposed to this contaminant could suf-
fer the same adverse effects. However, for
years scientists had been unable to deter-
mine whether people were in fact exposed
to dioxin under normal conditions of use of
these pesticides. This was because only
small amounts of this toxin occur in 2,4,5-T
and Silvex products, and these amounts
drop even further (often to the parts-per-
trillion level) as the chemicals are used in
the environment. Indeed, only in the past
several years have scientists developed a
technique for measuring these miniscule
amounts.
The studies led EPA to conclude that it
was reasonable to assume that the Alsea
women were exposed to dioxin, and that
other people around the country in similar
exposure situations also might be harmed.
As EPA Administrator Douglas M. Costle
noted, "... the Alsea study constitutes a
dramatic and troubling new point of depar-
ture for analysis of TCDD (dioxin)
exposure concerns."
As a result, EPA took the unusual step of
issuing an "emergency suspension" of
most uses of 2,4,5-T and Siivex—an action
designed to protect the nearly 4 m'llion
people who otherwise would be unknow-
ingly and involuntarily exposed to these
uses.
By suspending most uses of these weed
and brush killers, EPA wrote a new chapter
in a story that's been as emotionally
charged as any in the history of the
environmental movement.
Since a 1 969 study by the National
Institutes of Health demonstrating that
dioxin was a "teratogen" (birth defects
agent) in rats and mice, numerous environ-
mentalists and health experts have argued
for the abolition of pesticides containing it.
In 1971, author Thomas Whiteside wrote
in Withering Rain that: "In the absence of
positive proof that dioxin is not persistent
and cumulative, the continued virtually un-
restricted spraying of 2,4,5-T on pasture-
land and rangeland seems to me to con-
stitute a serious potential hazard to human
health."
But the pesticides industry, timber com-
panies, some farmers, and other propo-
nents of the herbicides have been just as
outspoken in defense of the chemicals.
For example, a 1 975 report by the Coun-
cil for Agricultural Science and Technology
—a coalition of agricultural scientists—
stated that: "There is a preponderance of
evidence that the phenoxy herbicides are
not significantly hazardous to animal life
and microorganisms under normal condi-
tions of use and indeed under conditions
of substantial misuse."
However, last April EPA began an in-
depth review of the risks and benefits of
2,4,5-T based upon the animal studies.
This information, bolstered by the Alsea
findings, "sounded an alarm," according to
Blum. "They compel EPA to act to stop use
until we have a fuller understanding of
these phenomena and their implication for
public health."
So on March 1, EPA temporarily halted
the use of 2,4,5-T to control unwanted
brush, trees, and weeds in forests, pas-
tures, and on rights-of-way areas including
alongside highways, railroad tracks, and
utility lines.
The same prohibitions were applied to
Silvex and broadened to include weed
control in home lawns—an extremely wide-
spread use—and weed and brush control in
waterways and beside canals and ditch-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Bright sun outlines a logger and a blimp used to airlift logs from an Oregon timber-cut-
ting site near Eugene. The blimp is tethered to a winch on the ground that controls its
movements and the placement of the logs that it raises by cables. The herbicide 2,4,5-T
is sometimes used in forest areas like this to prevent the growth of non-commercial
trees on the cleared site.
Editor's note: Following is the text of the
letter received last year by EPA from eight
women in Oregon who had suffered mis-
carriages after herbicide spraying near their
homes:
We are eight women who have lived in
the Alsea area. We are virtually sur-
rounded by Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and private timber lands
(mostly Starker and Willamette), all of
whom have sprayed literally thousands of
acres for years with dioxin-containing
herbicides in the spring months of February
through April (although the Forest Service
also sprays in May, June, and through the
summer into September.)
The eight of us have suffered a total of
10 miscarriages in the spring months, start-
ing in 1973. Of course, a certain rate of
miscarriages would be normal, but for a
population our size (under 1,000), it seems
more than coincidental that so many of us
have miscarried only in the months of
March through early June. We have found
only one miscarriage that occurred at any
other time of the year. (It happened in
October to one of us who lives in an area
sprayed in September of that year.)
We have charted the dates of our mis-
carriages with the dates that these four
agencies and industries have sprayed
dioxin-containing herbicides, and an in-
credibly close correlation exists. We are
not trying to make rash, unsubstantiated
claims, but we are interested in seeing if
there is a cause-effect relationship. Some of
us do know that large acreages near our
homes and in our water drainages were
sprayed within a month before our
miscarriages.
Each of us was under the care of a phy-
sician at the time of miscarriage, and none
of our doctors could offer any explanation
for the miscarriage when it occurred. None
of us, including our doctors, had thought of
the herbicides as a possible threat, or we
certainly would have had tests done. In ret-
rospect, two of our doctors have said that
they would consider the herbicides as a
possible cause of our miscarriages. Even
the latest Forest Service Environmental
Impact Statement admits on page 88 that
"All chemicals are capable of causing toxic
effects upon the developing embryo. . . .
Chemicals can become available to the
embryo in spite of the mother's excretion
and metabolism capabilities."
We are in the process of more research
into the problem because we have been able
to contact only a relatively small number of
women, and cannot help but wonder if there
have been more miscarriages in our area.
We are not affiliated with any organization
or group, and feel that we are unable to do
a thorough, adequate job of researching the
problem ourselves; we are more than will-
ing, therefore, to cooperate with any
agency, group, or industry who would like
to help. We realize that many factors can
contribute to any miscarriage, but are
anxious to determine if the herbicides are
one of them.
There are just too many unknowns about
the sprays; some laboratory tests have
apparently indicated that the dioxins are
related to cancer, birth defects, abnormal-
ities in the reproductive systems of adoles-
cents, and a general lowering of peoples'
resistance to infection and disease.
Until the herbicides are proven safe, we
feel very urgently that their use must be
stopped in Oregon. Let's follow the exam-
ple set by the Oakridge City Council, who
demanded that their area not be sprayed.
We can certainly afford to be cautious
where human health and lives are possibly
endangered.
banks. Household uses of 2,4,5-T were
stopped by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in 1 970.
EPA did not suspend 2,4,5-T treatments
in rice crops or on rangeland, in part be-
cause these uses do not seem to present
exposure hazards similar to those that
existed in the Alsea area, For example,
spraying on rangeland—defined as sparse-
ly populated, open areas with little surface
water—is less likely to harm people through
dioxin than rights-of-way treatments such
as spraying beside highways.
A suspension is a temporary halt intend-
ed to keep hazardous pesticides out of cir-
culation while questions about their long-
term risks and benefits can be thrashed out
in lengthy "cancellation" hearings.
But the suspension itself is being chal-
lenged in hearings. At press time almost
40 manufacturers and users of the herbi-
cides, including the major producer of
2,4,5-T, Dow Chemical Co., had requested
such a hearing, presumably to argue that
the freeze on distribution and use be
revoked.
A panel of EPA experts will hear the
arguments over a roughly three-month
period while the ban remains in effect.
Afterward, they will recommend a course
of action to EPA Administrator Douglas M.
Costle. They could recommend that the
suspension stay in place, that it be mod-
ified, or that it be lifted entirely. Costle will
make a final ruling, and any party who
disagrees with the outcome may file an
appeal in Federal Court.
Dow's reaction to the suspension was
swift and not limited solely to a request for
hearings. On March 6 the company, joined
by ten other advocates of the pesticides,
filed suit against EPA in the U.S. District
Court in Flint, Mich., and asked the judge
for a temporary restraining order to
prevent the suspension from taking effect.
Judge James Harvey dented the restraining
order but agreed to hear the company's
case.
The following day at a Washington news
conference, company officials said they
were "flabbergasted" at the EPA suspen-
sion. They claimed it was based upon "bad
science" and a "kangaroo court
atmosphere."
Edwin L. Johnson, EPA Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Pesticide Programs,
responded that, "EPA can't take things off
the market without good cause. . . . We're
not acting like a bunch of lunatics. We are
trying to be objective about risk and
benefits."
continued to inside back cover
MAY 1979
-------
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Urban
Pioneers
By Robert L. Burke
The old industrial city of Lowell, 30
miles north of Boston, has been se-
lected as the site for the Nation's first Ur-
ban Historical Park and as the location for
the first State Heritage Park in the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. Both park sys-
tems have been created to preserve and
revitalize the historical and economic re-
sources of older cities in much the same
spirit as earfier national park programs
have preserved America's wilderness
areas. They are exciting examples of what
Federal, State, and local governments can
do collectively to revitalize America's
cities, including direct involvement by EPA
in programs to improve the urban environ-
ment.
Lowell Remembered
We passed through Lowell several times
during the 1 950's bicycling from Boston to
the Mount Monadnock region of New
Hampshire. What we saw at that time
hardly suggested a past rich in historical
precedents.
Partially abandoned brick mills and fac-
tories with shuttered arch windows and
gloomy smokestacks dominated a rather
uninviting skyline. The Merrimack River,
which runs through the center of Lowell,
was a polluted mess as were a series of old
canals in the city which we thought at the
time to be open sewers. It hardly seemed
possible that Thoreau had once described
the Merrimack as "a most beautiful and
engaging bounty from God." In later years
we would still recall Lowell as a city which
appeared to be depressed in spirit as well
as appearance.
The city's physical condition was not
the only factor that shaped our attitudes at
the time. As native born Bostonians, we
Or. Burke is Urban Team Foreman, EPA,
Office of Public A wareness.
were schooled to understand that most
events of national significance between the
start of the American Revolution and the
Civil War took place within a 15 mile radius
of Boston. Boston was indeed the "Hub of
the Universe" and travelling through Lowell
in 1955 did little to shake our predisposi-
tions about this matter.
Lowell's Urban Genius
Little did we recognize that there was a
time when Lowell moved to centerstage in
the Nation during a crucial period of Amer-
ica's early history. Scarcely 50 years after
the start of the American Revolution, Lowell
emerged from a small farming community
to become the recognized birthplace of the
American Industrial Revolution. And the
Industrial Revolution is as central to what
America has become as the preceeding
political revolution.
Lowell became an industrial
city afmost by accident. A large water-
fall on the Merrimack River near the city
forced construction of a canal
in the 1 790's as a bypass to move agricul-
tural products from inland areas of New
England to the Atlantic Ocean. Two dec-
ades later, New England's emerging indus-
trial leadership saw the canal as a natural
source of industrial water power and even-
tually added six new miles of canals to
serve a grand collection of cotton mills and
related factories. In the process, Lowell
became the leading textile center of the
world and a visitor's center for all who mar-
velled at New England's inventive genius.
For in addition to industrial innovation,
Lowell was a totally planned community
designed to avoid the intolerable condi-
tions associated with British industrialism.
The city included complexes of large fac-
tories, commercial areas in the downtown
area, and corporation-owned boarding
houses where young women came from the
New England countryside to work under
Left: Old brick factories form the "Mile of Mills" along the Merrimack River in Lowell.
Mass. Above: The Frances Lock and Gatehouse in the National Historical Park at Lowell.
overlooks the canal.
MAY 1979
-------
conditions that were puritanical yet remark-
ably progressive -for the time. As later
waves of immigrants came from Europe to
work in the mills, these enlightened condi-
tions would deteriorate. But the planned
features of early Lowell can still be dis-
cerned as one walks the streets of the mod-
ern city, and they continue to be linked by
the old canal system which has given Lowell
the title. "Venice of the Western World."
As we travelled through Lowell to New
Hampshire during the 1950's, we could
scarcely have envisoned that what we sur-
veyed as decayed urban wreckage would
undergo a modern renaissance.
Lowell's Creative Concepts
Even at that time, however, several citizens
and government officials in Lowell were
beginning to think about ways to bring their
city back and in the process fire up the
population with new confidence in the
community and themselves. They asked,
"Might not the unique architectural fea-
tures preserved from the city's past be in
some way employed as the framework for
a revitalization program which would the-
matically stress Lowell's pioneering role
in American industrial history?" Long
before most other cities were even survey-
ing their total historical inventory, the city
of Lowell was developing exciting concepts
about how its own could be employed to
revitalize the community.
But convincing outside interests that
old mills and moss covered canals were
important parts of American history was
a difficult undertaking. {The story of how
Lowell's leaders accomplished this task is
a fascinating combination of perseverance
and New England ingenuity at work.) Grad-
ually though, the Nation and State became
more sophisticated about their urban heri-
tage and many outside sources began to
look seriously at what Lowell was propos-
ing.
Two Park Concepts in One City
The growing support for Lowell's ideas
ultimately resulted in two urban parks
being established there. One is Federal and
the other State, with both relying on strong
guidance from the city itself. While the two
park systems will complement one another,
their purposes and functions are to be radi-
cally different. It is simpler to describe
them in terms of concepts since final fund-
ing approval for both has only occurred
during the past year.
The Lowell National Historical Park,
supported by the U.S. Department of In-
terior, will be fashioned around parts of
the downtown commercial area and the
old mill complexes. It will promote pro-
grams to revitalize these structures, en-
courage business concerns to locate in
them, and articulate Lowell's industrial
history through a remarkable museum and
other displays.
The State Heritage Park, on the other
hand, will promote a variety of unique
recreational and cultural opportunities for
city residents and visitors. These will be
highlighted by the complete restoration of
scattered historical and architectural sites
throughout the city linked by barge rides
through the canaJ systems-and a series of
footpaths and bikeways along the city's
streets. The boundaries for the State Park
are in essence the boundaries of Lowell
itself.
Historical Ironies
Ironically, Lowell's early economic tatlspin
has been, in part, responsible for this cur-
rent pioneering venture in the revitalization
of America's cities. For if relatively little
new construction took place in Lowell fol-
lowing the turn of the century, it also meant
that little from the very early past was
destroyed to make way for it. There were,
for example, plans to tear down many of
the old mills, dismantle the antiquated tex-
tile machinery, and fill in the canals. All
were seen as eyesores by much of the
citizenry and their public officials. As eco-
nomic conditions worsened, however, the
city simply had to employ a shrunken tax
base for more pressing priorities. These
industrial legacies were the central reason
why Massachusetts chose Lowell as its
first State Heritage Park. They readily
admit that if the canals had been filled in,
there would be no State park and no
national park either.
What remains is rich in value for those
who continue to be fascinated by all as-
pects of America's history. Some of the
old corporation boarding houses where the
working women of Lowell were domiciled
remain; yet they look more like dormitories
at a New England college than the kinds of
crudely regimented'housing that would
later characterize the American "company
town."
The old locks and gatehouses which
served to control water levels through the
canals remain with several kinds of granite
stone housing that have styles unique to
Lowell. The several textile mills are domi-
nated by a giant complex along the Merri-
mack known locally as the "Mile of Mills."
This almost seems to flow with the river,
creating a harmonious blending of man and
nature that is truly awesome even in these
days of high rise buildings and ever larger
suburban shopping centers.
The downtown area includes a varied
combination of early 19th century homes
and shops with sharply slanted slate roofs
and large brick chimneys that have as much
of a continental flavoring as those in Bos-
ton. Finally, it's still possible to walk sec-
tions of the canal system, particularly near
the old locks and gatehouses, and experi-
ence scenes and sensations that have
scarcely changed since John Quincy
Adams occupied the White House,
Another historical irony is closer to
home for EPA but should hardly be inter-
preted as a defense of water pollution.
Inadvertently, dirty water contributed to
saving considerable open space along
shoreline areas of the Merrimack by mak-
ing it unfit for housing, particularly during
summer drought periods when the stench
from the river became unbearable
The New England Regional EPA Office
has taken a strong leadership role in sup-
porting local efforts to guarantee that the
public has access to these open shoreline
areas as the Federal water cleanup program
proceeds and increases land values locally.
In fact, even the interceptor sewers at Low-
ell's new waste treatment plant are being
designed so that their rights of ways can
have multiple uses for bicycle paths and
other recreational benefits. It may sound
strange to some that a waste treatment
plant system could become a recreational
asset and, in fact, part of the city's urban
park design. But the leadership of Lowell,
which has proven itself so innovative in
other ways, is pursuing the matter seriously.
Conclusion
The lessons from Lowell's second urban
experiment are clear and direct. Historical
continuity as well as economic progress
dictate that we be more careful as a society
about what we destroy in the name of prog-
ress. But Lowell's second major contribu-
tion to America's urban tradition implies
more than the preservation of historic
assets. Urban revitalization must concern
itself with promoting social, economic, and
environmental objectives that are capable
of complementing one another.
Combining strategic public investments
like the two urban parks to leverage not
only private investments but additional
public commitments has become the watch-
word. And the range of public contribu-
tions that are important to commercial
and industrial growth now clearly includes
those historical structures that Lowell is
building upon. City after city is beginning
to learn what Lowell already knows—that
investments which were once thought to
fall chiefly in the "quality of life" or "en-
vironmental" arenas may also help decide
where private dollars choose to flow.
Much remains to be done in Lowell and
it will take several years for most of the
park projects to be completed. But when
finished, Lowell has every chance of be-
coming once again the "marvel to behold"
that Daniel Webster described it almost a
century and a half ago. This time, there's a
better chance that the city's vitality won't
fall prey to other historical ironies and that
unlike the first Lowell experiment,.this sec-
ond one will see economic and environ-
mental needs complementing one
another. D
8
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Radium
Search
By Rich Lathrop
Lathrop is A ssistant Director of Public
A ft airs in EPA Region 8.
It happened as such things often do,
almost by accident. Don Hendricks was
poring over Bureau of Mines bulletins from
the early 1900's looking for references to
old mill sites. Hendricks, Director of the
Office of Radiation programs in EPA's Las
Vegas laboratory, was trying to identify
any radioactive waste problems possibly
left over from early phosphate ore process-
ing.
Occasional mentions of a National
Radium Institute in Denver nagged at him.
He couldn't recall having heard of it before.
And if he hadn't, maybe nobody else re-
membered the facility had been there. He
decided to call Paul Smith, EPA's regional
radiation representative in Denver.
Smith hadn't heard of it either but
immediately recognized the potential for
a serious problem. If a mill had operated
for a number of years in Denver, extracting
radium from uranium ore, there was a good
chance that substantial amounts of radio-
active wastes were lying around a major
metropolitan area.
Fresh in Smith's experience was the
case of Grand Junction, Colo., where radio-
active tailings from 1950's-era uranium
milling were used in and around construc-
tion of homes, schools, and businesses.
That contamination, discovered in the
1960's, is still being cleaned up under a
multi-million dollar remedial program.
A search of old Denver records in the
Denver Library's historical archives finally
yielded an address for the forgotten Insti-
tute, not far from downtown, alongside a
major highway, the present day site of
Robinson Brick and Tile Company.
Smith telephoned the news to the Colo-
rado Department of Health, which has pri-
mary responsibility for control of radio-
active materials in the State.
Within hours department experts were
at the brickyard with sensitive radiation
detection instruments! scintillometers)
whose clicking and fluctuating needles
confirmed investigators' suspicions. The
area was contaminated, with radiation
levels as high as ten times those of Grand
Junction or up to 200 times the natural
background level of radiation normally
found in Denver.
Later research would reveal that be-
tween 1914 and 1917 the Radium Insti-
tute had milled some ten thousand tons of
This commercial firm now operates on a site that once housed a uranium processing facility in Denver, Colo.
