d States
icy
f
I JM^^^^wWM^^^^^B^^^P**-'
*T! ••
wtmmn
_••
$5;
mim
-------
The Environment
and Technology
Qan technology be a positive
force in cleaning the en-
vironment while maintaining
a healthy economy ? Or is it an
obstacle to curbing pollution?
This issue of EPA Journal takes
a close look at these questions.
EPA Administrator Douglas
Costle writes that the job is not
to abandon the historic Ameri-
can commitment to invention
but to change the character of
the technology it produces to
serve health and environment as
well as the economy. The Presi-
dent himself has called for
maximum use of technology to
help protect the environment as
the Nation moves to double its
use of coal for energy. In his
second environmental message
to Congress, President Carter
also announced a series of initi-
atives to control pollution and
protect the land, water, and air
from degradation. These Presi-
dential positions are the subject
of an article.
Technology has created
many environmental problems,
but it is also the solution to
most of them, says Dr. Russell
W. Peterson, president of the
National Audubon Society, in a
wide-ranging interview.
The effect of environmental
regulations on technology and
business is discussed by three
authors. Government regula-
tions don't stifle the inventive-
ness needed to solve environ-
mental problems, says U.S.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie.
Regulations have led to en-
vironmental offices in many
corporations, add Drs. Nicholas
Ashford and George Heaton of
the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. The burden
regulations can sometimes
cause is discussed by Milton D.
Stewart, Chief Counsel for Ad-
vocacy in the Small Business
Administration.
One corporation's creative
answer to pollution is described
by Dr. Joseph T. Ling, a vice
president of the 3M Company
in St. Paul, Minn. In another
article the Environmental Indus-
try Council describes how four
other companies are cutting
pollution and making a profit
with new cleanup technology.
The need for appropriate
technology, an approach sensi-
tive to people's needs and the
environment, is urged in an
article by William K. Reilly,
President of the Conservation
Foundation.
An illustration of what can
happen when technology is not
properly controlled is given in
an article by Larry O'Neill, an
EPA headquarters press officer,
on an Alabama town's experi-
ence with massive pollution
from DDT.
EPA initiatives to encourage
environmentally-safe technol-
ogy are reported in several
articles. EPA-aided efforts in
pollution control research are
explained by Steven Reznek,
Deputy Assistant Administra-
tor for Energy, Minerals, and
Industry. Co-disposai—han-
dling both garbage and sewage
sludge in one operation—is
described in another article.
Reducing paint pollution at a
possible capital investment cost
of billions of dollars over the
next 5-10 years is explained by
Robert Kolbinsky, an EPA en-
vironmental specialist. EPA's
program to spread pollution
cleanup technical know-how
is also reviewed.
Meanwhile, EPA is taking
its pollution control technology
to sea, as explained in a report
on the Antelope, the Agency's
new vessel to survey ocean
dumping sites. D
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 5
Number 8
September 1979
6EPA JOURNAL
Douglas M. Costie, 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.
Discoveries for a Clean
Environment 2
Administrator Costie shows how
technology can be used to help
the environment.
President Pledges
Environmental
Support 4
President Carter reaffirms his
commitment to environmental
protection in a message to
Congress.
Resources, Technology,
and the Environment 6
Russell Peterson, president of
the National Audubon Society,
gives an interview on the role of
technology in the environment.
EPA Gets Ocean Ship 9
EPA has drafted a former Navy
patrol gunboat for use in sur-
veying ocean dumping sites and
controlling activities relating to
disposal of hazardous materials.
DDT Legacy 10
Residues of a banned pesticide
return to haunt the residents of
a tiny town in Alabama.
Departments
The Will
to be Innovative 12
Senator Edmund S. Muskie calls
on industry to use technical
innovations for pollution control.
Making Cleanup Pay 14
A look at a pollution preven-
tion program that is working
well for 3M Corporation by a
company vice president. Dr.
Joseph T. Ling.
Pollution Cleanup
Opportunities 16
Businesses find that pollution
control pays off through the
manufacture of control equip-
ment and systems.
Reducing
Paint Pollution
18
EPA scientists working with
industry are solving major pollu-
tion problems
Co-Disposal: A New
Technology 20
Some cities are using a new
technique to solve two environ-
mental problems at once.
Research and Pollution
Control 22
New approaches have made
substantial contributions to air
and water cleanup.
Explaining New
Technology 25
An EPA research program keeps
industries informed about the
latest advances in pollution con-
trol developed or evaluated by
the Agency's laboratories.
Appropriate
Technology 26
A review of the possibilities pre-
sented by simpler, more flexible
technology by William K. Reilly,
president of the Conservation
Foundation.
Small Business and
Pollution Control 28
An interview with Milton D.
Stewart, Chief Counsel for
Advocacy in the Small Business
Administration.
Regulation and Technical
Innovation 32
A look at the many ways gov-
ernment rules affect business
activity.
Almanac 30
News Briefs 31
People 35
Update 36
Around the Nation 38
Front cover: Shown docked at the
Nation's Capital with the Washing-
ton Monument in the background
is EPA's new ocean vessel, Antelope
shortly before it left for the Gulf of
Mexico to help survey U.S. waters
threatened by the world's worst oil
spill. The oil was escaping from a
Mexican well.
Opposite: This power plant uses
innovative technology to make
electricity generation environmen-
tally safer.
Photo credits: 3M Co., Department Design Credits: Robert Flanagan,
of Energy, Basgen Photography, Donna Kazaniwsky and Ron Farrah.
Nick Karanikas,
General Motors, James L
Hudson, Jr. Gene Daniels"
'Documerica
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
adiifssed to the Editor (A-107).
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S W .