MAY 1979
-------
high grade uranium ore, a hundred times
richer than that being milled today. Richer
ore, higher level waste, and nobody knew
where those tons of tailings were.
Before World War I's interruption,
America's uranium ore was shipped to
Europe, processed and radium returned to
this country where it served a variety of
medical uses before its hazards and limi-
tations were understood.
With the onset of war came the need to
developa domestic radium-producing capa-
bility, a need that culminated in the build-
ing of the Institute in Denver and the pro-
duction of hazardous radioactive wastes
that would lie forgotten for more than six
decades.
But even as health department investi-
gators made their brickyard findings public,
other sites were coming to light in Bureau
of Mines bulletins, old city records, and
State archives. Reporters turned up addi-
tional leads in their newspaper libraries.
The fist of sites with confirmed contamina-
tion grew to nineteen by early March. They
had been locations of firms dealing in
radium milling, refining, or laboratory uses.
Today, some are downtown office buildings
and warehouses.
Few people have been spending long
periods of time in the buildings with the
highest radiation readings and so far, tests
on those people have revealed no contami-
nation from breathing or ingesting radio-
active particulates. Further testing will be
carried out.
Radium is a naturally-occurring radio-
active element which was widely used for
treating cancer and other medical pur-
poses.. This use has greatly decreased in
recent history. Like all radioactive mate-
rials, radium constantly decays, in this
case forming radon gas which quickly is
transformed into other radioactive atoms.
These emit gamma and alpha radiation,
which pose public health concerns. Radon
gas can penetrate concrete walls and decay
into its "daughter" products, which can
lodge in lung tissue and increase the prob-
ability of cancer if enough radiation is
absorbed.
Long-term exposure to radium has been
linked with leukemia, the disease that
killed many early experimenters, including
Madame Curie, the discoverer of radium.
Ironically, the same tissue-destroying
properties of radiation, carefully con-
trolled, can be used to destroy cancerous
cells.
When they are loose in the environ-
ment, radioactive wastes involving radium
can pose a serious health problem. So local.
State, and Federal agencies are responding
in concert to the Denver hazard.
All available staff at the State level has
been working on the Denver situation. The
Health Department plans to ask the State
Legislature for additional people and
money.
EPA's mobile gamma scanner (a van
specially equipped to detect radioactivity
while driving through a suspect area) was
moved to Denver from its base in Las
Vegas, Nev., for survey work.
A specially-equipped Department of
Energy helicopter scanned the city in a
series of overflights designed to spot other
areas of contamination not yet reported or
recorded. Possible new locations are being
checked out by the EPA scanner on the
ground. Once pinpointed by the scanner
(which could detect a radium-dialed clock
in your attic from the street near your
house), health department teams move in
for a thorough examination of the high
reading.
Investigators hope most of the tailings
and other wastes were buried on the sites
where they were produced, rather than
trucked over wider areas of the city for
construction uses.
After the scope of the contamination is
determined comes the tangled task of
evaluating the degree of hazard, choosing
the best solution for each site, and deciding
who will pay what may be a multi-million
dollar bill.
The type of cooperation that has marked
the discovery and response to the Denver
radioactive waste problem could help
solve it.D
EPA scientists take the mobile gamma scanner, a van specially equipped to detect radioactivity, into Denver neighborhoods.
10
EPAJOURIMAL
-------
News Briefs
Radiation Monitoring
New Regional
Directors
Division
The White House has designated the Environmental Protection Agency
as the lead agency for long-term radiation monitoring at the three
Mile Island nuclear plant site in Pennsylvania. Jack Watson,
Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and
Secretary to the Cabinet, selected EPA to do the job. In a
memorandum to Administrator Douglas Costle, Watson noted that EPA
should not only coordinate collection and documentation of radiation
data obtained by all the Federal agencies involved, but should
continue to maintain an operations center staffed with radiation
specialists at the site, and inform the public through the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission of off-site radiation levels. He also
instructed EPA to prepare a report on environmental air and water-
borne radioactivity for the Presidential Commission investigating
the accident.
The Environmental Protection Agency has made appointments to 27
new Division director posts in the 10 Regional Offices. They
will be directing air and water pollution control and enforcement
programs throughout the country. William Drayton, Jr., EPA Assistant
Administrator for Planning and Management, said the appointments
were made after examining 7,000 applications from men and women
within and outside the Federal Government. The appointees are as
follows; Region 1, Charles VI. Murray, Water; Merrill Hohman, Air
and Hazardous Materials, and Leslie A. Carothers, Enforcement.
Region 2, Barbara Metzger, Surveillance and Analysis, and Conrad
Simon, Water. Region 3, Greene Jones, Water; Stephen Wessersug,
Air and Hazardous Materials, and Sarah R. Compton, Enforcement.
Region 4, Paul Traina, Water, and Sanford Harvey, Enforcement.
Region 5, William H. Sanders, Surveillance and Analysis; Sandra
Gardebring, Enforcement; David Kee» Air and Hazardous Materials,
and Charles Sutfin, Water. Region 6, Myron Knudson, Water;
Diana Dutton, Enforcement, and Allyn Davis, Air and Hazardous
Materials. In Region 7, Allan Abramson, Water; Louise Jacobs,
Enforcement, and David Wagoner, Air and Hazardous Materials.
Region 8, David Standley, Water, and Robert L. Duprey, Air and
Hazardous Materials. Region 9, Frank M. Covington, Water, and
Clyde Eller, Enforcement. Region 10, Lloyd Reed, Enforcement;
Robert S. Burd, Water, and Douglas Hansen, Air and Hazardous
Materials.
States Served by EPA Regions Region 1 (Boston)
Connecticut. Maine.
Massachusetts. New
Hampshire. Rhode Island.
Vet
617-223-7210
Region 2 (New York
City)
New Jorsoy. Nnw York,
Puerto Rico, Vuyin
Islands
212-264-2525
Region 3
(Philadelphia)
Delaware. Maryland.
Pennsylvania, Virgim.i
West Virginia. District of
Columbia
21&-597-9814
Region 4 (Atfanta)
Alabama. Gem ^><>
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.
Okfrihorrta. Texas. New
Mexico
214 767-2600
Region 7 (Kansas
City)
Iowa. Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
816-374-5493
Region 8 (Denver)
Colorado. Utah,
Wyoming. Montana.
Nonh Dakota. South
Dakota
303-837-3895
Region 9 (San
Franciscol
Arizona. C'ai
-------
A
White
House
View
An Interview with Jack
Watson
Secretary
to the Cabinet and
Assistant to the
President for Inter-
governmental Aflairs
Based on your contacts
with State and local
officials, do you think the
environmental cause is
faring well?
Yes. I think there is a substan-
tial consensus in the country
that the course we are on with
respect to environmental pro-
tection is right, and that our
environmental goals are essen-
tially sound. People are con-
cerned, t think, about whether
or not we are pursuing those
goals in the most sensible and
cost-efficient ways.
In that regard, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency is
doing some innovative things
in terms of streamlining regula-
tions and processes, in setting
up performance standards, and
in creating, thereby, more
flexibility for business firms
and State and local govern-
ments to meet those standards
and to fulfill certain pollution-
cutting goals.
I personally believe (and I
think that this also generally
reflects the President's point of
view) that to the greatest
extent possible, we need to
set performance standards and
give people as much flexibility,
as is feasible, in deciding how
to meet those standards, rather
than always to be prescriptive
about exactly how compliance
must occur.
I read a speech not long ago
by Fletcher Byrom, a leading
Pittsburgh businessman, in
which he used a rather good
illustration. He said that when
you get your car washed, what
you really want is a clean car.
You don't tell the person that
you ask to wash the car whether
to use a straight line rubbing
motion or a circular motion. You
don't tell him how hot to make
the water or what kind of soap
to use. You simply te!l him to
get the car clean.
If he doesn't do it, then you
can take other action. I don't
mean to be simplistic, because
this is not a simple subject, and,
in many cases, it is necessary
to be prescriptive to achieve
certain goals.
I simply think that to a far
greater extent than we have
done in the last ten years or so
of our pursuit of environmental
protection goals, we need to
rely more on performance
standards, and less on detailed
regulatory prescription.
What do you think of
EPA's overall performance
thus far?
I work with Doug Costle, with
Barbara Blum, with Ed Roush,
and others, virtually on a
weekly basis. Interestingly, it
isn't because of any responsi-
bilities I have in the environ-
mental protection area. It is
because I am Chairman of the
Interagency Coordinating
Council, which the President
created as part of our urban
policy. The Council consists of
the major program heads of the
Federal Government domesti-
cally, and its function is to
coordinate the execution of
urban and other domestic
policies and programs.
I have invariably found EPA
to be responsive and innovative
in producing cooperative inter-
agency agreements where such
agreements make sense.
For example, I participated
with Doug Costle and Brock
Adams, Secretary of Transpor-
tation, last year in an announce-
ment of an interagency
agreement between the Depart-
ment of Transportation and
EPA in which those two
agencies were, in effect,
meshing their air quality
planning and transportation
planning processes. They were
making those processes inter-
sect at a much earlier time
than ever before, thereby forc-
ing each planning process to
take into account the interests
and aims of the other.
We recently announced the
selection of eight urban areas
throughout the country to
receive demonstration grants
that would help local govern-
ments to reconci le the some-
times competing goals of
economic development and
clean air. EPA is the lead
agency in that effort, but the
$4-million in funds for the
demonstration program was
actually put together by EPA,
HUD, Commerce, and Trans-
portation.
Traditionally, it has been
relatively rare in the Federal
Government for that sort of an
arrangement to occur. It is
happening with increasing fre-
quency now—where, in pursuit
of some common set of goals,
agencies pool their monies and
mesh their processes in an
effort to eliminate inconsisten-
cies and maximize the impact
of their combined resources.
12
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Are there any intergov-
ernmental programs to
help the small towns in
the West that are coping
with energy development
on a large scale?
One of the things we are quite
concerned about in urban policy
generally is not only the
deterioration of the older cities
of the Northeast and Midwest,
but also the problems caused
by explosive development,
including the energy impact
expansion in many towns in
the West.
I could cite you several
examples in Colorado and
other Rocky Mountain States
where, because of preparation
for increased coal production,
for example, small communi-
ties are having virtually instan-
taneous demands placed on
them for schools, sewer and
water systems, streets and
street lights, and al! the other
public facilities that go into
making a community.
We are working on another
initiative that we will take back
to the Congress this year
called the Inland Energy Impact
bill with funding of $1 50-mil-
lion per year, which seeks to
address those problems.
I might also note that,
although to most Americans
"urban" connotes "big city,"
we have defined our urban
policy to be applicable to the
smaller cities as well. The
programs that we are proposing
and have already put together
are, by and large, as applicable
and as potentially helpful to
small cities as they are to the
large ones.
EPA expects to delegate
the management of the
construction grant pro-
gram for wastewater
treatment plants to about
half of the States by the
end of fiscal 1979. How
does this approach relate
to your concerns for
Federal-State relations?
I believe in that approach.
Wherever we can spot an
opportunity to achieve that kind
of delegation, without detract-
ing from national policy or
national goals, we should do it.
All too often, we impose
several levels of supervision or
oversight on government pro-
grams when one would be quite
sufficient. If a State government
has both the legislative author-
ity and the administrative
capability to oversee the imple-
mentation of a federally-funded
program, the Federal Govern-
ment should think very care-
fully about letting it do so.
In some cases, the responsi-
bility for both the oversight and
the execution of a Federal
program could go to a local
government, without imposing
the burdensome requirements
of making endless reports and
filling out endless forms.
In too many cases, we have
one level of government super-
vising another level which is
itself supervising still another.
That is inefficient and ineffec-
tive, and, because it increases
the cost of doing business, it is
very inflationary.
In short, I think that what
EPA is doing—in delegating
the construction grant program
management—is a good idea.
We should explore whether it
is possible to take similar steps
in other government programs.
I personally believe that it is.
What should be the role
of the Federal Govern-
ment in dealing with
local jurisdictions?
Based on my experience work-
ing in Georgia State govern-
ment as Chairman of the Board
of a very large State agency,
and most particularly on my
experience in the last two
years, I believe that the Federal
Government, at its best, is an
enabler, rather than a creator
or an innovator. At its worst,
it's an obstacle.
That is not to say that the
Federal Government and Fed-
eral policy cannot be innova-
tive. They can be. But for things
to get done in a State or a city
or a county, what is really
required is the determined,
energetic, innovative, common-
sense work of people at the
local level, using Federal
resources in a complementary
role. No amount of Federal
money or Federal programs
can substitute for sound local
initiative. In communities
without that initiative, things
simply aren't going to work
very well.
The other side of that coin is
that people at the Federal level
should do everything they can
to remove Federal obstacles to
local initiative. That is basically
what I see as one of my
principal responsibilities as
Assistant to the President for
Intergovernmental Affairs.
When we can spot an area in
which a Federal program or
policy is acting more as an
impediment to local initiative,
than as an enabler of it, then
it should be changed, con-
sistent, of course, with Federal
lawand national policy.
When the red tape, or the
application process, or the
auditing procedures or what-
ever, however well-motivated
they are, are actually making it
difficult or impossible for
certain program goals to be met
by a small town, a city, a
county, or a State, then those
procedures should be changed.
So, in general, I would say
that the Federal Government
is a potential partner and
funding source that can be used
creatively or not, almost in
direct proportion to the quality
of leadership and ingenuity at
the State and local level.
Do you think that con-
solidating more of the
grant programs being
provided by Washington
or the States would help
the State and local
governments?
I think that program and grant
consolidations are something
that need to be considered
carefully. There are clearly
areas in which consolidations
make sense. But I would also
be quick to say that I do not
view the "block grant"
approach as a universal solu-
tion, as many people appear
to suggest.
The consolidation of pro-
gram authority across agency
lines is not always a wise thing
to do. I think it needs to be
assessed virtually on a pro-
gram-by-program basis. Where
there are overlaps or duplica-
tions, or where, in fact, the
existence of multiple program
and funding sources is actually
impeding the use of those
resources, then program or
grant consolidation can be a
good idea.
But in many cases, we have
economic development pro-
grams coming out of the
Farmers Home Administration
of USDA, the Economic Devel-
opment Administration of
Commerce, and the Department
of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, for example, that, for a
variety of reasons, really need
to be administered by those
separate departments, because
of different program emphases,
different delivery systems, and
different objectives.
Programs do need to be
coordinated. Program people
need to know what each other
are doing and program re-
sources need to be packaged
better. But not in all cases do
I think that actual program
consolidation is the answer.
MAY I 979
13
-------
Are you encouraged by the
response to the Regula-
tory Council so far, and
do you think it has a
promising future?
It is too early to tell. The
Regulatory Council is a good
idea, and it is chaired by a very
able and sensible man, Doug
Costle. It has all of the players
on it that it ought to have.
The question now is whether
it is going to be effective. I
think that the publication twice
a year of a unified calendar of
regulations, giving everyone an
opportunity to review and
comment on the entire aggre-
gation of proposed regulations
in one place at one time, is a
good step. One of the problems
I hear about most frequently
from businessmen and State
and local leaders and other
people who are the subject of
so many of these regulations,
is that they get hit on all sides
by rules from different agencies
that are never considered in
the context of their total impact.
Although the Regulatory
Council and the concept of the
unified calendar of proposed
regulations are both designed
to get at that problem, whether
or not they do, and to what
extent they will be effective,
remain to be seen.
I will say this: There are few
goals the President is com-
mitted to more fully than the
goal of finding ways to make
our whole regulatory process
and the whole body of Federal
regulations on both State and
local governments and the
private sector, more cost effi-
cient, more sensible, and less
burdensome.
His views and his instruc-
tions on this subject to his
Cabinet Secretaries and other
Agency heads could not be
clearer.
Do you feel the sort of
initiatives that you are
talking about vis-a-vis
the urban problems are
going to help the en-
vironment?
Yes, I do. Too many times, one
Federal agency which is pursu-
ing one goal, for example, EPA
and the goal of clean air, has
had virtually no timely inter-
action with another government
agency, in this case, the
Department of Transportation,
which is pursuing another
legitimate goal, namely, moving
people in and around cities
efficiently.
What has happened on more
occasions than we could count
is that separate aims have been
pursued with separate systems
and completely separate pro-
cesses along separate tracks.
until they have collided with
each other.
Or, in other cases, they
completely diverged from each
other, moving in opposite
directions. In either case, it's
a bad result. In simple terms,
what that DOT-EPA joint
planning agreement does is to
force those systems to intersect
and, thereby, to interact, with
each other, hopefully to the
benefit of both.
I have absolutely no doubt
that the people in EPA will
pursue their statutory responsi-
bilities to protect the air just as
fully under that agreement as
they did before. The same
statement would hold true for
the transportation planners
with respect to their responsi-
bilities. However, I think that
the earlier exchange of infor-
mation, the earlier discussion
of problems in pursuit of those
goals, the working out of
immediate or potential conflicts
in a timely way, will produce
better results both for transpor-
tation systems and for clean air.
What have been the
barriers in the past to
Federal, State, local re-
lationships, and what has
this Administration done
to overcome those
barriers?
Generally speaking, the barriers
to really effective Federal,
State, and local relationships
have been ones of
communication.
When the President came
into office, he took an unprece-
dented step. He created the
position of Secretary to the
Cabinet and Assistant to the
President for Intergovernmental
Affairs reporting directly to
him. The combination of those
two roles in one senior White
House staff position was, I
think, a very well-conceived
move by the President because
it placed authority for coordi-
nating the Federal departments
and agencies in the same
person who had responsibility
for dealing with intergovern-
mental affairs.
Sincethattime, the President
has, through executive orders
and memoranda to agency
heads and cabinet secretaries,
undertaken numerous initia-
tives that underscore his
insistence that State and local
government leaders be involved
in a timely way in the Federal
policymaking process.
For example, in March of
1978, the President announced
a national urban policy which
called upon virtually every
department and agency of the
government to be more sensi-
tive to the urban impacts of
their actions and to increase
their participation in urban
revitalization.
The policy applies to EPA
every bit as much as it applies
to the Departments of Housing
and Urban Development,
Transportation, Commerce,
and Labor. The process that we
engaged in to formulate that
urban policy took almost a year
and involved governors,
mayors, county officials, State
legislators, and others outside
the Federal Government in a
way that has rarely been done
before in putting together a
major Federal policy.
The President's insistence
upon that kind of collaboration
with State and local leaders has
been removing a lot of the
intergovernmental barriers that
have traditionally existed.
I have a meeting this after-
noon with all of the inter-
governmental representatives
in all the departments and
agencies. When the President
came into office, he asked
every Cabinet Secretary to
designate a person in his or her
Department with the responsi-
bility of intergovernmental
affairs who would have direct
access to the Secretary. I meet
with all those people every
month here at the White House.
Ed Roush is EPA's intergovern-
mental representative. We
discuss intergovernmental
problems and concerns. We
use each other to handle
matters that come to our atten-
tion that fall within the purview
of some other departments.
It is a valuable network that
really works.
I4
EPAJOURNAL
-------
What are the main
complaints the States
and cities seem to have
about their relations with
the Federal Government?
In no particular order of
priority, I would say that the
main complaints are, first, that
the Federal Government some-
times formulates policies that
do not take into adequate
account how they will be
implemented. By and large,
Federal policies are actually
executed more by State and
local officials than by Federal
officials.
Another common complaint
from State and local officials is
that they are not given as much
time as they need to comment
on proposed Federal policies
and regulations.
Another complaint is that
the Federal Government fre-
quently imposes costs on State
and local governments in
pursuance of Federal policies
without considering just how
they will be paid, and, in fact,
without trying to determine in
a cost/benefit analysis whether
the program or policy is really
justified.
Another complaint—one
that everybody hears—is that
the Federal paperwork system
—the application process to
get Federal monies, reporting
requirements, auditing require-
ments from agency to agency
and program to program—is
duplicative, redundant, and
unnecessarily burdensome.
In far too many cases, those
complaints are fully justified.
The costs that are directly and
indirectly imposed on State
and local governments to fill
out all those forms and to meet
all those reporting and auditing
and other requirements could
be greatly reduced.
In the context of his anti-
inflation fight, the President
is cutting red tape, simplifying
the Federal aid system, trying
to see to it wherever we can
that where one report will
suffice in lieu of six, that just
one report is required. We have
been working on such measures
for literally the whole time we
have been here.
Where an annual report
would do just as well as
quarterly reports, we should
move to an annual report.
Where one agency has certified
a State or local government's
compliance with the Clean Air
Act, or the Clean Water Act,
or the Equal Employment
Opportunity requirements of
Federal law, or the Endangered
Species Act, or whatever—
other agencies should accept
that certification. State and
local governments should not
be required to prove the same
thing over and over again.
Does your office get most
of the heat that is gen-
erated by some Federal
actions such as designating
56-million acres of pro-
tected lands in Alaska?
There are lots of heat-conduct-
ing channels in the Federal
Government. My office would
be only one of them.
President Carter has been
described as the most
environmentally-minded
President since Theodore
Roosevelt. Would you
comment on this?
I think that's true, and I think
his record of the last couple of
years really demonstrates just
how true it is. Without reciting
a long list of the things the
President has done, or that he
has underway, as an environ-
mentalist President, I would
simply refer to the fact that we
now have the first Federal
standards for coal strip-mining
that have ever been
promulgated.
We have greatly improved
and, of course, extended the
Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts. The President, in the past
two years, has created a sub-
stantial number of national
parks and other protected areas
in the continental United
States and Hawaii, and, of
course, in Alaska, he is insist-
ing on the protection of tens of
millions of acres of some of
the most magnificent wild
lands left in the world. He has
done that administratively
because we were not able last
year to get the legislation that
we were asking for through the
Congress. The President
created 17 National Monu-
ments by his own executive
action, which covered about
56 million acres of Alaskan
wilderness and scenic land,
mountains, and forests. He will
seek legislative protection of
those lands again this year.
He proposed last year, again
for the first time in the Nation's
history, a comprehensive
national water policy. We will
seek legislation this year to
implement it further. The
President is, among other
things, trying to increase the
role of States in water policy
through increased water
planning grants and new grants
for State water conservation
programs. He also wants to
draw States into cost-sharing
on Federal water projects.
In general, the President
continues to insist that we
streamline our environmental
and other regulations, and that
we do everything possible to
make a healthy and safe
environment compatible with a
healthy economy. The Presi-
dent believes that can be done,
and his actions in the whole
regulatory review process show
that commitment on his part.
It is a commitment to see to it
that we pursue and preserve
our interests in clean air and
clean water and clean environ-
ment, while we do it in ways
that make sense. D
This interview was conducted
by Charles Pierce. Editor;
Truman Temple. Associate
Editor; and John Heritage,
Assistant Editor; all of EPA
Journal.
MAY'1979
15
-------
Helping
Cities
By Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator,
Environmental Protection
Agency
ii
-------
As we begin the second year of Presi-
dent Carter's national urban policy,
I want to affirm EPA's urban commitment
and pinpoint the challenge—and opportu-
nity—which lies before all of us.
At EPA, Administrator Doug Costle and
I already had targeted urban issues for new
attention. The announcement of the Presi-
dent's policy and my appointment to the
White House council to coordinate it
boosted our efforts even more.
Working closely with other agencies and
groups, EPA's progress has been substan-
tial. And the outlook is for even more.
These are some of the developments:
• Urban matters now are a priority, as a
matter of policy, at EPA Headquarters and
at our 10 Regional Offices across the
country.
• Congress currently is considering Presi-
dent Carter's request for a $76.6 million
increase in EPA's budget for the coming
fiscal year. The boost demonstrates the
President's commitment to cleaning up the
environment everywhere, including the
cities.
• EPA has put the brakes on subsidizing
urban sprawl through changes in our water
and sewer regulations.
• Due to new clean air initiatives, it is less
likely that local economic growth and anti-
pollution efforts will be pitted in no-win
combat.
• With $50 million for this year alone, EPA
will help cities plan how to meet national
air quality standards.
• Sixty-eight U. S. cities, with EPA financial
assistance, are helping to convert solid
wastes into a national asset. As it stands
now, U. S. disposal sites are straining to
handle the annual load—so great that it
would more than fill the New Orleans
Superdome from floor to ceiling, twice a
day, weekends and holidays included.
• We are awarding more and more con-
tracts to minority businesses, and we're
insisting that minority contractors receive
more and more EPA contracts from our
construction grants program. We're helping
senior citizens and the disadvantaged find
jobs in environmental fields, and we're
involved in training school dropouts,
minorities, and others.
Our agency is not the Department of
Housing and Urban Development. And
neither are we the Department of Com-
merce, nor the Department of Labor. The
mission of EPA continues to be to slow
the toll in human health that pollution
is taking.
But any time we can focus on an urban
problem that will save lives and the envi-
ronment without sacrificing jobs or eco-
nomic growth, we'll do it. In this way, we
intend that EPA is part of the solution to
what's ailing the cities, not the problem.
Here's a bird's eye view of how the pro-
gram is working:
An editorial in the New Orleans Times-
Picayune predicts our $200,000 grant to
set up an environmental unit in Mayor
Morial's office "should open the way" for
New Orleans to solve environmental prob-
lems—problems which that newspaper
says "have received too little attention or
been ignored too long."
EPA's Seattle office—working with 20
large cities in the upper Northwest—will
pinpoint major economic and environmen-
tal problems and the strategies needed to
solve them. An EPA staffer will be assigned
to each city, and a regional council will
coordinate the overall effort.
Our Philadelphia office is working with
the Small Business Administration and
other agencies to tell companies about
Federal and State assistance which can cut
the cost of pollution control. Staff also have
been assigned to work with State and local
environmental officials and with new
businesses relocating to the region.
EPA funds are helping Utica, N.Y., plan
how to use industrial and residential wastes
for fuel to help power a new branch of the
State university. The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey is planning to operate
an industrial park in much the same way.
In Florida, Broward County will convert
sludge and wastes into energy to run a
wastewater treatment plant.
The campaign to bring cities into com-
pliance with national air quality standards
fs being waged on several fronts.
In the spring of 1978, President Carter
flew to Denver to announce that that city—
home of the Nation's most severe carbon
monoxide problem—would get coordi-
nated help from 25 Federal programs,
including EPA's. Today, many organiza-
tions are involved in pollution control, from
local companies to a group formed by the
League of Women Voters, the American
Lung Association, and others who posted
signs on city buses saying, "Pledge your-
self to take a walk on Sunday."
EPA's "offset" policy is another part of
the strategy.
It allows construction of new facilities
in areas that have not met air quality stand-
ards. But there's a clincher. The firm could
move in—if the community cleans up more
pollution from existing sources than the
newcomer will introduce. To carry this a
step further, we also will allow, as a matter
of policy, localities to "bank" extra reduc-
tions in air pollution—which later can be
transferred to new firms in the area.
Eight cities—armed with more ingenuity
than EPA money—are gearing up to make
the concept work.
Philadelphia, for example, is identifying
industries which are both environmentally
and economically attractive. Chicago plans
to organize a system of technical and finan-
cial assistance to help companies solve
their air pollution problems. Boston wants
to cut emissions which flow from municipal
facilities—thus, creating a body of offsets
for the city to trade. In Connecticut, the
cities of Bridgeport and Waterbury are
exploring the purchase of air quality im-
provements from local companies, with the
offsets to be allocated later to new
businesses.
There is a related matter—EPA's pro-
posed "bubble" policy. Under the proposal,
a company would draw up plans to clean
up its polluting processes, keeping in mind
that the total pollution from any single
facility must not exceed EPA's plant-by-
plant requirements.
Controversial? Yes. But concepts like
these also could help urban areas attract
new businesses—and hold on to older
ones. The straightjacket on industry would
be loosened. Most of all, cities should have
added incentive to improve air quality—a
national promise we all have a stake in
keeping.
EPA—and many other Federal agencies
—are deeply committed to the cities. But
neither President Carter nor any of us in
this Administration believes that the gov-
ernment has a monopoly on the answers to
urban problems—or even all the questions.
Thus, the spotlight shifts to the grass
roots—so that solutions fit the full range of
local needs. That's why forums with
diverse groups focusing on the difficult
issues are so vital. City Care, the recent
conference on the urban environment, is
but one example.
For too long, we as a Nation failed to
recognize the dangers of an unhealthy
environment. Some of our most productive
land and waterways have been needlessly
contaminated. The air in some areas be-
came hardly fit to breathe. Hazardous
wastes were carelessly dumped out of
sight, out of mind.
We were slow to see that the chemical
revolution which handed out many benefits
also could be an environmental hazard.
Only in the last decade have we begun to
reverse the generations of neglect. And
significant progress has been made. But
sadly, the quality of life still depends upon
who you are and where you live.
Nowhere is this more true than with the
millions of Americans who call the city
"home." That's where the most unhealthy
concentrations of pollution collide with the
greatest number of people.
There are no quick fixes, no easy solu-
tions. But I believe there are solutions,
solutions which will not foreclose the fu-
ture—environmentally or economically. D
MAY 1 979
17
-------
-------
A Governor's View
A some pivotal moment in the history
of civilization, mankind stopped try-
ing to conquer Nature and tried to save it.
In too many cases, that moment came too
late, after the damage was done.
Vermont was lucky and maybe just a
little wiser in that respect. Few other states
have as much to be proud of in the area of
the environment as the Green Mountain
State.
Just why this happened is not easily ex-
plained. It may be because we have always
been a rural State—100 per cent rural even
today, by Federal standards. Development,
at least the heavy industrial kind of devel-
opment, never had a chance in a State that
had so many natural barriers, like the
mountains, the long winters, and the lack
of large population centers.
It might have something to do with the
climate. Early frosts, deep snow, icy roads,
and short growing seasons can make a per-
son feel very respectful of the ways of
Nature.
For whatever reason, the fact remains
that as a State we've built a reputation for
our commitment to preserving the land, the
water, and the air of Vermont. We have the
cleanest water in New England, according
to the 1978 EPA Water Quality Report. Our
land remains unspoiled, and our air, with
two minor exceptions, meets the Federal
attainment standards.
The golden age of environmentalism in
Vermont began in the late 1960's, with the
movement that led to the passage of Act
250, the land use law that has served as a
model for so many other States across the
country. Recently that law's resiliency was
tested when a District Environmental Com-
mission decided to deny a land use permit
for a suburban mall on the outskirts of our
largest city, Burlington, on the grounds that
it would threaten the economic and envi-
ronmental viability of the region that sur-
rounds it. Act 250 is alive and well and still
the pride of Vermont.
We passed one of the first billboard laws
in 1967, one of the first returnable bottle
bills in 1971, and in 1977 we banned the
sale of phosphates.
More recently, we centralized the ad-
ministration of all EPA-funded pollution
control programs by putting them under
the direction of one division of our Agency
of Environmental Conservation. We also
brought our water pollution control statutes
into line with the Clean Water Act of 1977,
View across Lake Champ/ain from New
York State shows the Green Mountains of
Vermont.
By Governor Richard A.
Snelling of Vermont
so that individual, alternative, and innova-
tive water pollution control systems were
eligible for State funds. We also imple-
mented a ceiling grants system, so that no
household in Vermont will have to pay
more than $ 150 a year for municipal sew-
age service.
These last three innovations are the
direct result of the work of Reginald A.
"Tex" LaRosa, the Director of the Division
of Environment Engineering and Acting
Commissioner of the Water Resources De-
partment. We were proud to see Tex
awarded EPA Region 1 's Environmental
Merit Award last November for that work.
Vermont's commitment to the environ-
ment continues to be strong and lively,
even in an age of fiscal restraint. Within the
last few months, two events have reassured
us that our leadership in environmental
matters is intact. One was the signing of
the first State/EPA Agreement in the Na-
tion. The other was the first televised public
hearing ever held in Vermont.
The hearing was an opportunity for Ver-
monters at home to respond to our State
implementation plan for meeting Federal
air quality standards. Appearing on local
educational television, through the cooper-
ative efforts of Vermont ETV and the Ver-
mont Lung Association, the program
presented a forum for Vermonters to direct
their questions by toll-free telephone con-
nections to a number of panelists, including
our Secretary of the Agency of Environmen-
tal Conservation, Brendan J. Whittaker,
and the Chief of Vermont's Air Pollution
Control Program, Richard Valentinetti.
The issue of how the air quality plan
would affect growth and development in
Vermont, beyond considerations of health,
made the hearing timely and provocative
and ultimately one of the most successful
public participation events in recent years.
The signing of the Vermont/EPA Man-
agement Agreement late in 1978 was an-
other landmark in the history of environ-
mentalism in Vermont.
In an age when federalism seems to have
outgrown its original definition, as the Fed-
eral Government assumed more responsi-
bility for services traditionally left to the
States, the agreement represents an en-
couraging new direction. Vermont and the
EPA now share the management responsi-
bilities for the State's total environmental
pollution control activities, as a result of
the agreement. Vermont now has a dynamic
role to play in solving the environmental
problems that concern us most.
The agreement itself is now being pro-
moted by EPA as a model for other States.
It is only 28 pages long, but it provides
twelve separate work plans and time tables
for meeting the future environmental needs
of the State in the areas of air, water, and
noise pollution, solid waste management,
control of hazardous wastes, and oil spill
prevention.
One example from the agreement will
serve to demonstrate its value to Vermont
as an effective tool for meeting directly the
pressing environmental issues of the day.
In recent years, the Richelieu River in
Quebec has been flooding its banks. One
proposed solution was the construction of
a flood control structure at the point where
Lake Champlain flows northward into the
Richelieu.
Vermont defended its interests as one
State bordering the lake on the grounds
that the flood control structure would lower
the average lake level to the detriment of
Vermont's wetlands. In the course of our
defense, we realized how seriously we
needed viable wetlands protection laws.
The Vermont/EPA Management Agree-
ment responds to this need through the
implementation of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977. The agreement details
a work plan for the coming year for the
development and passage of wetlands
legislation. The EPA has committed itself
to assisting the State with legal and tech-
nical support, in exchange for Vermont's
commitment of time and resources to the
same end. By the end of this year, Vermont
will have solved one of its most serious
environmental problems, with the help of
EPA, as a direct result of the Agreement.
Vermont has good reason to be proud of
her achievements in preserving the environ-
ment, but that record hasn't come easily.
Diligence and the commitment of officials
of the stature of Tex LaRosa, without
whose work the Vermont/EPA Agreement
could not have succeeded, have made it all
possible. For the future, Vermont, like every
State that feels the pressure of conflict be-
tween natural and human needs, will have
to guard itself well against unplanned and
unexpected threats to its environmental
integrity. Q
MAY 1979
19
-------
A Congressman's View
A comedian has described the Washing-
ton political scene as analogous to
10,000 ants floating downstream on a log
and "every one of them thinks he's
steering."
From the perspective of the local official
who has to deal with Washington, however,
it is generally feared that no one is steering
and no one is even aware of what direction
we are drifting.
I have been at both ends of the Federal-
local relationship and have viewed the
world from both the Federal and local per-
spectives. I served as Mayor of the City of
San Jose from 1971 through 1974, and
since then have served as Congressman
from California's 13th District.
During the 1970's, the importance of the
Federal-local relationship to the American
way of life increased enormously, with
Federal grants-in-aid to State and local gov-
ernments increasing from $24 billion in
FY 1970 to an estimated $82 billion for
FY 1979. Federal grants now constitute 25
percent of State and local government
expenditures, up from 19 percent in 1970.
And this same decade has seen a great deal
of debate over what the nature of the Fed-
eral-local relationship would be, with often
bitter controversy over "New Federalism,"
revenue sharing, consolidated block grants,
and fiscal assistance to cities facing
bankruptcy.
I have been involved in many of those
debates, sometimes from the local perspec-
tive, sometimes from the Federal perspec-
tive, and, where the debate has continued
long enough, from both perspectives. Look-
ing back on this decade of an increasingly
important but often strained Federal-local
relationship, I think we can and should
begin to learn what it would take to conduct
that relationship more successfully.
The first lesson that needs to be learned
s that there is a point of diminishing
returns in the increasing compartmentaliza-
tion of Federal grants into categorical pro-
grams. It seems ironic after this decade of
"New Federalism" and consolidated block
grants and revenue sharing to have to raise
once again the issue of an excessively
compartmentalized array of Federal pro-
grams. But even in the era of the consoli-
dated block grant, the number of categori-
cal grant programs has actually increased,
from 442 (in January. 1975) to 492 (in
Congressman Mineta is Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Review of
the House Committee on Public Works and
Transportation. The Subcommittee's over-
sight includes the Clean Water Act.
20
By U.S. Rep. Norman Y.
Mineta (D-Calif.)
The U.S. Congress in joint session.
January, 1978). (EPA administers about
7 percent of those categoricals.) The cate-
goricals' share of all grants-in-aid has been
fairly constant in the same period at about
79 percent, with the balance going to con-
solidated block grants and to general
revenue sharing.
Now, there is nothing wrong with cate-
gorical grants as one of the devices in the
Federal-local relationship. Most categori-
cals accomplish commendable goals. They
are more easily targetable to specific objec-
tives. The categorical approach is often
particularly justified when we are initiating
a new effort and wish to insure that this new
effort will not be overlooked either by the
agency or by local officials. In putting a new
item on the priority list we have to recog-
nize that the continuing backlog of the older
priorities may crowd out the new efforts
unless funds are set aside specifically for it.
But we have shown greater diligence in
creating categoricais to deal with new
priorities than we have in consolidating
them once they have become established.
The result has been that the Federal half of
the Federal-local relationship has become
so compartmentalized and complex that it
frequently frustrates the efforts of local
officials to rationally carry out their half of
the relationship. As the Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations recent-
ly concluded, "The proliferation of aid pro-
grams in and of itself would be no problem,
the Commission believes, if this develop-
ment did not have aggregate impacts . . .
that put the so-called aid system beyond
the comprehension of both elected officials
and the citizenry. . . ."
t take issue here not necessarily with the
goals of those 492 categorical grant pro-
grams, but simply with the fact that no
matter how justifiable individually, collec-
tively they present an unworkable and con-
fusing array of programs, each with its own
conditions and requirements and deadlines.