Washington, DC 20460. No per
mission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials. Subscription
S12 00 a year, SI.20 for single
copy, domestic; SI 5 00 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 recycletf paper
-------
Environmentally Speaking
Discoveries for a
Clean Environment
By Douglas M. CoStie prom the ponderous rotation of the
EPA Administrator
early cotton gins to the silent, high-
velocity movement of thousands of elec-
tronic signals through a tiny microproces-
sor is a long way in technological terms.
But there is one thing that both these phe-
nomena have in common—they represent
triumphs of the American genius for
innovation.
That genius has given Americans a
worldwide reputation as a unique inven-
tive breed. It has also provided the repeated
breakthroughs that have permitted this
country to reach an unprecedented level
of prosperity.
Yet today, there are signs that the
American people are beginning to question
the value of technological progress. These
doubts have been intensified by a series of
recent, dramatic events: the revelations
about the poisoning of Love Canal resi-
dents by chemical wastes; the near-disaster
atthe Three Mile Island nuclear plant; the
fatal crash of a DC-10 at Chicago's O'Hare
Airport; and the spectacular plunge of Sky-
lab back to Earth.
Along with isolated episodes such as
these has come the wearing, exasperating
gasoline crunch of earlier this summer—
an experience that caused many to ask
whether we may not have built our mobile,
energy-profligate society on a self-liquidat-
ing foundation.
These events are evidence that we have
to make some changes in the way we con-
duct the Nation's business. We have to
curb our appetite for energy; we have to
provide better safeguards against the harm
EPAJOURNAL
-------
that can be done by complex technologies,
such as nuclear plants; and we have to
make sure that potentially dangerous prod-
ucts can be used safely before they go on
the market.
They do not mean, however, that we
should turn our backs on technological
innovation. In fact, the importance of inno-
vation is going to increase, not diminish,
in the difficult years ahead.
What we need to do is not abandon our
commitment to innovation, but rather to
alter the character of the technology that it
produces. We are going to need break-
throughs that will not only assure the con-
tinued vitality of the American economy,
but also address such other pressing con-
cerns as cleaning up the environment,
improving the quality of health care,
upgrading mass transportation, and hasten-
ing the transition to reliance on solar and
other renewable forms of energy.
EPA has an obvious interest in promoting
innovative approaches to solving environ-
mental problems, and it has several tools
to help it do so.
Both the Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts, for example, authorize the Agency to
"extend compliance deadlines for com-
panies that can show they are working on
promising new poSiution-control technol-
ogies. The Water Act also says that inno-
vative wastewater treatment projects can
get a higher level of Federal funding than
standard treatment technologies.
Another of the Agency's legislative
mandates, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, allows us to fund projects
aimed at finding better ways to recover
the material or energy value in solid waste.
One of the more unusual projects that
we are supporting—in this case, in cooper-
ation with the State of California—is one
that will allow conversion of agricultural
wastes into energy products.
A waste-processing plant is being built
on two trailers, so it can be hauled where-
evera harvest is going on.
The waste products left over after the
harvesting of crops like rice and cotton, or
of trees, will be fed into the unit, where
they will be subjected to the high-tempera-
ture, pyrolysis process. This will convert
them into three different energy products—
a substance like charcoal, which can be
burned with either coal or oil; a heavy-duty
oil; and a low-BTU gas, which will be used
to provide energy for the mobile unit itself.
Aside from the various statutory provi-
sions that encourage innovative environ-
mental measures, there are also steps the
Agency has taken on its own.
A prime example is the decision on
sulfur emissions for new coal-fired electric
plants.
That decision, which I issued last spring,
reflects the recognition that there is a prom-
ising new technology for controlling emis-
sions from plants that burn low-sulfur coal.
in order to promote the rapid develop-
ment of the technology—called dry scrub-
bing—the regulation was written so as to
include an emission limitation that would
allow the use of this technology at such
plants.
Even while the Agency is promoting
innovation in pollution abatement, how-
ever, claims have been made that EPA
regulations are stifling industrial innova-
tion in general, and thus curbing the
Nation's economic productivity.
These claims have never been docu-
mented, and there is considerable evidence
that they are off the mark.
One indication is the fact that only a
small fraction of the money spent on indus-
trial research and development is going
into pollution-control R&D. In 1977—the
most recent year for which figures are
available—just 3 percent of the $30 billion
spent on industrial R&D went into develop-
ing pollution-control technologies.
Another is provided by the cases where
companies have found that pollution-con-
trol measures have resulted in little net
cost, or have actually saved them money.
No one knows how many companies
have had such an experience. One indirect
indication, however, is the value of the
energy and materials recovered as a result
of pollution control measures.
Based on a survey of industry, the
Census Bureau estimated this at more than
$950 million for 1977. Although no more
recent estimates are available, continua-
tion of past trends would put the current
figure at well over $1 billion.
Despite the evidence that environmental
regulations don't significantly impede in-
dustrial innovation—and often in fact pro-
mote it, by encouraging companies to re-
think their production processes—EPA is
conscious of the need to minimize the
potential for such interference.
Many of EPA's present regulatory re-
form efforts will help to prevent any cur-
tailing of the sector's ability to innovate.
Our wholesale cutbacks in reporting re-
quirements, our plans to minimize the red
tape involved in obtaining permits for new
plants, and our systematic review of the
need for each of our existing regulations
are examples of reform measures that will
ease the regulatory demands on industry,
and potentially leave more room for
innovation.
While taking concrete steps to encour-
age innovation, EPA is also attempting to
stimulate new thinking about the nature of
technological innovation.
Too often, technological advance is
associated with massive undertakings like
the Apollo moonshot, or with highly sophis-
ticated industrial ventures requiring so
much money and highly trained manpower
that only the largest corporations can
attempt them.
Large-scale government or private-
sector projects will always be important
contributors to technological progress. But
there is also a need for technological inno-
vation on a much smaller scale—innova-
tion that may be less sophisticated than
what is being done in corporate labora-
tories, but that may also be more relevant
to the needs and concerns of most Ameri-
cans.