The total impact can be particularly burden-
some for a small town or county, which
cannot afford the legal and technical talent
to cope with the myriad and often con-
tradictory Federal requirements. It is un-
reasonable on the face of it that none of
those 492 programs would duplicate an-
other, or work at cross-purposes with an-
other, or reflect outdated priorities which
have been superseded by new priorities
and new programs.
Implicit in this argument is the notion
that Congress must not only express its
concern for a specific problem by creating a
specific new program, but it must also
return repeatedly to that program to see
how it is working in actual practice and
what impacts it has had at the local level.
This is what Congressional oversight is all
about, and I take encouragement from the
fact that the 96th Congress has been
labeled the "oversight Congress."
In this respect, I consider myself for-
tunate to have recently been elected by my
colleagues to chair the House Public Works
and Transportation Committee's Oversight
and Review Subcommittee. At the risk of
displaying the qualities of a floating ant,
EPA JOURNAL
-------
I must admit that I am enthusiastic about
the challenge. The past record of the Sub-
committee shows that oversight can be
conducted in a constructive way and can
contribute to Congressional understanding
of the real-world operations of Federal
programs. As an example, the O&R Sub-
committee has played a major role in evalu-
ating the national water pollution control
effort, and will continue to do so.
But if we are truly to make this the-
"oversight Congress," we must build
oversight into the fundamental structure of
the Congress as a whole, rather than leave
it only to the initiative of a few committees
and subcommittees. We need to make
oversight systematic and regular and a
function of the entire Congress. Comptrol-
ler General Elmer Staats has emphasized
the need to incorporate oversight require-
ments into the law itself.
For this reason I have for several years
sponsored so-called "sunset legislation,"
which would build in regular termination
dates for all Federal programs, thus requir-
ing their reevaluation and reauthorization
by Congress. Because of this feature of
forcing Congressional review of the real-
world performance of existing programs—
including such problems as categorical
confusion in the Federal-local relationship
—Comptroller Staats has referred to sunset
legislation as "the unfinished chapter" in
the effort to improve oversight. And, I would
add, it is the unfinished chapter in the effort
to force Congress to pay as much attention
to the possible consolidation of categori-
cals as it does to their creation.
Another lesson we need to learn if we
are to make this Federal-local part-
nership more effective is that each partner
must offer the other a reasonable degree of
predictability and reliability. Without that,
there can be no mutual confidence and each
partner would only be willing to apply the
partnership to the most marginal and short-
range projects, for fear of being left hold-
ing the bag on an important or long-term
project.
This is particularly true where the grants
program requires matching funds from
State or local governments. About 61 per-
cent of all categorical grants programs re-
quire some degree of State or local match-
ing funds(among categoricals administered
by EPA, about 74 percent require State or
local matching). Here in Washington we
are all too aware of the drawn-out, complex
Federal budget process. The President's
budget is submitted to the Congress nine
months before the beginning of the fiscal
year, while the agencies must submit their
requests over a year in advance to the
President and may begin preparing their
budgets as much as two years in advance.
By the time those budget requests wend
their way through Congressional Budget
Committees and Authorizing Committees
and Appropriations Committees and con-
ference committees, we have subjected the
budget to a great deal of possible or real
change.
We tend to be so relieved that we have
produced a budget at all, that we just as-
sume that State and local governments
will be ready and able to step forward al-
most overnight to pick up their burdens in
the form of matching requirements.
We are too quick to forget that local gov-
ernments, too, have to go down a long road
of budgets and taxes and bonding and
local decision-making in order to be ready
with their half of the bargain. They need
some confidence in the continuity of Fed-
eral programs in order to begin that process
before the Federal budget is a finished
work, and they need a reasonable period
after the Federal dollars are available in
which to complete their own budget and
decision-making processes. If we do not
allow for the legitimate needs of both part-
ners, we will find that the partnership is far
less productive. Nothing is less useful than
a bridge which only goes half way across
the river. We need both halves to make
either half worthwhile.
The same is true of programs which re-
quire significant State or local staffing
in order to carry out the purposes of a
Federal-local effort. State or local govern-
ments cannot effectively perform their
tasks if they are repeatedly required to hire
or fire large numbers of professional staff
in order to match erratic levels of Federal
commitment. This is particularly critical in
a program like the State management of
water pollution control construction grants,
pursuant to the Cleveland-Wright Amend-
ment. In this case, the States receive a
maximum of 2 percent of their annual con-
struction grants allotment for the staffing
necessary to administer the program. This
poses the problem that every time there
might be a dip in Federal funding. State
employees would have to be laid off. The
uncertainty which that situation breeds
makes many States reluctant to take over
these management responsibilities, thus
frustrating the intent of the Congress in
passing the Amendment.
And a third lesson we need to recognize,
particularly at the local level, is that the
fragmentary nature of local jurisdictions
can limit their capacity to deal with many
of the problems that are areawide in
nature. Just as there is a confusing array of
Federal categorical programs targeted at
State and local governments, there is also
a confusing array of local jurisdictions.
Particularly in metropolitan areas, we find
a fragmented picture of overlapping and
competing towns, cities, counties. States,
special boards, districts, and authorities.
Yet the problems we face, in transportation,
energy efficiency, air pollution, water pollu-
tion, and so on, do not recognize those
traditional boundaries. They arise instead
by metropolitan area and by air quality
basin and by watershed.
Our concept of the town or the city may
be left over from an era in which there were
no "metropolitan areas," but the hometown
is still the most immediate and most funda-
mental building block in the American poli-
tical structure. Despite some interesting
initiatives in a few metropolitan areas to
combine local jurisdictions into some kind
of regional unit of government, the town
and the city will remain paramount on the
local scene for the foreseeable future.
We must therefore continue to find
ways to work with groups of local
jurisdictions in order to overcome the
individual limitations of those jurisdictions.
We must, in short, continue to work
through and to improve the Council of
Governments (COG) concept. As a former
focal official, I have had my share of qualms
and quarrels with the COG mechanism.
There have been questions of proportional
representation in COG's, for example. From
the Federal perspective I have often been
concerned about the effectiveness of
COG's, as in their inability to carry out the
operational aspects of Section 208 plan-
ning in the water pollution control program.
And there have been questions from both
Federal and local officials as to which of
the two the COG is really working for.
But despite these negative aspects, the
nature of the problem we face and the
enduring fragmentation of local jurisdic-
tions will continue to require a consider-
able degree of reliance on areawide COG-
type mechanisms. Both the Federal and
local partners need the areawide COG
intermediary to coordinate their separate
efforts and to get the greatest return for
their separate investments. We need to
work to mitigate the deficiencies of exist-
ing areawide COG's, not to weaken or
eliminate them.
Categorical fragmentation, predictabil-
ity and continuity in programs, and local
jurisdictional fragmentation: These are
three key areas where we can work to im-
prove our intergovernmental relations and
can thereby improve the efficiency and
"rate of return" on our intergovernmental
programs. Because Federal grants-in-aid to
State and local governments now comprise
17 percent of Federal outlays and 25 per-
cent of State and local expenditures, and
because thes,e programs seek to fulfill
some of our most important national goals,
we all have a shared responsibility to
improve their performance. D
MAY 1 979
21
-------
An EPA
View
An interview with
J. Edward Roush,
Director,
Office of Regional
and Intergovernmental
Operations
Based on your experience
as a former Congressman
and one who has travelled
widely over the country,
how do you think EPA is
generally regarded?
I would like to say we are the
apple of people's eye, but we
are not. We are not well re-
garded in many areas. We are
a regulatory agency, and ) guess
it depends on whom you are talk-
ing to as to how we are thought
of. For example, many indus-
tries and some municipalities
think we have no business reg-
ulating their affairs, and as a
result they balk at everything
we try to do. Some environ-
mental groups, on the other
hand, think we are much too
lenient. Meanwhile, someone
else is telling us we are too
stringent, too harsh in our appli-
cation of the rules and regula-
tions. I suppose it all evens out.
But even in this time of ques-
tioning the size and actions of
Government, I find that indi-
viduals regard EPA as an orga-
nization that is trying to make
the world better for them and
their children.
What can EPA do to im-
prove its reputation
among those who don't
agree with EPA's purpose
or actions?
I think the biggest problem we
have in building our reputation
is to bring into our constituency
those people who would advo-
cate the same causes we advo-
cate, who are striving for the
achievement of the same goals
we are striving to achieve. This
includes the other units of gov-
ernment that have responsibil-
ities similar to ours. I am speak-
ing primarily of State and local
government.
This interview was conducted
by Charles Pierce, Editor, EPA
Journal.
Over the years, the relation-
ships between the States and
local units of government and
the Federal Government had
deteriorated. This was not a
reflection on EPA; we just hap-
pened to be a victim of the
general pattern.
When he took office, the
President directed that we im-
prove those relationships, and
he made some suggestions.
And as a result we have a bet-
ter feeling on the part of State
and local people toward EPA
than you would have found two
years ago.
What we are doing of course
is to make them part of the ac-
tion, not only giving them the
responsibility, but trying to pro-
vide the wherewithal to accept
that responsibility and do the
work themselves.
Also we have involved the
State and local people when it
has come to the development of
our own rules and regulations
which affect them. We in EPA
took the President very seri-
ously when he said that he
expected State and local units
of government to have input
when it came to budget prior-
ities, to policy, and to pro-
grams. He expected it to be a
timely input, when policy was
being formulated and discussed.
We have done that, and it
has made a big difference. State
and local governments are not
quite so likely to complain
about a rule or regulation that
they had a hand in developing.
Before, when they had no hand
in it, you proposed a rule and
they were sometimes prepared
to throw it back in your face.
Now they recognize that they
have been a part of the process
of developing it. That has made
a big difference in the attitudes
of the States toward EPA, and
our relationship has been
greatly enhanced.
We have to recognize though
that there will be people who
will always knock us. But on the
other hand, I think the statistics,
the polls, and the thoughtful re-
flection of many people say that
in the eyes of the American
people what EPA is doing has
to be done.
Which of our various
programs, such as air,
water, noise, or radiation,
seems to be causing the
most concern at the
State level?
There is no question that at this
moment and possibly for the
next year or so the air program
will be causing us the greatest
concern.
Also, I think we can look
forward to some difficult times
in dealing with the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act. And a very
real problem for many of the
States is going to be dealing
with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. We are about
to bury ourselves in our own
garbage and waste. We have
been confronted with im-
proper past disposal of toxic
substances and hazardous
waste, including nuclear waste.
The States are realizing the
need for future disposal tech-
niques, but we and the States
are just beginning to recognize
what a serious problem we
have.
EPA is one of the most
decentralized Federal
agencies. Does this policy
work?
Not only are we an example of
decentralization, but I think we
are an example of decentraliza-
tion that is working.
It does require a great deal
more work in coordinating the
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Agency's efforts, in obtaining
uniformity in enforcement, in
the application of rules and
regulations. All of those things
make it more difficult.
But there are so many pluses
that you tolerate a few of the
minuses.
What is it about EPA
particularly that seems to
make decentralization an
effective policy whereas
it might not be for some
other Federal agencies
here in Washington?
Perhaps it is because we are
dealing primarily with units of
government. When we talk
about EPA's sewage treatment
program, air program, or solid
wastes, we are dealing primar-
ily with units of government,
not, for example, with the in-
dividual homeowners as in the
case of many programs of the
Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Second, EPA studied its pro-
grams carefully and worked out
its headquarters-regional roles
and relationships as the Agency
was being organized. This gave
us a great advantage over other
Federal agencies.
What mechanism do we
use to insure that one
Region won't have a more
lenient enforcement
policy, for example, and
therefore gain more in-
dustry at the expense of
another Region?
We are decentralized, but I
think we have to recognize the
fact that policy comes out of
Headquarters. The rules and
regulations are not promulgated
by individual Regions, but by a
national Headquarters, ordinar-
ily with the blessing of the
Regions that have to implement
these laws. And so those rules
and regulations themselves
tend to encourage consistency.
We can't say that we are
always consistent. To achieve
consistency, there must be a
great deal of coordinating and
communication between the
various Regions and Headquar-
ters. It is part of the function of
the Office of Regional and Inter-
governmental Operations to see
to it that this communication
does take place.
One of the questions that was
posed to Douglas Costle during
his confirmation hearings as
EPA Administrator was how he
intended to provide more con-
sistency. We now review in
Headquarters each enforcement
action recommended by the Re-
gions. Before, Regions sent their
proposed actions directly to the
local U.S. Attorney.
Then the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 required
EPA to develop rules and regu-
lations which will prevent in-
consistency. Action was re-
quired in air because imple-
mentation of the Clean Air Act
provided more inconsistencies
than in other areas.
By and large we have done a
good job of overcoming incon-
sistencies. Although they occur,
they're smaller in number and
percentage compared to what
you might expect considering
the nature of this beast that we
administer.
There is a tendency for
many of the States to have
environmental protection
agencies of their own.
Do you know how many
States now have EPA's
at their own level?
All but four States have a cen-
tral authority of some type, but
many of them do not have or-
ganizations with the same broad
mix of functions that EPA has;
however, that situation is much
better than it was several years
ago.
What do you regard as
the most important
function of your job?
Acting as the link between the
Regions and the Administrator
and Deputy Administrator. That
takes in a lot. For instance, we
have staff people who are mem-
bers of almost every task force
at Headquarters. And they re-
reflect the Regions' concerns.
I consider myself the Head-
quarters advocate for the Re-
gions and I look after their
interests.
Although these links are the
most important function that we
perform here, the intergovern-
mental work, is becoming more
and more significant and im-
portant.
What does a governor of
a State do if he feels that
a Regional Office is being
unreasonable in carrying
out some law of
Congress?
He probably calls Doug Costle
and then Costle will in turn call
the Region and see what the
story is. Or the Governor could
call the White House to com-
plain. In that case, I would
probably get a call from the
White House to look into the
matter.
Are regional boundaries
pretty well set in con-
crete now, or is there any
thought being given to
changing any of them?
I haven't heard anyone specifi-
cally recommend that the
boundaries be changed. What
we are changing is the alloca-
tion of resources among the re-
gions. The Zero Based Budget
process focused on this for fis-
cal years 1979 and 1980. Then
for FY 1981 we will begin to
more carefully assess the bal-
ance between Headquarters and
the Regions.
Is EPA's job getting
easier or tougher?
It is going to be tougher. We
have come through that period
when it was ali glamorous and
we were talking about fishable
and swimmable waters. We are
now talking about things that
are much more complicated,
such as hazardous waste, car-
cinogens, and other chemicals.
We are living through a pe-
riod of tremendous growth in
the chemical industry, and that
is going to make it more diffi-
cult for us. Consider how many
thousands of new chemicals are
produced each year.
As our knowledge increases
regarding the causes of certain
diseases, particularly cancer, it
is going to mean the regulation
of more chemicals in order to
protect present and future pub-
lic health.
More regulations will mean
a greater challenge for us. EPA
is entering an era where it is
looked upon moreasa regula-
tory agency than as a program
agency. When you are viewed
as such, you can't expect people
to sing your praises. When you
clean up their water by building
things, they think that is great.
When you start regulating their
lives, their industries, their
businesses, when you start
affecting their style of life, they
are going to resent what you
are doing.
Is there any message that
you wanted to give that I
haven't touched on here?
I hope I didn't paint a picture of
gloom here because I didn't in-
tend to. I think the Agency is
filled with bright, intelligent,
and above all, dedicated peo-
ple. They still have a sense of
advocacy about them, and I
like to see that. And I hope it
sticks with the Agency.
The work that we are doing
can be exciting. Protecting peo-
ple's health is exciting. Protect-
ing the aesthetic values around
us is exciting.
The work is above all very
meaningful. Being part of this
mission gives you a good
feeling. D
MAY 1 979
23
-------
A State Legislator's View
" I I eaven and earth never
... | I agreed to form a better
place for man's habitation than Virginia."
That declaration by Captain John Smith
almost four centuries ago still holds true in
many pacts of the State. But the rich land,
the sparkling streams, and the fish, game,
and timber are in jeopardy.
Partly because of the natural attractions,
Virginia's population has skyrocketed,
especially in recent years. With more than
five million Virginians now, the State ranks
as the 1 3th most populous. It continues to
grow in population at a rate nearly 50 per-
cent greater than the national average.
Almost 60 percent of Virginians live in
the State's "urban corridor" stretching
from northern Virginia southward through
Fredericksburg and Richmond to the Tide-
water. The demands of the growing urban
population within this corridor have
placed tremendous strains on the State's
ecosystems, particularly in coastal areas.
Serious State concern for Virginia's
eroding environment was expressed as
long ago as 1964. Early that year, at the
request of Governor Harrison, the Virginia
General Assembly directed a select panel
of citizens and legislators to study the
growing threat to Virginia's lands and
waters. Eighteen months later, the Outdoor
Recreation Study Commission submitted
its report entitled simply, "Virginia's Com-
mon Wealth." The report began:
Virginia's land and waters have abun-
dantly nourished its citizens, in body and
in spirit, for nearly four centuries. . . . Today
a sharp change is taking place. The face of
Virginia is taking on a new character as it
becomes urbanized and industrialized in its
commitment to progress. The progress is
manifested by population growth and con-
centration, by increased income, by more
cars and better roads, and by more leisure
time.
But these forces, which increase the
demand for outdoor recreation, are also
threatening the very resources which are
basic—our brooks and woods, our farms
and shorelines.
In January, 1966, the Virginia legislature
met again in session. Governor Godwin,
newly elected to office, was a staunch
conservative, but he knew that the time had
come to break with "the old ways." He
pushed a sales tax and State bond issue
through the legislature and used these new
financial resources for educational, health,
Senator DuVal was named the Nation's
outstanding State legislator by the National
Wildlife Federation in 1969.
ByCliveL DuVal II,
State Senator, Virginia,
32nd District
W
Statue of Captain John Smith on
Jamestown Island in Virginia.
and recreational needs. In particular, he
placed his power and popularity behind the
recommendations of the Outdoor Recrea-
tion Study Commission, and almost all of
them were adopted. The more important
were approval of a greatly expanded State
Park System, and assistance to counties
and cities to develop regional and local
recreational facilities. The legislature also
established a Virginia Commission of Out-
door Recreation to coordinate activities in
recreational fields, and a Historic Land-
marks Commission to protect the State's
historic legacy. An Open Space Land Act
also was passed to provide legal authority
for preservation of open space by localities.
The opening phase of the effort to pre-
serve Virginia's environment lasted
until around 1969 when Governor Godwin
left office. Before his term expired, the Gov-
ernor proposed revision of the State's
obsolete Constitution. This was largely
accomplished in the same year, and the
document was ratified by the people in
1970. The new Constitution was notable
because it contained for the first time an
Article on "Conservation/' pledging the
State "to protect its atmosphere, lands, and
waters from pollution, impairment or des-
truction, for the benefit ... of the people
During this period, it became possible to
identify some of the forces which worked
for or against the adoption of environmen-
tal legislation. Clearly in Virginia—a
"strong Governor" State—vigorous sup-
port by the Chief Executive would usually
be essential to enactment of hotly con-
tested environmental legislation, as would
organized support by environmentai and
other citizen groups. Efforts by the Federal
Government to influence legislation cut
both ways. When Congress mandated leg-
islation or action, it had too many guns to
be ignored, and the General Assembly com-
plied, often resentfully. But when "the
Feds" sought to influence a measure by
persuasion or the proffer of grants, Federal
involvement damaged the prospects of the
legislation.
In truth, the War between the States has
never been completely forgotten in the Old
Dominion. In my early days in the legisla-
ture, I once played straight man to a South-
side legislator who asked me if I knew what
made the Virginia clay "so red." When
1 pleaded ignorance, the answer, delivered
courteously and with a smile, was
"Yankee blood."
Sometimes other factors and forces were
arrayed against environmental legislation.
Business, including agribusiness, industry,
and utilities, often felt it necessary to chal-
lenge such legislation. Well-equipped with
funds and able lobbyists, they became
formidable opponents. An even more diffi-
cult problem was presented by the under-
standable but fiercely possessive attitude
of Virginians towards private property. This
attitude springs from deep roots, and any
legislation which appears to infringe upon
property rights faces real trouble.
Certainly, today, any sponsor of environ-
mental legislation in the Virginia General
Assembly must understand that this con-
cern for private property is deeply held and
deeply felt among citizens and legislators,
and that as a corollary a benevolent view of
business needs and interests will be taken
by many legislators. I learned the latter
lesson at the 1 968 session when, with the
backing of the Izaak Walton League and
other citizen groups, I introduced a bill to
strengthen the State's Water Control Law.
Persuasive evidence was presented to the
Committee considering my bill. This in-
cluded testimony by a Richmond marina
operator that the James River in time of fow
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
water was so badly polluted by human and
other wastes near the State Capitol that on
occasion even surviving catfish, carp,
and eels swam ashore and died there
in windrows, rather than suffer the torments
of the poisoned river. He had taken graphic
movies of these mass suicides, which were
shown to the legislators. Nevertheless, my
bill died in Committee after assertions by
establishment legislators that its provisions
"would keep business out of Virginia."
The second phase of the effort to protect
Virginia's environment lasted about
five years—from 1969 through 1973—
roughly paralleling the term of office of
Linwood Holton, who succeeded Godwin as
Governor. The new Chief Executive was a
confirmed conservationist, and his inaugu-
ration coincided with a rising tide of con-
cern among Virginians that stronger action
was needed to protect the State's natural
resources. Reflecting this concern, the first
Earth Day was held in Richmond in the
spring of 1970. The conjunction of de-
mands by citizens for environmental action
and a pro-conservation Governor made
these years a golden era from the viewpoint
of environmentalists.
In 1970, my bill to reform the State
Water Control Law was re-introduced and
passed easily. The explanation was simple:
a Federal act now required that much of
the proposed language be enacted as State
law; refusal risked losing Federal grants to
build sewage disposal plants. A parallel bill
to strengthen the State's Air Pollution Con-
trol Law was opposed by the Virginia Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers and by big indus-
try. But at this time business interests were
not well organized, and my legislation car-
ried by a fairly comfortable margin. So did
measures to identify and preserve Virginia
Scenic Rivers, protect wetlands, provide
improved reclamation for areas currently
being surface mined for coal, give statutory
standing to a State Council on the Environ-
ment, establish a Solid Waste Study Com-
mission, and require localities to control
erosion and sedimentation caused by
construction activities.
The third phase in the effort to preserve
Virginia's environment began around 1974
and continues today. It has included the
second term of Mills Godwin as Chief
Executive and the first two years in office of
his successor, John Dalton. Mr. Godwin
gave little indication of any keen personal
interest in conservation, and in his second
term he did not take office with any known
commitment to environmental proposals,
as he had in his first term. In consequence,
he rarely placed the power of the Gover-
nor's office behind any environmental
legislation. One exception was the Toxic
Substances Information Act of 1976 re-
quiring manufacturers of dangerous chem-
icals to register this information with the
State. This Act became necessary after the
story of the Kepone disaster unfolded a year
earlier. The present Chief Executive, John
Dalton, is a keen hunter and outdoorsman,
and could be of great value in support of
environmental legislation.
An anti-environmental backlash
seems to be developing among citizens and
legislators caused in part, perhaps, by
recession, inflation, and escalating fuel
costs. Business opposition is better organ-
ized and in the existing climate it uses cost
arguments effectively against environmen-
tal legislation.
As a result of all these factors, most im-
portant environmental proposals during the
last six years have been defeated. The
casualty list includes a significant State
reorganization plan to establish a separate
Secretary and Department of Natural Re-
sources; a bill to require State approval for
the siting of key facilities; and a measure
to provide State-level protection for so-
called "Critical Environmental Areas"
throughout the State. It is meager comfort
that the General Assembly did manage to
add stretches of several rivers to the Scenic
Rivers System and enact measures requir-
ing localities to improve land use planning
and procedures.
Perhaps the hardest blow was the defeat
by the General Assembly earlier this
year of the proposed Coastal Resources
Management Act, a badly needed measure
to preserve vanishing coastal resources.
The measure had been studied for several
years, a number of public hearings had been
held, and every effort was made to generate
support for it. It was sponsored by an able
senator, and planning and staff work were
excellent.
As originally introduced, it would have
protected from undesirable development
not only dunes and unvegetated wetlands,
but also adjacent "fast lands," so as to
check run-off pollution. The scheme of con-
trol was the same as that already proven
successful in the existing Wetlands Law—
action by local boards to approve or dis-
approve proposed development, with ulti-
mate review and decision authority placed
in a State agency. If enacted in a form satis-
factory to the Federal Office of Coastal
Zone Management, annual grants of up to
$2 million would be available and certain
Federal authority to issue permits affecting
shorelands would be delegated to the
State.
The struggle over this bill was a micro-
cosm of many of the environmental battles
that had taken place in the General Assem-
bly during the preceding decade. In support
were many citizen and environmental
groups and some local governments,
Opposed were developers, builders and
some citizens (who claimed that the meas-
ure would take private property without
compensation), major industries, the State
Chamber of Commerce, agribusiness, and
several local governments.
During legislative consideration, the
measure was revised several times, and in
its final form amounted to an amendment
of the Wetlands Act, adding to its protection
primary dunes and unvegetated wetlands.
If passed in this form, it probably would not
have enabled Virginia to qualify for Federal
grants, but would have allowed delegation
of Federal permit powers to the State. The
Act passed the Senate narrowly, but was
killed by a House Committee 11 -8.
At the final hearing, many opponents
wore large blue buttons bearing the inscrip-
tion "Dunes Yes, Feds No." It was not that
the developers who wore them had any
enthusiasm for protecting the dunes. To
the contrary. What they did want to convey
to legislators was the fact that the Federal
Government supported the bill. The Federal
connection may well have been the final
straw that broke the back of the Coastal
Resources Management Act.
But there will be other sessions and
other proposals, and better days will dawn
for those who seek to protect Virginia's
environment. D
Wild ponies cross a marsh area on Assateague Island on the Virginia coast.
MAY 1 979
-------
A Metropolitan
View
By Walter A. Scheiber
Executive Director,
Metropolitan
Washington, B.C.,
Council of
Governments
The traffic that streams into the Nation's capital each
day is one of many concerns of the Metropolitan Coun-
cil of Governments.
In many respects, the metropolitan re-
gion is the battleground on which the
country's major environmental issues are
being fought out.
In these complex urban areas we find
many of our worst air and water pollution
problems, major water supply deficiencies,
and solid waste disposal crises. These
problems are compounded by population
densities substantially greater than those
in most American communities, and by a
multiplicity of local—and frequently State
—governments which makes decision-
making on all major public issues espe-
cially difficult.
The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area
epitomizes many of the dilemmas which
confront local and State government offi-
cials, as they wrestle with and attempt to
resolve the variety of environmental issues
with which they must deal if they are to
main tain and improve the quality of their
communities. The reward for success may
be economically and socially sound urban
regions; the cost of failure could be
economic decline, social instability, and
the emigration of both population and
business.
The Washington region encompasses the
District of Columbia and parts of Maryland
and Virginia. Its population is slightly in
excess of three million, residing in an area
of approximately three thousand square
miles. Its major industry is the Federal Gov-
ernment, which employs one in every four
workers in the region. It is typical among
American metropolitan areas—among
which it ranks seventh in population—ex-
cept for this significant Federal presence,
and because of the relatively small number
of cities and counties within the metropol-
itan areas. The Washington area consists
of seven counties and fifteen cities, in addi-
tion to the District of Columbia. The New
York region, by contrast, includes some
fourteen hundred units of local govern-
ment; the Chicago region about one
thousand.
The sixteen major local governments of
the Washington region are bound together
by a voluntary muiti-purpose organization,
the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. The Council, founded in
1957 by representatives of the District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, is one
of about two hundred and twenty-five such
associations of cities and counties in urban
areas across the country.
Beginning as an informal luncheon club
open to any local or State official in the
Washington area who was interested in the
exchange of information or in cooperative
EPAJOURNAL
-------
action among the region's local govern-
ments, the Council has grown to an agency
representing 98 percent of the metropolitan
population, with an annual budget of six
million dollars and a permanent staff of one
hundred and fifty. Its local governments
voluntarily contribute almost one million
dollars annually to its support, with the bal-
ance of revenues coming from Federal and
State agencies. Its programs cover a wide
range, including environmental protection,
energy, transportation, land use, public
safety, health services, economic develop-
ment, housing, and human services.
The Council of Governments fills a
variety of roles: as the metropolitan plan-
ning agency, as the organization respon-
sible for review of and comments on appli-
cations for Federal grants, as the forum for
the resolution of policy and program deci-
sions on issues of concern to the metro-
politan area, as a vehicle for cooperative
interjurisdictional projects, as a broker
among conflicting interests. It fills each of
these roles at various times in dealing with
the complex environmental issues which
confront the Washington region.
The Council maintains active programs
in air quality maintenance, water pollu-
tion control, water supply, solid'waste dis-
posal, and noise abatement. Some of these
programs are the result of Federal man-
dates; others were started because of local
needs. All are carried out on a regional
scale by the Council in consultation with
affected local governments. Some are in the
classic regional planning mold; others are
characterized by complex interjurisdic-
tional negotiations over the allocation of
Federal funds. A few involve the Council as
an instrument of intercommunity coopera-
tion; several involve the Council as a ve-
hicle for providing technical assistance to
those local governments which wish it.
The largest and most complex has been
the Council's water quality management
program, funded by EPA over a period of
three years at a level of $3.5 million. The
program brought to the Council a variety of
local aspirations, attitudes toward commu-
nity growth, and willingness to negotiate
highly charged issues involving hundreds
of millions of dollars in potential develop-
ment.
It was complicated by the intransigence
of one major local official who insisted that
the plan include provision for a sixty-
million-gallon-a-day advanced wastewater
treatment plant in his county. When EPA
refused to fund the plant, he sued. The
United States District Court upheld the
Agency. Shortly before leaving office, the
official reduced the proposed size of the
plant to twenty million gallons per day.
There now appears to be a question as to
whether there is a need for any new plant
in the county.
In the meantime, a plan was adopted by
the Council which left the issue open, while
proposing solutions for other significant
pollution questions. Happily, the successor
to that official and several of the succes-
sor's counterparts are more amenable to
negotiations which may lead to an equitable
sharing of the region's sewage treatment
capacity as well as the distribution of its
sludge. The next version of the plan may
well reflect the fruits of their current
deliberations.
The Council's activities in air pollution
control are of longer standing, more far-
ranging, and less fraught with controversy.
Beginning with the development of a model
local air pollution ordinance in 1966 by the
Council and its adoption by all the major
jurisdictions of the region, the Council has
moved into the coordination of an areawide
pollution monitoring system, the develop-
ment of an air quality index (carried dally
on all television newscasts, in the metro-
politan daily newspapers, and on the tele-
phone company's recorded forecasts,
which are heard by 150,000 callers every
day), an air pollution alert system, a trans-
portation control plan for the region com-
pleted in 1974, and the first areawide plan
completed under the terms of the Clean Air
Act of 1977. The Council is now moving
into the continuing phase of the planning
process.
The Council has been involved in issues
of water supply since 1965, two years after
the Corps of Engineers proposed a series of
sixteen dams on the Potomac Riverto pro-
vide an adequate water supply to the re-
gion. The proposal evoked a storm of local
opposition, especial ly with respect to one
dam which would have flooded major por-
tions of one suburban county and parts of a
wealthy community in another. The Coun-
cil spearheaded opposition to these ele-
ments of the plan. In 1966, the Corps
returned with a scaled down version of the
plan, which was promptly dubbed "The Six
Pack" because it encompassed only six of
the original sixteen dams. But by now, local
opposition had solidified, and construction
has actually proceeded on only one of the
sixteen, at Bloomington, Md.
In the summer of 1978, an engineer on
loan to the Council from the staff of the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin, Dr. Daniel Sheer, began ex-
perimenting with a series of mathematical
models containing data about the Potomac
basin and its water supply system. After
several months of work, he developed a
scheme predicated on the construction of
only the dam at Bloomington. He presented
convincing evidence that the region's water
supply could be made adequate simply by
some inter-system connection of current
reservoirs and by better management of
them. Subsequent research has suggested
the possibility that the same result might
be achieved merely by improved reservoir
management without any further connec-
tions.
Thus, Council-sponsored research has
helped bring the area to a much less costly
and capital-intensive solution to a critical
environmental issue.
The Council was also the key vehicle in
the development of an interiurisdictional
sanitary landfill in Fairfax County, Va., a
wealthy suburban county. The landfill
serves that County, as well as the District
of Columbia and Arlington County and
Alexandria, Va. The landfill would not have
come into being except that all four juris-
dictions were concurrently seeking dis-
posal sites because the existing ones were
becoming exhausted or incinerators were
under threat of being shut down because of
clean air measures. The District owned a
large tract in Fairfax suitable as a landfill
which it could not use without the permis-
sion of the latter; Fairfax saw value in the
site for the same purpose but did not own
it. The Council acted as mediator and
broker in bringing the parties together. To-
day a clean and efficient landfill serves all
four jurisdictions on the site.
The Council has also mounted a major
program of noise abatement through tech-
nical assistance to its constituent local
governments, under the supervision of one
of its staff members, Dr. Donna Dickman, a
nationally known authority in the field. The
program has been hailed throughout the
country as a model for other regional
organizations.
Confronting environmental issues on a
regional basis may be logical in geographic
terms, but it poses many questions from a
political and governmental viewpoint. In an
area like Washington, one must face not
only local government fragmentation, but
the differing traditions, constitutions, and
laws of three different State-level jurisdic-
tions. Resolution of difficult environmental
questions can be achieved only through
consensus developed through ihe give-and-
take of elected officials and professionals
representing communities with differing
perspectives, goals, resources, and values.
To do so requires political skill, timing,
solid professional background work—and
a consistent commitment to sound environ-
mental goals: To the extent that these qual-
ities are present, as they are in the Wash-
ington area, there is real hope for the
alleviation of the Nation's urban environ-
mental problems. ED
MAY 1979
27
-------
By Douglas M. Costle
EPA Administrator
Along with my predecessors
at EPA, I am willing to
take considerable punishment
in a good cause. But there does
come a day when you tire of
taking abuse because it's easier
to calculate the costs than the
benefits in environmental
cleanup.
Accordingly, late in 1976,
EPA commissioned a team of
economists to investigate the
health benefits of air pollution
control.
The interim results of their
study—two years into a three-
year project—are now being
released. Together with other
data, the findings indicate that
dollar-benefits flowing from
reduced mortality and sickness
—and hence more time on the
job—are substantially greater
than the costs of controlling air
pollution from power plants,
factories, and other stationary
sources. Further, the study in-
dicates there are solid eco-
nomic benefits from improved
visibility.
I will cite the dollar-figures
later. First, I'd like to tell you
how the researchers arrived at
them. Their methods display
considerable ingenuity, and
illustrate fresh approaches from
the still-young field of environ-
mental economics. One ap-
proach has to do with health-
benefits. The second has to do
with the relationship between
air pollution and property
values.
For the first section of the
study, on health benefits, the
researchers explored both
death-rates and sickness-rates
associated with air pollution.
They analyzed death-rates from
major diseases in 60 U.S. cities.
They also analyzed statistics on
more than 30 factors that affect
EPAJOURNAL
-------
mortality rates, including occu-
pation, medical care, cigarette
smoking, race, age, diet, and air
pollution.
Through this process, the re-
searchers were able—by well-
known techniques of statistical
analysis—to isolate the health-
effect of air pollution alone on
the entire U.S. urban popula-
tion. This effect was expressed
as a dose-response relation-
ship: sifliply put, the increased
number of deaths resulting from
each increase in air pollution. ,
The findings indicate that the
effect of air pollution death-
rates has been overestimated in
the past. On the other hand, its
effect on sickness-rates has
been underestimated.
This finding posed a new set
of questions: how often do
people get sick because of pol-
luted air? How often does such
sickness prevent them from
working—either at an income-
producing occupation, in a fac-
tory, or at a value-producing
occupation, in the home? And
what is the total of wages and
values lost through such sick-
ness?
To investigate such ques-
tions the researchers needed
highly specific information on a
small but fairly representative
sample of Americans. They
found it at the Survey Research
Center at the University of
Michigan; the Center was able
to provide detailed data—
almost diaries—on the daily
lives, work, health, and budgets
for 5,000 heads of households,
dating back to 1968.
These data showed a strong
correlation between days lost
from chronic illness and air
pollution levels. A detailed sta-
tistical analysis allowed the
researchers to estimate how
much of the sickness was
caused by air pollution, and
how much by other factors such
as cigarette-smoking and diet.
And the income figures, finally,
permitted them to calculate
time and wages lost because of
air pollution. They concluded
that /fthe Nation could reduce
air pollution levels by 60 per-
cent, we would realize benefits
of $36 billion a year.
We have not reduced pollu-
tion-levels that far yet; that is
the target we are shooting at for
the 1980's. But we have made
progress toward that goal. Be-
tween 1970 and 1977, air-
pollution controls reduced air
particulates by 12 percent.
Interpolating the research re-
sults indicates that a 12 percent
reduction—a reduction not only
in pollution but in sickness—is
saving us S8 billion a year in
workers' wages and produc-
tivity.
Even this figure, substantial
as it is, does not take into ac-
count a number of other bene-
fits we have already experi-
enced. It does not, for instance,
take account of the fact that air
pollution levels would have
risen higher since 1970 without
pollution control laws. Thus
total benefits include not only
those from cleaning up the air,
but those from preventing fur-
ther deterioration . .. and it is
likely that the prevention is
worth at least as much as the
actual improvement.
Nor do the study results in-
clude many other types of dam-
age caused by air pollution:
lower crop yields on farms in
polluted areas; damages to ma-
terials as they are eaten away
by acidic pollutants; or the cost
of more frequent repainting of
houses in dirty areas.