Two wastewater-treatment projects—
underway in two communities that are
widely separated geographically but share
a common concern—illustrate my point.
The community of Wilton, Maine, sever-
al years ago decided it wanted to keep the
energy costs involved in operating its pro-
posed wastewater treatment plant to a
minimum. So the town built the facility
partially underground, and equipped it
with solar panels. The plant gets most of
the heat needed for the treatment process,
as well as for heating the plant itself, from
the Sun's rays and from the methane gas
produced during the treatment of the
wastewater—and thus substantially cuts
its reliance on traditional sources of
energy."
The small resort community of Houghton
Lake, in north-central Michigan, had a dif-
ferent kind of concern from Wilton's.
The Michigan town has a secondary
wastewater-treatment plant. Its problem
was that the treated water it was discharg-
ing contained levels of nutrients, espe-
cially phosphorus, that threatened to spur
algae growth in the lake, and destroy its
value as a prime spot for fishing and other
water sports.
The community was reluctant to adopt
the expensive course of putting in an ad-
vanced treatment system. So instead, it
turned to the concept of using a nearby
peat-marsh to "treat" its discharges.
Marshland of that kind has been shown
to be very effective at drawing nutrients
out of the water that flows through it. The
upshot is that Houghton Lake has been able
to get the necessary level of treatment by
routing its discharges through the bog—
and in the process, has saved itself an
estimated $1 million in capital and other
costs.
As the experience of Wilton and Hough-
ton Lake shows, innovation need not be a
distant or arcane process. It can draw on
resources as readily available as marsh-
land, or sunlight. And equally important,
it can solve the mundane problems of a
town, or a county or a State—and at the
same time, help provide answers to dilem-
mas that are global in scope, such as the
energy crisis. D
•See EPA Journal. Vol. 3. #9, "Solar Power For Waste
Treatment."
SEPTEMBER 1979
-------
President
Pledges
Environmental
Support
p resident Carter last month declared that
his Administration's "basic commitment
to clean air, clean water, and the overall
protection of the environment remains
strong."
In his second environmental message to
Congress, the President also announced a
series of initiatives including protection
of coastal areas, expansion of the wild and
scenic river program, added funds for acid
rain assessment, and improvement of
public lands management.
"Making the Clean Air and Clean Water
Acts work is an important commitment of
my Administration," he said. "We will
continue the progress we have made in the
past two years in promulgating fair stand-
ards and regulations, and we will continue
to encourage new approaches to control
of pollution, such as alternative and innova-
tive wastewater treatment projects. The
President Defends Environment
(Excerpt from President's remarks at town
hall meeting in Bardstown, Ky., on July 31.}
"This afternoon I met at a nearby power
plant with about 50 or 60 of the leaders in
the Kentucky coal industry —operators, rail-
road managers, coal miners, and power
producers, electric power producers. I told
them that the worst mistake that the coal
industry could make was to insist upon a
lowering of the environmental standards of
our Nation. If there is one thing the people
of our country fear about coal, it is that it is
dirty and it will lower the quality of our life.
That is not true. We can burn twice as much
coal in this Nation and not lower our envi-
ronmental standards at all.
"That is what I believe our Nation wants
to do and that is what I am determined to do
with the help of people in Kentucky and
every other State that produces coal in
our country."
Environmental Protection Agency has taken
a number of steps in the right direction.
For example, the bubble concept, offset
policy and permit consolidation are in-
tended to simplify pollution controls."
Carter also pledged that he would seek
reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which expires next year, as well as
"reauthorization and vigorous enforcement
of the comprehensive Toxic Substances
Control Act."
In the same message, the President an-
nounced the appointment of Gus Speth as
Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality. Since Speth already is a member
of the Council, the appointment will not
require Senate approval.
The President singled out EPA for
special praise for its flexible and creative
methods of dealing with regulations.
"Agencies should seek and adopt inno-
vative alternatives to qovernment reaula-
tions which reduce burdens on private
citizens or businesses," he declared.
"The Environmental Protection Agency
has become a leader among Federal agen-
cies in examining new approaches and has
made several moves to streamline its
regulatory process." In addition to utili-
zing the bubble concept, offset policy, and
permit consolidation, he said, "EPA is
doing an effective job of implementing my
Executive Order on regulatory reform and
published the first agenda of regulations
issued by any Federal agency." He noted
that a regulatory calendar is now prepared
and published on a government-wide basis
by the Regulatory Council, which EPA
Administrator Costle heads.
The President sounded a warning note
in describing the major energy production
effort that his Administration is now pur-
suing.
"I do not pretend that all new replace-
ment sources of energy will be environ-
mentally innocuous," he conceded. "Some
of the new technologies we will need to de-
velop pose environmental risks, not all of
which are yet fully understood."
However, he added that he would "work
to ensure that environmental protections
are built into the process of developing
these technologies, and that when tradeoffs
must be made, they will be made fairly,
equitably, and in the light of informed
public scrutiny. We will examine not only
the impact of new energy technologies on
land and water and the effects of toxic
chemicals, but also the longer term impli-
cations of increasing carbon dioxide con-
centration in the atmosphere."
The Administration has proposed the
creation of an Energy Mobilization Board
to speed up decision-making on critical
energy facilities. The President noted that
this will cut out excessive delays, but he
added, "I will not allow it to undermine
protection of our Nation's env'ronment. I
intend, for instance, to make the environ-
mental impact statement process fit the
decision schedule set by the Energy
Mobilization Board so that waivers of
these statements will be rare. Only in
exceptional cases will alternative pro-
cedures be necessary for the orderly
completion of a critical energy facility.
With the exception of new requirements
imposed when construction of a critical
facility is underway, the Board could not
waive substantive environmental stand-
ards." The President will retain the right to
override decisions of the Board on any
EPA JOURNAL
-------
waiver issue, and the Board waiver de-
cisions also would be subject to judicial
review.
Among the initiatives outlined in the en-
vironmental message were the following:
• New measures to protect and enhance
America's coastlines, and endorsement of
the designation by conservation groups of
1980 as the "Year of the Coast."
• Four new Wild and Scenic River desig-
nations in Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado to
be submitted to Congress, and 145 new
national recreation trails to be established
by the Forest Service by next January
plus 75 more by December, 1980.
• Establishment of a 10-year program to
deal with the acid rain problem caused by
burning fossil fuels, including a doubling
of funds to $10 million in its initial yearby
reprogramming current research money.
• Increased enforcement of laws to pre-
vent illegal trade in wildlife and plants,
which now threatens extinction of many
species.
• New studies of ways to reduce the loss
of agricultural topsoil by wind and water
erosion.
• A Presidential directive to Federal agen-
cies to modify their pest control programs
and adopt Integrated Pest Management
strategies where practicable. Carter cited
research showing that multiple control
techniques like IPM can be more cost-
effective than chemicals alone in reducing
pest damage.
• A new transportation policy that would,
among other things, mitigate adverse
effects of transportation projects on the
environment. D
SEPTEMBER 1979
-------
Resources,
Technology,
and the
Environment
An Interview with
Dr. Russell Peterson
Dr. Russell Peterson is Presi-
dent of the National A udubon
Society. He was Governor of
Delaware, Chairman of the
President's Council on Environ-
mental Quality, and Director
of the Office of Technology
Assessment, U. S. Congress.
Dr. Peterson was a/so President
of a citizens organization, New
Directions, and was an execu-
tive of the DuPont Company.
He was Vice Chairman of the
U. S. delegation to the U. N.
World Population Conference
in Bucharest. He is on President
Carter's 12-member commis-
sion to investigate the nuclear
accident at Three Mile Island.
In your judgment, will tech-
nology play a central role
in providing solutions to
environmental problems?
Technology certainly will play
a key role. In fact, I don't see
how we can solve many of the
critical environmental problems
without the application of tech-
nology. Application of technol-
ogy has created many environ-
mental problems, but it is also
the solution to most environ-
mental problems.
Would you say that pollution
is part of the price for tech-
nology that we must pay?
! don't think we need to plan on
accepting penalties from pollu-
tion in order to further some
other objective. I think we ought
to be very hard-headed about
avoiding pollution as we de-
velop new technologies. Pollu-
tion doesn't have to be a com-
ponent of technological ad-
vance. It has been to a great
extent in the past.
But if we are determined at
the start to be selective in creat-
ing new technology and if we
are insistent upon providing
various regulations and con-
trols, we can avoid in many
cases and minimize in other
cases insults to the environ-
ment.
For example, consider the
current great concern about
energy. There are many people
saying we must forego various
environmental regulations in
order to assure that we get ade-
quate energy.
I am dead set against that
attitude. We have the resources
and the knowledge so that we
can both protect the environ-
ment and get the energy. But
as long as the leadership says
we are just going to work to-
wards one of these targets and
trade off on the other, then we
are going to be in deep trouble.
I think the threat from pollut-
ing the environment is equally
serious to the threats that come
from an inadequate supply of
energy.
So we need to do both. When
we set out to do things without
upsetting the environment, we
can do that. But for so many
decades, no one worried about
this. We just went ahead with
developments running rough
shod over the environment.
Finally, the situation got so bad
that in the late sixties the peo-
ple rebelled against it, particu-
larly the young people, and that
led to the big environmental
movement and the passage of
so many pieces of legislation
in Washington, the State capi-
tals and city councils. Today
we have many, many watch-
dogs around the community to
see to it that we pay attention
to environmental quality, as
well as economic prosperity.
Since environmental degra-
dation carries with it a very
high financial penalty,
when you analyze the impact
over the long term, it is impor-
tant that we get the economists
and the business managers to
weigh the long term costs along
with their short term benefits.
So the main message is that
we need to select approaches
which permit us to reach our
economic goals and at the
same time protect the environ-
ment.
Do you think we can continue
to have a reasonably clean
environment if we are going
to rely on coal and nuclear
power for most of our energy
needs in the next 10 or 1 5
years?
I think we can use coal in sub-
stantially larger quantities with-
out a major impact on our en-
vironment if we insist upon the
current laws of the land, insist
upon carrying them out. For
example, it is essential that we
require the use of stack gas
scrubbers in coal-fired power
plants.
It is essential that we abide
by the strip mining regulations.
We can afford to be very selec-
tive in where we use coal and
how we mine it and where we
mine it. We can be highly selec-
tive for at least a century be-
cause there is so much coal out
there available. Then if we
abide by the tough regulations
for mining and for burning it,
we can use more.
In regard to nuclear, I think
that the bankers and the people
EPA JOURNAL
-------
are likely to blow the whistle on
nuclear energy before many
years go by.
So I anticipate that nuclear
energy will go the way of oil.
It will peak out in production,
probably about the same time
that oil peaks out. That will be
the mid-1990's, and it will be
down hill from that time on.
The real pressure in the
energy area I think should be
on conservation which is by
far the single best source of
energy. Every time we stop
wasting a unit of energy, we
have it available to use else-
where.
The second best approach,
and the only one that has merit
over the long run, is the devel-
opment of renewable sources of
energy, and by that I mean pri-
marily solar energy with all
of its ramifications, like wind
energy and biomass. With the
right resolve to develop renew-
able sources of energy and with
the increasing costs of other
kinds of energy, I think we can
by early next century have at
least 25 percent of the total
energy from renewable sources.