For years now, the public has
been saying—and the opinion
'polls confirm—that it wants
cleaner air... not necessarily
for any specific economic bene-
fit, but because it just plain
wants it. A second part of the
air-quality study tested the
strength of that desire ... and
it found that people do, indeed,
place a monetary value on en-
vironmental considerations that
have traditionally been consid-
ered intangible. They are will-
ing, in sum, to put their money
where their mouths are.
The researchers arrived at
that conclusion in two ways:
through interviews with home-
owners in the Los Angeles area,
and through the comparison of
the selling prices on homes in
the area that were comparable
in all respects but one: smog
levels.
The interview method—con-
ducted with an ingenious series
of maps and views illustrating
various levels of smog—indi-
cated that Los Angeles resi-
dents would pay $650 million
per year for a 30 percent im-
provement in air quality. That
averages out to $350 per
household.
Such estimates by individ-
uals, no matter how painstak-
ingly arrived at, are always
suspect. So the researchers
compared these estimates with
actual selling prices. Through
this method, they determined
that 30 percent better air quality
brought an annual value of $950
million—an average of $500
per house. In effect, far from
overestimating the worth of
cleaner air and higher visibility,
people in Los Angeles are pay-
ing more for it than they said
they would.
I have no illusions that this
pioneering air-quality study will
turn the cost-benefit argument
around, and convert the critics
of environmental protection into
ardent advocates. This new
study requires considerable re-
finement before being used as a
policy-making tool. We realize
that the study has serious short-
comings, and so—as they em-
phasize again and again—do
the authors.
But we are sufficiently con-
fident in the study's techniques
and conclusions to assert that
the pollution-control invest-
ments we have made on station-
ary sources so far are paying
their own way. Moreover, we
believe that this study is among
the first of many to come that
will enable us to defend envi-
ronmental protection on the
ground of the good things that
are happening, rather than to
argue for it because of the bad
things that are happening.
I will do my best, as head of
EPA and the Regulatory Coun-
cil, to make sure that every reg-
ulation pays its own way in
terms of avoiding risk and pro-
viding benefit.
But I will also do my best to
prevent faulty cost-benefit argu-
ments, based on deficient
economics and stacked in favor
of polluters, from reversing the
repair work we have begun on
our national home. We can pay
for that repair work now, at sub-
stantial economic cost and
national inconvenience. Or we
can pay for it later—at much
greater cost.
We have made the right
choice. Let's pay now. D
Excerpts from a speech by
Costle March 29, 1979. before
the Women's National Demo-
cratic Club in Washington, D.C.
MAY 1979
29
-------
A City Manager's View
A city's philosophy is not easily prac-
ticed. The City of Spokane sub-
scribes to an integrated approach to envi-
ronmental problems, as do most cities, but
our structure, traditions, and resulting
actions are not always in accord with that
philosophy. Our recent contract with Re-
gion 10, Environmental Protection Agency,
for "Environmental Coordinator" staffing
provides one way to adjust our structure
and resolve that gap.
The Contract
The contract is simply a written agreement
between EPA Regional Administrator Don
Dubois and Spokane Mayor Ron Bair,
approved by the City Council. It provides
for our employment of an EPA career staff
member as the city's Environmental Co-
ordinator. The arrangement is made pos-
sible for a limited term without loss of
Federal career rights by the Intergovern-
mental Personnel Act.
The agreement covers three steps: (1)
identify local environmental problem areas,
(2) assign responsibilities or determine
obstacles to solution, and (3) establish the
role of the Environmental Coordinator.
EPA's Region 1 0 hopes to arrange similar
contracts this summer with Portland,
Seattle, and Boise.
The numerous other agencies involved
in local environmental control are not direct
participants in the contract, but certainly
play a vital role. While the list is extensive,
the structure of our local agencies is prob-
ably less complex than that of many
metropolitan areas.
The Start-up
As of this writing we have 45 days experi-
ence with the contract. Dan Robison,
formerly a senior staff level engineer with
EPA's State liaison office, was hired. We
began with certain guidelines and minor
problems have appeared. A listing of these
may assist others to avoid our problems.
We followed three guidelines:
(1) The Environmental Coordinator is to
be treated like any other city department
head, including involvement in staff meet-
ings and the social activities of the man-
agement staff.
(2) This position is not to be hidden in
the bureaucracy—we seek active involve-
ment with City Council and advisory
boards, provide open press access and
recently included Robison in our contin-
gent attending the National League of Cities
Congressional Conference.
(3) We began with contact with other
agencies for explanation of the arrange-
ment and to learn their roles and view-
points.
By Terry L. Novak
City Manager, Spokane, Wash.
Two difficulties arose. The local media
are sensitive to environmental issues and,
for their own reasons, sought to "hype" the
arrangement. One headline read "Ecology
Champion on Duty" and various stories
tempted us to cancel his authorization for
travel expense, since it was apparent he
could simply don his cape and fly from
place to place.
The other local agencies involved in
environmental management understand-
ably became concerned. While at first sur-
prised, I can now see how we also would
be concerned if another agency suddenly
became more activist, went in league with
the "Feds" and hired Superman.
If we were to begin anew we wou Id con-
sciously seek more moderation in the press
coverage (to the degree that is controllable)
and make careful pre-arrival contacts to
explain the program to the other actors in
the local environmental drama.
Nonetheless, the arrangement has been
successful to date, largely because of
Robison's professional and personal
qualifications.
The Social-Political Dynamics
Our involvement in this agreement repre-
sents recognition that environmental prob-
lems are connected, that all local agencies
of government are involved, and that Spo-
kane must actively relate to other agencies
and coordinate our own departments—it
won't automatically happen.
We also recognize that much lack of
coordination arises because of problems in
interpersonal relations and stereotyped
thinking. We must actively seek under-
standing and empathy among the parties.
As public administrators, EPA and the City
also recognize the importance of staff
development and see this temporary as-
signment as an excellent career develop-
ment tool for Robison.
The roles we hope he will fill include:
(1) Help us recognize and resolve the
inter-program conflicts and coordination
requirements of the various Federal, State,
and local activities. We have a classic
example in the effect of the Air Pollution
Control Authority's parking lot paving reg-
ulations on the urban runoff problem. We
also have highlighted the possible schedul-
ing conflict between construction of the
North Spokane sewer system (flowing to
the central city's treatment plant) and the
City's own storm sewer separation project.
(2) Help us become more sensitive to
the needs and roles of the other agencies.
This is an educational process, especially
in regard to the growing role of the Regional
Planning Conference and the fiscal and
legislative background of the City-County
competition which unfortunately arises.
(3) Translate. The 180,000 citizens of
Spokane are served by seven non-partisan,
part-time City Council members who are
well-qualified in their individual pursuits,
but do not specialize in environmental man-
agement. They and the various lay advisory
boards quite understandably go blank when
we tell them, "The CSO project, using W
percent MBE, with aid from EPA and WDE.
will provide BPT in accord with the SMS A's
208 study pursuant to our 201 plan."
Similarly the media need help in translat-
ing our activity so the citizens will under-
stand, and fund, the programs. Excavating
220 miles of streets to separate storm
from sanitary sewers will cause wholesale
trauma unless people understand the
reasons for doing it.
(4) Help us expand our horizons to see
the environmental aspects of other State
and Federal programs. Environmental man-
agement opportunities are available in
transportation planning, energy conserva-
tion activities, and many other Federal
grant or regulation programs. But we must
actively search these out.
These four needs have not been met in
the past and the city itself is partly at fault,
largely for structural reasons. We suffer
from the usual ills of departmentalization;
the Council and general management staff
have great difficulty keeping long-range
problems in mind amidst dog control com-
plaints and neighborhood zoning conflicts;
city government suffers from an excess of
legalism and is open to litigation on mul-
tiple fronts. The local media are highly
competitive but have insufficient time or
space to cover stories thoroughly. They
thus highlight the unique and "catchy,"
avoiding the dull but often important
stories. As members of the oldest and
largest focal agency, our employees tend
to regard newer and smaller ones with
skepticism and less than complete candor.
This structure—shared by most cities—
tends to cause us to operate on a short-term
time frame and not recognize the connec-
tions between the various programs. We
also tend to shun our responsibility to
monitor the work of specialists and
consultants. Our structure and traditions
support such practices, in direct opposition
to the philosophy we avow.
Thus the need for structural adjust-
ments. Our arrangement with EPA Region
10 is a strong first step in making those
changes, rj
30
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Environmental Almanac: May 1979
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
The Gull's Way
One of the most efficient
scavengers in many of the
world's large cities are the
graceful and remarkable gulls.
In the Washington area hun-
dreds of these winged sanitar-
ians, ring-billed and herring
gulls, will be consuming the
scraps of fried potatoes, hot
dogs and other food dropped by
swelling swarms of tourists now
arriving at the Capital.
The gull is one of those wild
creatures that have learned not
only to adjust to humans but to
thrive on our wasteful habits.
In addition to helping to clean
up picnic grounds, gulls also
forage at ocean and lake beaches
and devour anything edible at
municipal waste dumps.
Indeed the easy availability
of garbage and other wastes in
cities has helped some local
gull populations explode.
Laughing gulls often patrol the
boardwalk in Atlantic City, N.J.,
and their high-pitched cackles
bring a note of levity to the melan-
choly scene of vacant and dying
old hotels. The crowds attracted
by the new gambling operations
in Atlantic City may well help
provide fresh food wastes for
these gulls.
In the Pacific Ocean, gulls
have been so successful in
stealing herring from loaded
scows en route to processing
plants that commercial fisher-
men must cover the fish with
nets to keep the gulls from
making off with their catch.
Gulls fly aerial cover over
many of the summer ferry boats
sailing to resorts such as Nan-
tucket Island. Some passengers
hold food in their hands which
is quickly snatched by the
screaming and apparently in-
satiable gulls.
Port cities like Boston and
New York often have large pop-
ulations of gulls because of
wastes from fish processing
plants.
At airports congregations of
gulls and other birds sometimes
cause accidents. Gulls have
been sucked into jet engines. An
Inter-Agency Bird Committee
appointed a few years ago to
deal with this problem found
that the best solution would be
proper management of the en-
vironment around the airports:
No open garbage dumps and no
untreated sewage discharge
nearby to attract the birds.
While high-flying commer-
cial airline flights are occasion-
ally bothered by birds on take-
offs and landings, military
planes which skim the ground
find gulls and other birds a more
serious threat.
The U.S. Air Force is cur-
rently having a study made on
how it can route its planes to
reduce the number of collisions
with birds.
While gulls can be a prob-
lem, they can also be helpful. In
Utah, for example, the crops of
the first pioneers were saved by
gulls which flew from their nest-
ing grounds around the Great
Salt Lake to eat hordes of in-
vading grasshoppers.
Although gulls are now flour-
ishing, in the 1 890's herring
gulls were in danger of exter-
mination in America.
Gull nests were often robbed
of their eggs. The gulls them-
selves were frequently shot for
their feathers which would be
used in ladies' hats.
The conservation movement
helped to save these gulls. The
fate of gulls and human beings
appears to be linked. When gull
populations boom it is often be-
cause of the extra food provided
by the untidy ways of people.
Our relationship with gulls
was described well by the noted
naturalist Henry Beston when
he wrote of all wild creatures:
"They are not brethren, they
are not underlings; they are
other nations, caught with our-
selves in the net of life and time,
fellow prisoners of the splen-
dor and travail of the earth."
—C.D.P.
MAY 1979
31
-------
The City
link
By Alan Seals
Executive Director,
National League
of Cities
Cities are the essential link in the
effort to provide a clean and healthy
environment for all Americans.
Environmental problems, like other
national problems, are ultimately felt at
the local level. Air pollution, water pollu-
tion, and growing amounts of solid waste
affect the air we breathe and the water we
drink, wherever we live, work, and play.
These environmental problems are not lim-
ited to cities, but they are most certainly
intensified by the concentration of people,
transportation, and industry in our urban
areas.
In the nearly ten years since the estab-
lishment of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the environments of many Ameri-
can cities have shown steady and measur-
able improvement. In most cities, according
to the Council on Environmental Quaiity,
the two most troublesome air pollutants—
photochemical oxidants and carbon monox-
ide—have been reduced and other air pollu-
tion problems have been eased.. But there's
a long way to go. Hardly a major city in the
country could meet the national ozone (or
smog) standard before it was relaxed
earlier this year, and many still cannot.
Data on water pollution have not been
collected for as many years as data on air
pollution, but the figures that are available
indicate that water quality has been im-
proved in many specific places and that the
trend, so far as it can be measured, is
positive.
But again, there is much yet to be done.
Industrial discharges affect 72 percent of
the river basins in the country; the Mahon-
ing River, for example, running through
Warren and Youngstown, Ohio, shows in-
creasing amounts of lead, zinc, phenols,
and other toxic industrial pollutants. Urban
stormwater and urban, agricultural, and
construction runoff are major sources of
pollution and are harder to control than
municipal and industrial pollution.
Solid wastes are another prime environ-
mental problem in urban areas. Industrial
waste is increasing at about 3 percent a
year, sludge from municipal waste water
treatment is increasing, and residential and
commercial solid waste hit 1 30 million
metric tons in 1 976. Among these wastes
are many hazardous or toxic substances
that threaten the health and life of count-
less people unless properly handled.
The American public is acutely aware
of the environmental problems that plague
us, and is clearly concerned. A recent tele-
phone survey by Resources for the Future
showed that three out of four people sur-
veyed at random felt that air and water
pollution were serious problems, and a Gal-
lup poll conducted for the National League
of Cities last year indicated similar feel-
ings about local pollution problems. The
survey by Resources for the Future also
indicated that the American public is all
for cleaning up the environment—regard-
less of the cost.
Local officials share these concerns. Like
the people who live in our urban areas, the
officials who govern them want clean air
and water. But they must balance those
concerns against many others. They must
consider the effect that environmental pro-
tection strategies will have on traffic pat-
terns, land use, housing, economic develop-
ment, trash collection, sewer systems. They
must consider the cost of these strategies;
while the public support for environmental
improvement at any cost shows up clearly
in the surveys, it does not always manifest
itself at the ballot box.
Achieving our environmental goals is
not impossible. It will, however, require
very delicate balancing of many apparently
opposing forces by national policymakers
and administrators, State leaders and ad-
ministrators, and by loca! officials. Environ-
mental regulations will have to have real-
istic goals—goals high enough to protect
the natural environment and human health,
yet not so high as to severely impair the
local economy on which people depend for
jobs, incomes, products, and services.
These balances are already beginning to
show up in environmental regulations. The
offset provisions of the clean air regula-
tions are a good example. By allowing an
area to use pollution reductions by one
source to offset emissions by another, they
should assure acceptable air quality while
allowing economic growth.
It is, after all, at the local level that
Federal environmental programs must ulti-
mately work. City officials are committed
to helping make them work.
City officials know—as they have said
in the National Municipal Policy adopted
each year by the National League of Cities
—that environmental problems are most
acute in our urban society.
They know—and they have said so
many times—that a national problem can-
not be solved at the local level without
involving loca! government. There are
signs that this message is getting through.
Increasing Federal decentralization is shift-
ing more decisions and responsibilities to
State and local governments, in effect put-
ting the solution closer to the problem.
But where Federal or State legislation,
standards, and programs are involved, local
governments must be given the opportunity
to help develop the standards, the time, and
tools with which to meet them, and the
flexibility to choose the most appropriate
way to do the job. Local governments must
be able to weigh the economic, social,
energy, and environmental costs and bene-
fits of a range of strategies in order to find
the approaches that meet the individual
needs of each city and town.
Local officials know, however, that there
are no boundary lines for pollution. Air
and water are constantly moving, and one
area's emissions soon become some other
area's problems. This means that planning
for environmental improvement must be
done on a regional, and sometimes state-
wide basis. Local officials, however, insist
that they be part of that planning, not just
the beneficiaries—and sometimes the vic-
tims—of it.
One basic idea that local officials feel
should be part of environmental planning
is that pollution is ideally controlled at its
source. Indirect controls should only be
used when it is clear that direct controls
aren't feasible.
There are a couple of simple reasons
behind this preference. One is that the
closer to the source pollution is con trolled,
the less it will cost to control it—less in
terms of the control strategy itself, and less
in terms of the environmental costs. The
other reason is that controlling pollution
at the source puts the burden where it
belongs—on the polluter.
There are a number of ways to do this.
The many machines upon which our society
depends—the automobiles, factories,
power plants, and others—can be made
to add less to environmental pollution. A
variety of economic incentives and price
adjustments could be used to discourage
waste and pollution and encourage effi-
ciency and environmental protection.
These same methods could help distribute
the costs of clean air and water equitably.
And if incentives won't work, regulations
might.
Throughout all these efforts, city offi-
cials must balance many environmental
goals, just as they must balance environ-
mental goals with many other concerns.
If local, Federal, and State officials, the
private sector, and individual citizens
can achieve and maintain this balance, we
can, I am certain, enjoy a clean and
healthy urban environment. It is one of
the major challenges of our time, and one
that will have long term effects. For unlike
the early settlers of this country, who were
faced with making the best of what they
found, we must find ways to deal with the
environment we have made. D
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The County
Link
By Bernard-F. Hillenbrand
Executive Director, National
Association of Counties
King County, the largest local govern-
ment in the State of Washington, is
one of many county governments manag-
ing growth and providing a variety of
services all aimed at protecting public
health and making their surroundings more
livable.
In 1977, King County launched an
ambitious campaign to fight water pollu-
tion from rural and urban run-off, and to
better manage the surface and ground
water resources within the county. In 1 978,
the county government developed a pro-
gram for purchasing development rights to
valuable farmland such as the one first
used in Suffolk County, N.Y. Voter approval
for the King County program will be sought
during 1979.
Studies are now underway by the King
County council and administration to
develop a strategy for creating new eco-
nomic opportunities in urbanized areas, to
complement agricultural land protection.
America's counties offer a unique and
real opportunity in many parts of the coun-
try to manage growth or decline, to
encourage energy conservation and alter-
native sources of energy, and to provide a
healthier, more fulfilling environment.
Once thought of as administrative sub-
divisions of State governments, counties
in most States have adopted or have been
legislated the powers of general purpose
local government. They have three impor-
tant attributes which equip them to meet
environmental problems. First they are
areawide in character, serving rural, urban,
and suburban citizens. Though watersheds
and airsheds respect county boundaries no
more than State boundaries, there is at
least a greater opportunity to meet these
challenges because of the wide expanses
of land and water governed by many
county governments.
Second, counties throughout the Nation
have been traditionally responsible for
guarding public health. County health
departments have not only provided human
health services but have mandated respon-
sibility for environmental health protection.
Third, in many areas, governmental
services are being elevated from smaller
municipalities and service districts to
counties.
In 1976 for instance, 75 percent of the
change in the solid waste function in the
United States resulted in a shift of that
responsibility from cities to county
governments.
A survey of county government responsi-
bilities published by the National Associa-
tion of Counties in 1 977 showed that
county governments provide the full range
of environmental services. Growth man-
agement and land use control authorities
exercised by a range of county govern-
ments provide a strong context for
protecting important nai jral resources and
abating air and water pollution.
Collection and disposal of solid waste
is the most significant environmental
service of county governments. Seventy
percent of the reporting counties indicated
that they were responsible for disposal,
60 percent on a countywide basis.
The 1977 survey a Iso reported that over
half of all counties conducted programs for
controlling drainage, soil erosion, and
related non-point source water pollution.
Fifty-four percent of all counties with
populations over 250,000 had responsi-
bility for sewage treatment and 30 percent
of all counties conducted activities aimed
at controlling water pollution of all kinds.
Fifty-seven percent of counties over
250,000 population conducted air pollu-
tion control efforts.
Regulating land use and development is
a major function clearly supported by
survey results. Two-thirds of all counties
surveyed said that they conducted compre-
hensive planning programs. An identical
number administered zoning and subdivi-
sion regulations. More than 800 counties
in the United States employ or retain the
services of professional planners. In
coastal areas where natural resources and
development come most vividly into con-
flict, over 90 percent of all reporting
counties are participating in some form of
coastal zone management.
The economics of solid waste manage-
ment, resource recovery and recycling,
water supplies, and sewage treatment is
likely to result in increasing transfer of
these functions.
Environmental Protection in
Palm Beach County
In 1 970, the County Commissioners of
Palm Beach County, Fla., enacted the
Environmental Control Act for management
of the county's environmental protection ef-
forts. The Act establishes a comprehensive
program for enforcement of air and water
pollution control standards, sewage treat-
ment, drinking water quality, and solid
waste disposal. Action by the Commis-
sioners was based on the belief that State
and Federal environmental agencies lacked
the time and resources to apply environ-
mental protection iaws effectively within
the county. The county is now considering
the approval of safe drinking water regula-
tions more strict than State or Federal
standards.
Pioneering environmental management
efforts by four counties have begun to
solve major water pollution problems for
wide areas of New York, Wisconsin, and
Delaware.
The San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District is leading efforts to com-
plete revision in clean air implementation
plans for transportation related pollutants.
It is already enforcing a county-wide
hydrocarbon vapor recovery program at
gasoline stations and other sources. It has
identified existing polluters for cleaning
up and offsetting pollution from new de-
velopment and it serves as the principal
monitoring and stationary control agency
for the area.
Counties and the National
Environmental Partnership
National air and water quality and solid
waste management programs rest on
Federal enforcement, technical criteria,
and financial resources to meet major
environmental public health threats. State
governments administer these programs,
assist with enforcement, and sometimes
contribute to meeting the financial burden.
Counties, cities, and other local agencies
ultimately build sewage treatment plants,
implement best management practices,
institute control measures, and assure
consistency with land use and growth
policies. To do this they make financial
investments and political commitments
often beyond the knowledge of Federal
agencies.
The Federal Clean Water Act's Section
208 water quality management program is
moving from a long period of planning to
implementation, though best management
practices and other implementation actions
are already underway in many county and
local jurisdictions. The history of 208
planning illustrates the need for relying on
local political leadership and going beyond
planning to adoption of management ac-
tions at the earliest possible stage. County
and other local government actions to close
open dumps and meet hazardous waste
disposal problems would profit from the
208 experience by cutting whatever plan-
ning is necessary to the minimum and pro-
ceeding to close or upgrade landfills and
hazardous dumps to meet public health
requirements.
National environmental programs and
the partnership envisioned by the Congress
will be successful only if the Federal Gov-
ernment and the States understand that as
in Palm Beach County, they neither have
the resources nor the understanding to
make these programs work in every com-
munity throughout the Nation. The next
decade must witness a commitment to
placing financial resources and respon-
sibility at the county and city level in order
to build on successes already underway. D
MAY 1979
33
-------
Building
Cooperation
By William Hedeman
Director, Office of Environmental Review
Phosphate processing.
The use of commercial fertilizer on agri-
culture crops saves the U.S. public $17
billion a year or about $70 a person.
Phosphorus is one of the two elements that
arethe main ingredients of most fertilizers.
Nitrogen is the other. Eighty percent of the
U.S. and 33 percent of the world produc-
tion of phosphorus comes from the phos-
phate rock that is mined in an area of cen-
tral Florida about 50 miles in diameter near
Orlando. Production there is expected to
increase by 7 percent a year through the
year 2000.
The product of the phosphate mining and
manufacturing industry is also its principal
pollutant. The phosphorus that helps agri-
cultural crops also promotes the algae
build-up in rivers and streams that causes
eutrophication. Phosphorus and fluoride,
another pollutant from the Florida phos-
phate mines, also contain trace quantities
of materials that emit low-level radiation.
These pollutants and their impact on the
environment have been the subject of much
controversy. Added to the pollution issue is
the destruction of wetlands and other sen-
sitive ecosystems. The Clean Water Act
requires that a water pollution discharge
permit be issued by EPA for discharges
from all new phosphate mines and manu-
facturing facilities. The National Environ-
mental Policy Act further requires that EPA
consider all environmental concerns in its
decision-making process.
To meet its responsibilities, EPA Region
4 has prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) covering much of central
Florida. It is an overall environmental plan
for the continued mining and manufactur-
ing of phosphate rock. The region has suc-
cessfully involved local and State govern-
ments, other Federal agencies, the phos-
phate industry, citizens' groups, and
individual citizens.
The areawide EIS approach that pro-
duced EPA's plan for central Florida is not
only an improvement over the conventional
methods for environmental analysis of
industrial growth areas but it also involves
much less regulatory agency and industry
time and paperwork. The areawide ap-
proach provides a base from which to esti-
mate the regional significance of the phos-
phate mining and a guide for consistent
pollution limits to avoid an accumulation
of environmental problems.
Without the areawide approach, each
local environmental statement would
first analyze the existing environment and
EPA JOURNAL
-------
then the effects of the new discharge on
that environment. There would be duplicate
collection of data and analyses. With an
areawide EIS, much of the data collection
and analysis has been completed. There-
fore, the evaluation of the unique problems
of a new mine or processing plant in a local-
ized EIS will no^ require as much time or
resources. The information already in the
statewide EIS can be tapped in the localized
study.
The Florida phosphate environmental
impact statement considered mining devel-
opment in seven Florida counties. Region 4
solved the problem of surveying the envi-
ronment of such a large area by using
newly-developed remote sensing tech-
niques. It also applied aerial photographic
interpretation methods similar to those
used in forestry. Then, to standardize the
facts for decisions, the information was
analyzed by a mathematical method
developed by the U.S. Geological Survey.
EPA's Office of Environmental Review is
drafting new regulations for EIS preparation
which we hope will promote the use of the
areawide EIS in more Regions. These state-
ments not only provide environmental facts
in a form that can be easily used for better
decisions under the National Environmental
Policy Act, but also give EPA the chance to
make better judgments with greater public
participation without creating unnecessary
delays.
Region 4's areawide impact statement
was triggered by the concern expressed by
Florida citizens groups, local governments,
and State agencies over the planned devel-
opment of the State's phosphate resources.
The phosphate industry was a!so concerned
with environmental issues and how they
would affect its continued growth.
EPA found that there was also Federal
interest in the Florida phosphate industry.
In addition to the permit responsibility of
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Departments of Interior and Agriculture
were interested in obtaining facts to help
judge mining and reclamation practices for
phosphate mines that may be located on
leased Federal land.
To encourage the greatest possible
public, interagency, and industry participa-
tion in the drafting of the statement. Region
4 set up a steering committee with repre-
sentatives from five Federal agencies and
the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.
EPA also named an advisory committee
of representatives from the seven counties
in the study area, the Florida Audubon
Society, the Southwest Florida Water Man-
agement District, and the Florida Phosphate
Council. Public meetings were scheduled
and, during the drafting of the EIS, eleven
newsletters were mailed to 300 interested
citizens and groups in the study area.
Through the work of the steering com-
mittee and the advisory committee, five
environmental control/industrial growth
alternatives were developed and environ-
mental consequences of each were
evaluated.
The result was a recommended approach
that will allow permit applicants with plans
consistent with the areawide EIS to incor-
porate by reference the information con-
tained in the areawide statement. If the
applicant wants to deviate from the area-
wide EIS plan, the localized EIS would
have to analyze the effects of granting the
permit on the entire central Florida area.
The approach will allow the Regional
Office to respond more efficiently to permit
actions. This is not at the expense of envi-
ronmental protection, which has been
strengthened through an integrated analy-
sis of both areawide and cumulative im-
pacts. This increased protection could not
have been accomplished through a permit-
by-permit approach.
The Areawide Environmental Impact
Statement on the central Florida phosphate
industry, now in final form, provides a
framework of decisions within which indus-
try can plan its growth. It is based on public
analysis involving all interested sectors:
the industry, regulatory agencies, environ-
mentalists, and the public.
Encouraged by the support and success
of the Florida phosphate EIS, Region 4 has
begun a similar project in eastern Kentucky.
for coal mining. Many new source permits
for water pollution discharge wili be re-
quired. All permits issued will involve an
environmental review though not all will
necessarily need an EIS.
The areawide study for eastern Kentucky
will provide data on the existing environ-
ment, to help determine when an EIS is
needed for a specific project. It will locate
any environmentally critical areas in the
State so that all proposals for development
in those areas can be identified and
adequately evaluated.
The study involves 10,500 square miles
and all or part of 34 Kentucky counties.
Plans include a massive photo interpreta-
tion, literature search, and ground survey
effort to properly inventory the area for
existing mining activities; current land use;
and water, biological, geo-environmental,
and cultural resources.
The project is being guided by a task
force consisting of representatives from the
coal industry, environmental groups, and
State and Federal agencies. The site work
will be a cooperative effort involving the
Kentucky Natural Preserves Commission,
EPA's Environmental Photographic Inter-
pretation Center, and private contractors.
Use of remote sensing will improve the
detail and accuracy of the data base at
lower cost to EPA.
Like Region 4, Region 3 is faced with
problems and decisions on coal min-
ing and has also gone to an areawide EIS
approach similar to that being used in
Kentucky, with some key variations.
Region 3 expects to receive more than 300
permit applications a year for coal mines in
West Virginia. Many of the applications
wil! be for discharges from small surface
mines, which may operate for less than
a year.
EPA needed a method to expedite the
granting of permits because delays could
not only harm the development of energy
resources in the Eastern United States but
could also have a disruptive influence on
the economy of West Virginia, the second
largest coal producer in the Nation.
Region 3 also is required by the National
Environmental Policy Act to undertake
environmental reviews of the permits.
To resolve these competing require-
ments, the Region undertook a statewide
study designed to document the scope of
the problem and develop and consider
alternative approaches for meeting environ-
mental review requirements. Region 3
considered existing and projected mining
activity, the impact of coal mining on sen-
sitive environmental resources, and alter-
native environmental review strategies, and
concluded that areawide studies of select-
ed locations were the best approach.
The first areas picked for study were the
Gauley and Monongaheia River valleys,
3,635 and 7,340 square miles respectively.
Rather than just a draft and final EIS. a
preliminary environmental impact study
was developed to highlight those locations
within the river valleys that require the most
extensive environmental analysis in the
EIS draft. This approach is encouraged in
the new Council on Environmental Quality
regulations and is called scoping. The area-
wide statements, when completed, will
locate those specific sites that wil! be best
suited to coal mining, those requiring addi-
tional detailed environmental analysis, and
those unsuited to mining.
The work in West Virginia, like that in
Florida and Kentucky, is designed to pro-
duce an EIS that allows better and faster
environmental decisions. The EPA regions
are already seeing improvements in effi-
ciency in issuing permits without a sacrifice
in environmental protection. The public and
industry have been better served by greater
opportunities for their input into decision
making. Meanwhile, the coordinated, area-
wide approach to the EIS is achieving a
reduction in unneeded paperwork and more
accuracy in data gathering and analysis. D
MAY 1979
35
-------
Around the Nation
Utility to Burn Coal
Region 1 plans to approve
a revision to the Massa-
chusetts clean air plan,
which will allow the Bray-
ton Point power plant in
Somerset, Mass., to burn
coal. The plant, operated
by the New England
Power Company, will
voluntarily convert from
fuel oil to coal beginning
in 1981 and should have
all three units converted
by 1983. Regional Admin-
istrator William R. Adams
said that the plant would
be permitted to burn coal
with a maximum sulfur
content of 1.5 percent,
equivalent to the sulfur
content of the fuel oil it
burns now. This wilf elim-
inate the need for costly
scrubbers and will protect
overall air quality. The
coal conversion offers
economic benefits. The
Department of Energy
estimates fuel cost sav-
ings may be as high as
$31 million per year.
Through the Fuel Adjust-
ment Clause on electric
bills, customers in Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island,
and New Hampshire could
save money. The power
plant at Brayton Point
burns about 12 million
barrels of residual oil per
year. Coal conversion
there will diversify the
fuels burned to generate
electric power in New
England and will reduce
the dependence on im-
ported oil by as much as
17 percent. Over a
twenty-year period this
conversion to coal could
divert almost $3 billion in
fuel expenditures from
foreign countries to the.
United States.
Legislators
Region 2 Administrator
Chris Beck spoke recently
to New York State legisla-
tors about hazardous
waste problems. He told
the Assembly's Environ-
mental Conservation
Committee, "As sure as
we are sitting here, this
State's going to find a lot
more landfills leaching.
The solution is not just
removing the people tem-
porarily, as was done at
Love Canal, but, who is
going to pay and how we
are going to clean things
up. "He said that EPA is
investigating alternative
funding measures such as
developing a "superfund"
from industrial contribu-
tions to pay some emer-
gency clean-up expenses.
Lawsuits against the pol-
luters could help pay the
balance of the bill. Mean-
while, Beck cautioned the
Committee, "You have to
act, you have to make
appropriations. At the
Love Canal, the State has
done a hell of a job. But
you will be in the cauldron
for some time."
Love Canal
New York State has tem-
porarily relocated chil-
dren under two years of
age and pregnant women
from a four-block area ad-
jacent to the original Love
Canal evacuation zone,
following confirmation by
the State Department of
Health that toxic chemi-
cals are continuing to
leach beyond the evacua-
tion zone. The State al-
ready has moved at least
326 families. Work is pro-
ceeding on design and
construction of a collec-
tion system to lower the
water table and drain off
the chemical leachate that
has invaded the base-
ments of homes on each
side of the Canal. This
work has been completed
on the lower third of the
site. An EPA demonstra-
tion grant of $4 million
combined with a $4 mil-
lion State grant will pay to
complete the system. The
funds also will finance
leachate treatment, mon-
itoring and epidemiologi-
cal studies, and possible
rehabilitation and land-
use alternatives.
any inspection and main-
tenance program depends
on the availability of prop-
erly trained mechanics.
Dates and locations of
future workshops will be
announced.
Air Workshop
Fifteen vocational-techni-
cal instructors from Mary-
land, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia
attended an auto inspec-
tion and maintenance
workshop recently at the
Northern Virginia Com-
munity College in Alex-
andria, Va. The Region 3
Air Program sponsored
the workshop with the
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments.
The Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1977 require
mandatory auto inspec-
tion and maintenance pro-
grams for areas that can-
not meet air quality stand-
ards for carbon monoxide
and ozone by December
31,1982. EPA policy
limits the requirement to
metropolitan areas with
populations over 200,000
Region 3 expects that
Baltimore, Washington,
Hampton, Norfolk, and
Richmond will need the
inspection and mainte-
nance programs. The
workshop was the first in
a series planned to estab-
lish groups of qualified
instructors who could
train mechanics in the
latest techniques of auto
emissions control main-
tenance. The success of
Hotline Installed
EPA's Atlanta Office has
installed a toll-free phone
line to provide answers to
environmental questions.
The phone will be staffed
24 hours a day by EPA
staff members. The num-
ber is 1-800-241-1 754 for
callers in Alabama, Flor-
ida, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Kentucky.
Callers living in Georgia
should use 1-800-282-
0239.
DDT Action Set
Region 4 is taking legal
action against the U.S.
Army over DDT contami-
nation from the Redstone
Arsenal in Alabama. In
January EPA issued an
administrative order giv-
ing the Army 30 days to
begin a health effects
study of area residents,
and 9 months to do an en-
gineering study of solu-
tions to clean up DDT-
contaminated sediment
in affected waterways.
When the Army missed
the first deadline, EPA
called on the Center for
Disease Control for a
study of the residents of
Triana, a local predomi-
nantly black community
whose residents rely on
fish from Indian Creek for
a large part of their diet.
Indian Creek is contami-
nated with DDT, and the
researchers found that
fresh fish and samples
from home freezers con-
tained 450 parts per mil-
lion of DDT residue. The
Food and Drug Adminis-
tration limit for DDT in
fish shipped in interstate
commerce is 5 parts per
million. The problem orig-
inated with a DDT manu-
facturing plant estab-
lished at Redstone Ar-
senal shortly after World
War II. When the manu-
facturer's lease ended the
buildings were disman-
tled butthesoil remained
severely contaminated
with the pesticide. In 1977
after a meeting with EPA
the Arsenal started a pro-
gram to stop the move-
ment of DDT into the
rivers by building diver-
sion canals around the
site so that runoff could
be treated with activated
carbon filters. Despite
these efforts studies show
that earlier runoff had
carried the chemical into
Huntsville Spring Branch,
through Wheeler Reser-
voir, Indian Creek, and to
the Tennessee River.
State Coordinators
Region 5 has named spe-
cial coordinators to work
with each of its six States,
to strengthen the partner-
ship between the States
and EPA. Regional Ad-
ministrator John McGuire
said, "These coordinators
are aII senior EPA special-
ists who will work closely
with me to develop coop-
erative relationships with
the Region's States in im-
plementing all of our pro-
grams." McGuire said the
coordinators' duties will
include reviewing the
status of EPA programs,
meeting with constituen-
cy groups, and providing
the Regional Office with
information on problems
in program areas before
any crises develop. The
coordinators also will be
involved in analysis of the
individual characteristics
36
EPAJOURNAL
-------
of each State and will
tailor EPA relationships to
meet the needs of each
State. McGuire pointed
out that this would be
especially useful in devel-
oping formal agreements
between the States and
EPA on the joint manage-
ment of pollution cleanup
programs.
Princeton, N.J. Anyone
finding a cylinder should
call the company collect
at (609] 799-0400,
extension 2184.
Pesticide Search
The Region 6 Emergency
Response Team is coor-
dinating a nationwide
effort to recover hydrogen
cyanide cylinders that
have not been accounted
for. The cylinders were
used in the 1950's and
60's as a fumigant for
rodent control, primarily
in agricultural areas. In
addition to the threat
posed to human health
by the pesticide, the
cylinders are highly ex-
plosive and dangerous
when disturbed. Regional
Administrator Adlene
Harrison said, "The force
of the explosion is tre-
mendous. The chemicals
are toxic, but the greatest
danger is from the shock-
waves that occur if a cyl-
inder explodes." In some
cylinders the slightest
movement can trigger an
internal chemical reaction
that produces enormous
heat and pressure, which
explodes the cylinder.