With an all-out effort on
conservation, we should be
able to get by the year 2000
with much less than 90 quads
of energy per year. That is an
appreciably lower target than
most people are willing to ac-
cept, but almost monthly we
find official estimates of the
demand for energy by the year
2000 being lower as we dem-
onstrate that we can get by
with less energy, and do so
without impacting on the econ-
omy. The United States now
uses about 78 quads of energy
a year. (A quad is one quad-
rillion British thermal units
of energy, and is equivalent to
using about half a million bar-
rels of petroleum per day for
one year.)
So, to sum up, I would give
top priority after conservation
to developing renewable
sources of energy. Recognizing
that oil and nuclear will both
peak out in production by the
1990's, we will need to have
some additional sources of
energy, and the only one that I
can see available is coal.
Some time early in the next
century I think we could de-
velop sufficient renewable
sources of energy to start
reducing the use of coal, too.
But in the interim period we
are going to have to use more
coal, and I think we ought to do
so, as I said earlier, insisting
at the same time on very tough
environmental controls. If we do
so, use of this fuel will have a
limited adverse impact on the
environment.
One of the major problems
of burning coal or oil or natural
gas, is the increase in the at-
mosphere of carbon dioxide
which over the long run can
have a major impact on the
environment as a result of heat-
ing up the Earth and melting
some of the ice caps and raising
water levels along our conti-
nents. How serious that wiil be
is very uncertain.
Based on your experience as
a member of the commission
on theThree-Mile Island inci-
dent, do you think the nuclear
power plants can be operated
safely?
I do not want to comment on
my Three-Mile Island experi-
ence because we are in the mid-
dle of that study, and I think it
would be inappropriate for me
to pass judgment on that until
we have had the opportunity to
digest the information coming
in to us.
I can say this much about
the Three-Mile Island study. I
do notthink that it would be
very difficult for the commis-
sion to agree on what happened
at Three-Mile Island, but it will
be very difficult to agree on
what might have happened.
There wouldn't be any
basis for a presidential com-
mission or the many other
groups studying Three-Mile
Island including groups from
overseas, if all they were con-
cerned about is what did hap-
pen. It is what might have hap-
pened that frightens people
very much. How one can mini-
mize such threats is the big
challenge, and I want to mini-
mize my comments on that until
after October 25th when the
Three-Mile Island commission
makes its report to the President.
Can environmental clean-up
be profitable and can it bene-
fit the overall economy in the
long run?
Environmental clean-up is
always profitable. There have
been many examples of com-
panies forced by pressure of
laws or pressure from the com-
munity to stop polluting. Once
they set up processes to re-
cover the pollutant and found
that that pollutant could be
marketed, they ended up mak-
ing more money as a result of
the clean-up than they were
making before.
When you weigh all of the
costs, short term and long term,
not only to the company in-
volved, but to the community,
I think the cleaning-up process
almost invariably comes out
with a net benefit.
You drew a fair amount of
criticism when you were Gov-
ernor of Delaware from the
corporate community for your
coastal zone protection meas-
ures. Is it possible for busi-
ness and environmentalists
to agree on technology?
Yes, it is possible. In fact, it is
very important that we work
harder at that. I think by getting
together ahead of time, listen-
ing to each other, learning from
each other, that we can find
routes into the future which
will solve the problems and
minimize the confrontation be-
tween industry and environ-
mental groups.
The Coastal Zone Act in Del-
aware was a good example of
how community action can
completely change the plans
of a huge industry, plans which
were destined to destroy a very
valuable natural area, and yet
not interfere with the fulfill-
ment of the objectives of
industry.
I had a great concern about
having adequate refineries in
the east. And the oil companies
planned to move to virgin terri-
tory to build new refineries. But
in the case of the Delaware
coastal area where they had
planned to put up a whole series
of refineries, they were blocked
by the Delaware Coastal Zone
Act from doing it in that spot.
However, they have proceeded
to markedly increase the ca-
pacity of their existing refin-
eries, and thus obtain more
refined product without having
to mar virgin areas.
In fact, the coastal zone law
in Delaware, contrary to what
oil companies and some big
business located in Delaware
have said, attracted business to
Delaware. The management and
employees of companies are
obviously much interested in
the quality of their living en-
vironment.
To have a place in their front
yard where they can go hunting
and fishing and boating and
swimming or just lie out in
the sun is a great asset and
since there are so many busi-
nesses which have a higher
level of employment per million
dollars investment than oil re-
fineries or highly automated
chemical plants, the actual job
level in Delaware, I think, was
improved as a result of the
Coastal Zone Act rather than
hurt.
We have a great tourist busi-
ness in Delaware. Many jobs are
provided in lower Delaware as a
result of the relatively unspoiled
open spaces that we have there.
If industry had built the series of
refineries and had put in a deep
water port and so on in Dela-
ware Bay, as had been planned,
it would have been completely
incompatible with the use of
that area for recreation and
would have cost Delaware
more jobs than would have been
brought in through those low-
level employment industries.
This battle between indus-
try and environmental groups
is a result primarily of industry
being focused on making a buck
today and environmentalists
focusing on the quality of life
in future generations. Somehow
we need to get decision-makers
thinking about the long term, as
well as the larger geographic
area.
To say it a little differently,
we need to get decision-makers
to think holistically, to think
comprehensively. This is not
only true in industry, this is true
in government.
Our government is plagued
with the myopia of the elected
official who, with rare excep-
SEPTEMBER 1979
-------
tions, is primarily concerned
with getting re-elected. Thus,
he has a short term focus. He
can't even see the big problems
which must be looked at over a
longer term.
Elected officials, with rare
exception, are not leaders.
They are followers. They try to
find out in what direction their
constituents want to go and
then try to get out in front of
that parade.
So the way to make things
happen in the United States is
to inform the people, work to-
gether to mobilize and focus
the convictions of the people
and help them get their message
to the elected officials. The
elected officials pay much more
attention to a constituent than
they do to an expert in Wash-
ington.