After heating begins the
cylinders explode within
ninety seconds, shattering
glass, damaging build-
ings, and harming by-
standers within a three
square block area. The
pesticide containers are
aluminum or silver col-
ored and easily distin-
guished by the marking
'HCN' on the warning
label in big letters. The
cylinders were manufac-
tured by various compa-
nies but recovery efforts
are concentrated at Amer-
ican Cyanamid Co.,
Irrigation Practices
Region 7 coordination
efforts have resulted in
the recent signing of a
memorandum of under-
standing by the Bureau of
Reclamation, the North
Central Nebraska Recla-
mation District, and the
Niobrara Basin Irrigation
District concerning irriga-
tion practices on the
O'Neilf Project. The Proj-
ect, which has been the
subject of much contro-
versy, will provide irriga-
tion water to approxi-
mately 77,000 acres near
O'Neill, Nebr. EPA has
been actively involved in
the review of the draft
environmental impact
statement because of the
possible effect increased
irrigation could have on
nitrate levels in ground-
water. Under the memo-
randum each project user
must follow certain best
management practices in
order to receive water.
Users must take a course
in irrigation scheduling,
then must begin and con-
tinue an irrigation sched-
uling program. They must
use soil moisture measur-
ing equipment and refrain
from applying nitrogen
fertilizer to project lands
during fall and winter.
The Bureau of Reclama-
tion will monitor and
evaluate the amount and
quality of groundwater.
Awards Given
Regional Administrator
Dr. Kathleen Q. Camin
presented 1979 Environ-
mental Quality Awards
recently in Des Moines to
24 people and organiza-
tions who have made sig-
nificant contributions to
the environmental move-
ment. The award winners
were picked from nom-
inees submitted from the
States of Missouri, Kan-
sas, Iowa, and Nebraska.
At the first in a series of
ceremonies. Dr. Camin
honored the Homer
Broncos 4-H Club of
Rowley, Iowa, for their
volunteer pesticide can-
crushing operation; Iowa
Gov. Robert Ray for his
leadership in the fight for
a 'bottle bill' in the State;
and James Risser of the
Des Moines Register for
his investigative reporting
of agricultural and en-
vironmental issues. She
also presented awards to
Robert Buckmaster for his
part in drafting environ-
mental legislation; to Jan
Riggenbach for his ar-
ticles on pesticides and
conservation, and to the
Iowa Division of the Izaak
Walton League for their
efforts to prevent soil ero-
sion and nonpoint pollu-
tion. Region 7 recognized
other people and organi-
zations that fight pollution
at similar ceremonies in
Missouri, Kansas, and
Nebraska.
Foothills Settlement
The controversy over the
Denver Foothills Water
Treatment Project has
been settled. All parties,
including EPA, the De-
partment of interior, and
the Denver Water Board,
signed a consent decree,
which provides that the
two lawsuits on the proj-
ect will be dismissed and
that the Corps of Engi-
neers will issue a 404
permit for the storage
dam on the South Platte
River without objection
from the Fish and Wildlife
Service or EPA. In return,
the Denver Water Board
will implement a water
conservation program
with the goal of reducing
average water consump-
tion in the Denver area.
EPA will enforce this pro-
vision. The Denver Water
Board also will implement
a stream improvement
program covering seven
miles downstream from
the dam to replace the
high quality fishery stretch
lost to the dam and will
have to maintain mini-
mum stream flows in an
area covering nine miles
downstream from the
dam. Other stipulations
of the agreement were
that the Water Board must
open its planning and
decision-making process
to public participation
and that it must form and
fund a Citizens Advisory
Committee.
Recycling Moves
Region 9 has approved
six applications for re-
source recovery grants, as
part of EPA's effort to
make cities more healthy.
From the fifteen commu-
nities that applied, the
Regional Office chose
Berkeley, San Francisco,
the City of Los Angeles,
Long Beach, and the Los
Angeles County Sanita-
tion Board, all in Califor-
nia, and Kauai County,
Hawaii, to receive finan-
cial assistance for re-
cycling programs. The Los
Angeles County Sanitation
Board filed for funds to
plan curbside source sep-
aration programs in resi-
dential areas. The other
five communities plan to
use grants to investigate
the technologies, markets,
and costs for facilities
that would recover usable
materials and use unmar-
ketable substances to pro-
duce energy. Long Beach
plans to process munici-
pal solid waste into steam
or electricity. The Island
of Kauai plans to convert
municipal waste com-
bined with sugar cane
waste into a fuel to gen-
erate electricity.
Fish Processors Cited
Region 10 has charged 10
Alaska seafood proces-
sors with violations of
their EPA wastewater dis-
charge permits in U.S.
District Court. When the
civil complaints were
filed by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, at EPA's
request, none of the proc-
essors had installed
screens to prevent the
discharge of fish and crab
wastes into waters near
the processing plants.
Permits issued to the
firms required the installa-
tion of the screens by July,
1977. Fish wastes could
be collected on the screen
and removed to desig-
nated "dumping zones"
further offshore or recov-
ered by the processor for
re-use in some commer-
cial product. In Kodiak,
Alaska, one business firm
takes wastes from the
local seafood processors
and converts them profit-
ably into animal food.
States Assume Duties
Region 10 has agreed to
let Idaho follow in the
footsteps of Alaska in
taking on the day-to-day
project responsibilities for
managing the Federally-
funded municipal waste-
water treatment plant
construction program.
Under terms of its agree-
ment with EPA, the Idaho
Department of Health and
Welfare will gradually
assume increasing re-
sponsibility for the pro-
gram. All phases of the
program will be trans-
ferred to Idaho within the
next two years. D
MAY 1979
37
-------
Update
A review of recent major
EPA activities and devel-
opments in the pollution
control areas.
AIR
Cost Recovery Rules
The EPA is proposing
rules designed to recover
the costs a company
avoids by not complying
with air pollution laws,
Administrator Douglas
M. Costle recently
announced.
"While the majority of
the country's 24,000 ma-
jor sources of air pollution
are in compliance with
State and Federal require-
ments, many are not,"
Costle said. "Sources
violating the law by failing
to install and operate nec-
essary pollution control
devices have long en-
joyed an economic ad-
vantage over those that
did what the law required.
In many instances, the
economic savings result-
ing from non-compliance
have encouraged environ-
mental footdragging by
violating industries."
"Prior to the 1977
Amendments to the Clean
Air Act, the regulatory
and enforcement meas-
ures available to EPA and
the States lacked direct
economic incentives to
ensure prompt and contin-
uous compliance," he
said.
The proposed rules,
however, authorized by
Section 1 20 of the Clean
Air Act, would require
EPA, without going
through the courts, to ad-
ministratively assess and
collect penalties equal to
the economic savings a
firm enjoys by not comply-
ing with the law.
PESTICIDES
DBCP Hearing
The EPA will hold a new
hearing on whether the
remaining uses of the par-
tially banned pesticide
DBCP should be further
restricted or stopped alto-
gether as a serious health
threat. At press time, a
hearing date was ex-
pected soon.
The hearing results in
part from recent evidence
that DBCP (dibromochlo-
ropropane)—which has
lowered sperm levels in
production workers, farm-
ers, and field workers—
may leave a residue on
crops previously thought
unaffected. These crops
include oranges, lemons,
peaches, and grapes, ac-
cording to a 1978 Califor-
nia Department of Food
and Agriculture study.
Another reason for the
new hearing is to consider
a request from a farm-
workers' organization, the
California Rural Legal
Assistance Migrant Proj-
ect, that all uses of DBCP
be stopped because they
may seriously harm field
workers and the general
public.
In September, 1978,
EPA convened a hearing
to determine what the
permanent fate of DBCP
should be. But legal ques-
tions arose as to whether
this hearing could reach a
decision on the farmwork-
ers' request for a com-
plete end to DBCP use.
As a result, EPA now in-
tends to hold the new
hearing to consider the
farmworkers' request and
to further explore the
California residue
information.
Natural Insecticide
The EPA has given the
U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) emer-
gency permission to use
a new natural insecticide
to combat grasshopper
pests on livestock grazing
land this year,
EPA approved the new
product, which contains
microscopic organisms
that destroy grasshoppers
internally, from May
through September 30,
1979, for any part of the
country with serious
'hopper infestations.
However, because only
a limited amount of the
compound, which was
developed by USDA sci-
entists, is available this
year, Agriculture Depart-
ment specialists will
apply it only to about
100,000 acres in north-
eastern Wyoming.
More widespread use
of the natural material
could occur in the future
if a commercial pesticide
producer uses the devel-
opment and testing infor-
mation published by
USDA to obtain EPA per-
mission to make and sell
the product. EPA is pre-
pared to conditionally
register the insecticide for
routine use pending the
completion of some addi-
tional EPA safety studies.
TOXICS
Asbestos Alert
The EPA has alerted State
officials across the coun-
try to potential hazards in
some school buildings
from materials containing
asbestos fibers. The Agen-
cy also provided instruc-
tions for inspecting and
repairing the buildings.
"Damaged or deterio-
rating asbestos materials
release asbestos fibers
into the air where they
may be inhaled into the
lungs, creating potentially
serious health risks,"
said EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle. "We
are informing educators
and parents how they can
assure that school chil-
dren, who have more time
to develop asbestos-
related diseases, are not
exposed to asbestos."
From the end of World
War II until 1973, asbes-
tos-containing materials
were sprayed on walls,
ceilings, structural com-
ponents, and pipes of
many public schools
throughout the U.S. The
asbestos, a naturally-
occurring, virtually inde-
structible mineral, was
used primarily for insu-
lation and fireproofing,
and in some cases for
decoration.
In 1973, EPA banned
the use of sprayed mate-
rial containing more than
one percent asbestos for
insulation or fireproofing.
In 1978 the ban was ex-
tended to nearly all uses.
EPA's recently-issued
procedures are for educa-
tors to use in visually
checking their schools for
asbestos-containing ma-
terials, identified by their
soft, easily crumbled
spongy texture. The EPA
guidance tells how to take
samples of suspected
asbestos material for
analysis by a qualified
laboratory.
EPA will provide exten-
sive technical assistance
as schools handle asbes-
tos exposure problems.
EPA, working with the
States, is mailing Guid-
ance Packages to school
officials throughout the
Nation. The Guidance
Package explains the step-
by-step procedure for
identifying and correcting
exposure problems in a
building. EPA will
compile data on the steps
taken by schools in order
to provide each State with
a report on the success of
the State program.
Anyone who would like
to obtain the name of their
EPA Regional Asbestos
Coordinator, the name of
their State Asbestos Pro-
gram Contact, or a copy of
a Guidance Package
should call EPA toll free
at 800-424-9065 (In
Washington, D.C., call
554-1404).
WATER
Drinking Water
Council
EPA Administrator Doug-
las M. Costle has appoint-
ed five new members to
the National Drinking
Water Advisory Council,
to replace members
whose terms have ex-
pired. The body advises
EPA on matters relating
to drinking water safety.
The new Council mem-
bers are:
• Jean Auer of Hillsbor-
ough, Calif., a Director of
the Environmental De-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
fense Fund's San Fran-
cisco office. She is also an
active environmentalist,
being recognized for her
work on drinking water
and water resources.
• Jerome B. Gilbert of
Sacramento, Calif., is
Vice President of the
American Water Works
Association. He is also
Vice President of Brown
and Caldwell Consulting
Engineers based in
Sacramento.
• Dr. Joan K. Leavitt of
Oklahoma City is Com-
missioner of Health, Okla-
homa State Department of
Health. That agency is
responsible for implemen-
tation of the safe drinking
water program with the
State.
• Dr. Marc Roberts is di-
rector of the Harvard
School of Public Health's
Management Training
Program for senior execu-
tives. He is experienced
in the processes of regu-
latory decision-making
and in assessing the eco-
nomic effects of Federal
regulatory requirements.
• Richard Stamets of
Santa Fe, N.M., is Tech-
nical Director of the New
Mexico Oil Conservation
Division. He has also been
a representative on the
four-member Interstate
Oil Compact Commission.
In that capacity he worked
with EPA staff in the de-
velopment of reasonable
and practical regulations
for underground injection
control. The regulations
are now nearing
completion. D
Price Rise
Due to increasing pro-
duction costs, the
Government Printing
Office is increasing
the price of sub-
scribing to the EPA
Journal from $10 to
$12 a year, effective
July 1. The price of
a single copy will, go
from $1 to $1.20. The
subscription cost if
mailed to a foreign
address will be $15
instead of the current
$12. All domestic sub-
scription requests
received by GPO before
July 1 will be sold at
the $10 rate.
EPA Journal Subscription
Nar
le-
:irs
t, L
ast
1
1
Pie
as«
) Print
1
(
^on
ipa
ny
Nar
ne
ir/5
dd
tio
lal
Adi
Jre
ssL
ine
1
1
•
5trs
iet i
\dc
res
s
:ity
!
St
ate
Zip
Co
Je
Payment enclosed
Charge to my Deposit Account No.
Do you know someone in industry or in a civic
group who wants to keep up with national
environmental developments involving EPA?
Let them know about EPA Journal. If they want
to subscribe, give them this form. The sub-
scription price is StOper year and $1 2.50 if
mailed to a foreign address. A single copy
sells for $1.00. (Agency employees receive
this publication without charge.) Anyone
wishing to subscribe should fill in the form
below and enclose a check or money order
payable to the Superintendent of Documents.
Mail order form to:
(Superintendent of Documents)
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
MAY 1 979
39
-------
People
Louis F. Gitto
He has been selected as Direc-
tor of the Management
Division in EPA's Boston Office.
Gitto was previously Chief of
the Systems Analysis Branch
in Region 1, where he and his
staff were awarded EPA's
Bronze Medal. In a rotational
assignment in 1976-77, he
served as Acting Chief of the
Program Planning and Develop-
ment Branch. Earlier he worked
in the Office of Water Programs
at EPA in Washington, D.C., and
with the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration, an
EPA predecessor agency. Gitto
received a B. S. from Tufts
University in 1960 and an M.S.
from Harvard University in
1965.
Willis E. Greenstreet
The former Director of EPA's
Management Information and
Data Systems Division, he has
been named Director of
Administration at the Merit
Systems Protection Board. In
his new position he will be in
charge of personnel, finance,
budget, general services, man-
agement, organizations, and
data processing. Greenstreet
had served as Deputy Director
of Administration at EPA's Na-
tional Environmental Research
Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, and
as Assistant Regional Adminis-
trator for Management in
Philadelphia before moving to
Headquarters. During his term
with the Agency he was
awarded a Silver Medal and a
Group Bronze Medal.
Dr. Adrian Gross
He has been named Chief of the
Toxicology Branch for EPA's
Pesticide Program in the Office
of Toxic Substances. In this
position he is responsible for
determining the seriousness of
the full range of pesticide ex-
posures and absorption in peo-
ple and domestic animals. He
reviews and evaluates data on
the toxicity and adverse effects
of pesticides for both short-
term and long-term risks. Most
recently Dr. Gross was Associ-
ate Director for Preclinical
Studies with the Food and Drug
Administration, where he and
his staff monitored the quality
of animal laboratory studies of
prescription drugs. He served
as Deputy Toxicological Ad-
visor for the FDA Bureau of
Science from 1968 to 1970 and
as Chief of the Pathology
Branch there from 1964 to
1968. Dr. Gross received a B.S.
from the University of Mani-
toba, Canada, in 1949. In 1954
he received a joint degree of
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
from the University of Toronto
and Veterinary Surgeon from
the Ontario Veterinary College,
followed by an M .5. in pathol-
ogy from Ohio State University
in 1956. He has completed
further postgraduate work in
statistics, biometry, and
pathology.
Barbara McDowell and Richard
Owen of the Headquarters Fa-
cilities and Support Services
Division recently viewed the
Acid Precipitation exhibit on
display at the Main Library in
Washington, D.C. The exhibit
illustrates many aspects of this
phenomenon, which is com-
monly called acid rain. The
panels explain what acid rain is,
how air pollution can cause it,
and where it originates. Maps
show the major parts of the
country that are affected by acid
rain. Photographs depict some
of the damage caused to plant
and animal populations by the
change in the quality of rain-
water. The exhibit was created
as part of a general information
effort for Agency employees by
the EPA Library System. This
exhibit and others will be on
display in the libraries of many
Regional Offices and Labora-
tories in the coming months. A
wide variety of environmental
topics are covered by the ex-
hibits, which include Wind
Energy, the Hazards of Asbes-
tos, Oil and Hazardous Mate-
rials Spills, Common Carcino-
gens, Wetlands, Polybrominated
Biphenyls, Pesticide Certifica-
tion, Water Conservation, Envi-
ronmental Law Sources, Micro-
waves, and Career Planning.
For more information on the
individual exhibits and the
schedule for display contact
Dee Crawford in the Region 6
Library at 513-729-7341.
40
6U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I97VO—620-064/5 REGION 3-1
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A Letter from Alsea
Continued from page 5
In the meantime, EPA's Enforcement
Office had issued about 1,000 orders to the
makers, formulators, and major retailers of
2,4,5-T and Silvex products stopping fur-
ther sale, use, and distribution for the
suspended treatments.
(The first outlet to receive such an order
was the Peoples Drug Store that shares
with EPA headquarters the Waterside
Mall complex in Washington.)
Blum urged homeowners and storekeep-
ers with the herbicides on hand to store
them in a safe area until the suspension
hearings are concluded.
As for the economic effects of the sus-
pension, Blum said that they "should not
be serious" over the short term. "This is so
because there are alternatives available for
pasture and rights-of-way uses and because
only a tiny fraction of commercial forest
acres are treated in any given year."
In addition, Agency economists deter-
mined that some suspended uses, such as
pasture treatments, could simply be post-
poned without seriously damaging their
value during the two years it may take to
decide the herbicides' fate (a suspension
action plus "cancellation" hearings.)
However, these economists also cal-
culated possible costs if treatments with
other herbicides were continued on a reg-
ular basis. These figures showed that the
money spent by homeowners who apply
chemicals to their lawns would remain
about the same. Brush and tree control
costs in forestry could increase between
$10and $39 million during the two-year
period, and pasture costs could increase
between $2 and $3 million per year.
Public reaction to the suspension was, as
it is to many EPA decisions, mixed and
intense. As one of the Alsea women who
originally wrote EPA put it: "Some people
are against us and some people are for us.
No one is neutral."
Bonnie Hill, one of the authors of the letter
calling for an investigation of a possible link
between the spraying of 2.4,5-T and mis-
carriages in Oregon, holds her daughter,
Cedra. (Story on P. 4)
Back Cover: Dredge used to help mine phos-
phates in Florida rises above grassland in
foreground. (Story on P. 34).
Pesticide rulings seem guaranteed to
trigger strong emotions, favorable and un-
favorable, in a large portion of the popula-
tion. This will no doubt remain true in the
case of 2,4,5-T and Silvex, whatever the
final outcome of the suspension.
But certainly anyone who has ever felt
helpless before an indifferent bureaucracy
can take some satisfaction in the fact that
EPA responded to the plea from the Alsea
women. Barbara Blum concluded: "The
thing I am glad about is that our process is
good enough that eight women can write
us a letter during the public comment
period from Oregon, and that we can
listen." D
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
j^»
^^^^p--
^^T
(TTHETiL
^ """"™_l!>
Third Class
Bulk
.-
Return this page if you do not wish to receive this publication
or if a change of address is needed (
. list change, including zip code.
------- |