So hereat the National Audu-
bon Society where we have
400,000 members around the
country, 80 percent of whom
are very active in the neighbor-
hoods, we have a very effective
grass roots force.
We a re out to provide our
members with as much solid,
even-handed authoritative in-
formation as we can about the
critical issues of the day and
then work with them at the ap-
propriate juncture to bring their
grass-roots force to bear on the
decision-makers in State Legis-
latures and in the Congress.
This approach includes working
with people from the business
community, from various levels
of government, and other pub-
lic interest groups to arrive at
solutions to our problems that
take into consideration the in-
terests of our pluralistic
society.
The emphasis on a solution to
our energy problem seems to
be on large-scale systems
with major environmental
impact. Could there be a
significant role for appro-
priate technology using
smaller, decentralized
systems?
I think there is a major role for
the use of appropriate technol-
ogy in solving the energy prob-
lem. In regard to conservation
of energy, every one of us can
play an important role in stop-
ping wasting energy, by how we
establish the temperature con-
trols in our own home, how we
decide to insulate our home,
how we decide to provide for
our transportation, whether or
not we insist upon getting a
car that gets 40 miles per gal-
lon rather than driving some
gas guzzler.
In fact, most of the important
decisions in conserving energy
are made at the local level,
primarily in our own homes, in
our own work places. But when
it comes to the supply side of
the energy equation, it is also
important that we concern
ourselves with decentralized
approaches.
The sun is today the major
source of energy, and yet we
use only a very smatl portion
of that which comes in to the
Earth. The opportunity for using
larger quantities is great. But
those opportunities primarily
involve using it on the site, col-
lecting it on the site.
The sun provides us free
energy transported right to the
point of use, our own work
site. One of the problems has
been that we have moved over
the decades in the opposite
direction towards highly cen-
tralized power plants, billion
dollar plants, very expensive,
extensive transmission sys-
tems.
So people in that business,
the utility people, the manufac-
turers of the large power plant
equipment, the bankers—all
think in terms of big centralized
facilities. When they are asked
about solar energy, they say,
well, one of the big problems
with solar energy is it's so dif-
fuse and you have to collect it
and bring it together in some
centralized place, and that's
very, very difficult.
That's obviously the wrong
kind of reasoning. One of the
big pluses of solar energy is
that it is delivered free to the
point of use.
We can design our homes
and work places so that we use
the energy from the sun more
effectively.
We have, in the past, used
windmills, small hydro-pow-
ered plants, lots of them all
over the country, back when
we were a poor Nation. When
we found oil and pumped it out
of the ground and sold it for
almost nothing, we got away
from the windmills and the
small hydropower plants and
wood fires, and went to these
highly centralized facilities, be-
cause the cost of oil was so low.
But now the day of reckon-
ing is arriving, when we are
rapidly depleting that cheap,
convenient source of energy—
oil. And some people say we
can't use windmills and the
small hydropower plants or
wood fuel because they're too
expensive. But how can they
be too expensive in an affluent
society, when they were such
central elements of our way of
life when we were a poor
Nation?
Everything is relative. Rela-
tive to cheap oil, windmills
weren't very attractive, but rela-
tive to very expensive oil, or
nonexistent oil, windmills will
be very attractive.
If we really modified our
economic structure to include
wide adoption of appropriate
technology, do you see the
average person being better
off, as a result, and would
the environment be better off
as a result?
If you define appropriate
technology as I do, which
means the application of that
kind of technology which is
most appropriate to the task at
hand, then I think we would be
better off economically and
environmentally.
But if you define appropriate
technology as the most simple
and most small-scale type of
activity, in some cases, it may
not be as desirable as an alter-
nate kind of technology. So I
believe we need to free up our
thinking from the inhibitions
that come from maintaining the
status quo, and search for that
kind of technology which does
give us, over the long term,
both the better economic and
environmental qualities.
And that doesn't mean that
in all cases it would make sense
to move from the highly central-
ized, highly capital-intensive,
to the small-scale operation.
You need to put the alternatives
on the right scales, and weigh
them from the interests of the
final consumer.
Many times these things get
completely out of the control
of John Q. Citizen. I think the
movement toward the highly
centralized power plants is a
good example. Today, for ex-
ample, bankers, utility execu-
tives, nuclear scientists, and
government officials—appoint-
ed and elected—put a lot of
effort into establishing billion-
dollar nuclear plants, which
need to be around for decades
in order to get a decent return
on investment, it's not likely
that they're going to be able to
think very clearly about an
alternate kind of energy which
calls for putting hundreds of
thousands of gadgets on indi-
vidual rooftops, as a competitor
for those billion-dollar plants.
To illustrate that, today
when a public utility decides
that it needs additional capac-
ity for electricity, it will vote to
add a new power plant—a coal-
fired plant or a nuclear plant—
costing a billion dollars, and it
will go to a bank or two and
borrow that money, because by
law, it is guaranteed a fair re-
turn on its investment.
And the new plants cost
much more than the old plants
it has on line. So the incre-
mental cost of that electricity
is high, but you and I, who have
been paying for our electricity
monthly, find that the utility ups
our rates as a result of the new,
more expensive plant it puts
on line.
But that higher rate is aver-
aged over all of the electricity
you're getting, not only from the
new plant, but from the older
plants. And so the actual in-
crease is pretty small. If another
power company, a new one,
Continued on page 40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Deputy,
EPA
Gets
Ocean
Ship
The EPA has acquired an ocean-going
vessel, the Antelope, to help monitor
and collect scientific data at ocean dump-
ing sites,
"For too long we have considered our
oceans an international refuse container,"
said EPA's Deputy Administrator Barbara
Blum. "Now we are limiting ocean dumping
and other harmful practices. The ship will
help monitor those activities."
The ship's initial three-year mission is
to survey sites now used for the disposal
of wastes in the ocean. Scientific data col-
lected by the Antelope will aid EPA in its
the Antelope, ai
responsibility to oversee ocean dumping
activity carried out under EPA and Corps of
Engineers permits.
The 165-foot Antelope was launched in
1966 as a U.S. Navy patrol gunboat. She
served with the U.S. Seventh Fleet in Viet-
nam and with the Sixth Fleet in the Medi-
terranean, and was retired in 1977. The
EPA obtained the surplus ship at no cost in
a transfer from the General Services Ad-
ministration.
Now on her first cruise as an EPA survey
vessel, Antelope is enroute from her home
port, Annapolis, Md., to Jacksonville, Fla.
There she will undergo additional refitting
and upkeep work.
The Antelope has already been exten-
sively converted from her original Navy
configuration to perform peacetime scien-
tific missions as an ocean survey vessel.
The conversion included the removal of all
weaponry and the installation of three com-
plete laboratories and a survey center con-
taining mini-computers and analytical
equipment.
A crane also has been installed on the
after portion of the ship to handle survey
Captain Glenn Germaine.
gear, and the vessel has been equipped
with special stabilizing equipment for use
in rough seas.
In the first year of her new oceanographic
mission, the Antelope will perform surveys
off the U.S. East Coast and Puerto Rico.
EPA regulates the dumping of industrial
wastes, dredged materials, and sewage
sludge by issuing the required dumping
permits only in cases where the ocean en-
vironment will not be disrupted and no
feasible alternative exists. Under the
Agency's regulatory program, ocean dump-
ing off the United States has declined from
almost 11 million tons in 1973 to about
7.4 million tons in 1977. This total will
decrease further, since EPA regulations
call for the phase-out of all ocean dumping
of sewage sludge by the end of 1981.
The Antelope is being operated under
contract for EPA by Interstate Electronics
Corporation of Anaheim, Calif. For her
survey work she maintains a team of
twelve scientists, assisted by an equal
number of operating crew. D
SEPTEMBER 1979
-------
A DDT Legacy
By Larry O'Neill
-------
perhaps it will sound familiar: a pro-
ductive river poisoned by steady dis-
charges of a toxic pesticide from a
chemical manufacturing plant.
The Kepone catastrophe in Virginia's
James River several years ago . . . right?
Wrong. It is the more recent DDT contami-
nation of Alabama's Tennessee River near
the small, largely black town of Triana.
But if your guess was the Kepone
calamity, the error is easily forgiven. As
already indicated, the nature of these two
incidents is similar. So, unfortunately, are
some of the consequences. Like fishermen
on the James, most of Triana's roughly 65
commercial fishermen have been put out
of work because of the pesticide contami-
nation. And like Kepone production work-
ers, many of Triana's roughly 1,000 resi-
dents are plagued with uncertainties about
the long-term health effects of a persistent
insecticide.
Like other chemical catastrophes such
as the birth defects from New York's Love
Canal dump, Alabama's DDT woes again
dramatize the unpredictable nature of the
chemical trade—operations long since for-
gotten can rise again with a vengeance to
threaten people and the environment.
EPA banned almost all uses of DDT in
1972 because of its persistence, its ill
effects on wildlife, and possible health
hazards to people. It has remained off the
market since that time for all but a few
special uses to protect health, such as
controlling rabid bats.
The discovery of DDT in the Tennessee
River near Triana began with an Army
environmental agency's survey in 1 977 of
the Redstone Arsenal between Triana and
Huntsville, Ala. Military scientists found
high levels of the banned insecticide
in a discharge ditch at the Arsenal, in the
sediment of two streams that feed the
Tennessee, in the Tennessee itself, and
in fish from the river and streams.
The Army knew there was DDT at the
Arsenal. It had leased some of the property
to the chemicals group of Olin Corp., Stam-
ford, Conn., to produce the pesticide from
1947 to 1971.
During that time, Olin discharged cer-
tain amounts of the insecticide and occa-
sionally dumped bad lots of it into a "dis-
charge ditch" at the Arsenal. Other resi-
dues of pesticide were poured into nearby
settling ponds. In 1971, the Army closed
the plant for failure to meet EPA-prescribed
standards, and later, in fact, tore it down.
Some of the DDT waste sites were treated
with chemicals intended to neutralize the
insecticide and then were filled and
planted with grasses.
But discharges over the 24-year life
span of the Olin plant combined with
gradual erosion of the settling ponds
washed a heavy load of DDT into the
Tennessee River watershed. Some 4,000
tons of it eventually were estimated to be
in a roughly 2.5 mile stretch of one Ten-
nessee tributary—the Huntsvilie Spring
Branch. Small but still significant amounts
have been found in the river itself and in
another tributary, Indian Creek.
After being informed of the Army's
findings, EPA Regional Administrator John
White of Atlanta in September, 1 977, ad-
vised that fish caught in the Tennessee near
the Arsenal "should not be eaten." A sim-
ilar warning was given for ducks taken
from the river. White also noted that "some
channel catfish were found to contain quan-
tities of the pesticide in excess of 400 parts
per million (ppm)."
The Food and Drug Administration pro-
hibits the interstate sale of fish and shell-
fish containing more than 5 ppm DDT.
Tests on fish from Triana residents' freez-
ers showed from 3 to 60 times this amount.
Despite these findings, Alabama officials
have consistently refused to close the con-
taminated waterways to fishing. One State
official was quoted as saying, "I'd be glad
to eat the fish from there anytime" and that
"when someone shows those levels of
DDT are harmful to humans we will recon-
sider. This doesn't mean that someone in
Triana has to die or even get sick."
The Army has taken steps to prevent
further contamination of the Tennessee.
Thus far, it has spent about $800,000 on
clean-up efforts including a second sealing
of the DDT settling ponds, diverting drain-
age ayhe Arsenal away from the pesticide-
laced areas, and constructing retention
dams in a drainage ditch. But the malev-
olent genie already had escaped the bottle,
and its touch was not limited to fish.
Blood tests done earlier this year on 12
Triana residents by the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) found levels ranging from
about 50 parts per billion (ppb) to more
than 600 ppb. Regional Administrator
White described these as "14 times higher
than the national level." Other experts
compared them to levels found in DDT
production workers.
Triana police chief Joe Fletcher's level
was 273 ppb. He has said, "I'm scared . . .
If we had worked in the plant we could
understand having high levels of DDT. But
why should we take responsibility for
someone dumping in the river?"
Whether any Triana residents will be-
come ill from DDT exposure is uncertain.
Dr. Phillip Landrigan, chief of special
studies for CDC, has noted, "Plenty of
animal work shows reproductive prob-
lems. Human studies, however, which
were restricted to males, show nothing—
even at high doses." (Earlier this year, the
National Cancer Institute reported that
DDT probably is not, as once believed, a
cancer agent.)
To better understand the insecticide's
health effects, CDC this spring began
examining about half the town's residents
and checking their DDT levels. The pur-
pose, according to CDC's Dr. Kathleen
Kreiss who is directing the study, is to
judge whether any health problems can be
correlated with consuming large amounts
of DDT. Particular attention is being paid
to such illnesses as kidney disease, head-
aches, and high blood pressure. The results
of this study won't be known until the end
of this year.
The economic havoc wrought by the DDT
is more certain than its health implications.
FDA prohibitions against selling contami-
nated fish and fears of potential buyers
have put Triana's commercial fisherman,
Continued on page 36
SEPTEMBER 1979
1 1
-------
The Will
to be
Innovative
By Senator Edmund S. Muskie
It has been a decade since Apollo 11
landed on the moon. It has been almost
two decades since President Kennedy
committed the country to the Apollo
project. That decision required a marriage
between government and science which
can only be compared in our time to the
Manhattan project.
In his fifth address to the Nation on
energy, President Carter set this country
on a similar course. By declaring war on
energy dependence, the President has also
called on government and science to
achieve goals never before attained.
The relationship between academic
research and the war in Vietnam blurred the
importance of science and technology to
many young Americans, but recent polls,
including one from the National Science
Foundation, have indicated that the
pessimism of the general public has faded.
Once again, most people believe that
science, if properly applied, can help
improve the human condition.
If there is any pessimism about the
capability to develop new technologies to
solve our problems, it comes instead from
those industries whose competitive
existence depends on innovation.
This could be a serious problem.
To those industries which must remain
economically solvent and also work to
prevent pollution, such pessimism could
be crippling to both their individual cor-
porate profits and national pollution goafs.
Some industries will have to make
important decisions about research and
technology in the months and years ahead
if they are going to be productive and
not pollute.
Three major assumptions, held by most
of the business community, however, have
stifled the volume of technical innovation
which could be utilized for pollution
control.
First, the business and energy com-
munities do not believe that support for the
environmental laws of the last decade is
strong and will last.
Second, many industries believe Federal
regulation is strangling their creative
efforts and forcing research into a defen-
sive, rather than an innovative, posture.
Third, many believe pollution control
does not produce economic benefits.
All of these assumptions are wrong.
The first assumption—that somehow a
dramatic change will occur in the environ-
mental consciousness of this Nation—can
quickly be discarded. Although the pres-
sure for this Nation to achieve energy
independence will test how dedicated
government and industry are to protecting
the environment, surveys continue to show
the American public is unwilling to trade
a clean environment even for energy.
It is true that the business community
needs secure policies in order to make
investments. Security should exist in the
fact that the environmental laws we have
passed since 1970 have remained in effect
and will not be abolished. They may be
amended, as all ongoing programs are,
but, just as a Los Angeles Times editorial
stated after the third air pollution alert in
that city in a month:
". .. Many businesses and automobile
lobbies (must) get it out of their heads that
they can force Congress to back away from
the Clean Air Act."
The second assumption is a more diffi-
cult one to dispel in this era of anti-
regulation ferment.
Congress has ventured down many
avenues trying to spark innovation in
pollution control technology. The fact that
we have stringent pollution laws and
regulations confirms that pollution control
was simply not being achieved under the
free enterprise system without regulation.
To get the job done, Congress has had to
remove economic incentives for those
polluting industries which continue to
defer compliance. We maintain a strong
environmental research program within
EPA. And, most importantly, Washington
has had to actually write technological
limits into law.
Federal regulation has not smothered
technological ingenuity, but has instead,
guided it in specific directions. The best
example that comes to mind is the auto-
mobile mileage standards. The auto
industry kicked and screamed that it could
not improve the mileage ratings of the fleet
in such a short time. Well, the job is being
done, and the improved mileage ratings
have become a major selling point in 1979.
There is actually competition in the
industry based on gas mileage.
New environmental policies have not
hurt innovation. They have actually stimu-
lated new technology and resulted in a
redesign of many business products and
processes.
For example, the provisions of the Clean
Water and Clean Air Acts have been the
catalysts for many corporations to
re-evaluate their entire production systems
in order to minimize energy waste and
pollution. Georgia Pacific Corporation, in
1978, transformed pollutants and other
wastes into enough fuel to supply half of
the company's production energy needs—
enough power for a city population of
500,000.
The Philadelphia Water Department may
be the first metropolitan treatment agency
to take advantage of the "alternative and
innovative" technology provisions added
to the 1977 Clean Water Act. It has
perfected an innovative biological treat-
menttechnique.
Environmental laws in other nations
have also stimulated, not retarded,
technological progress. The Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
ment reports that environmental regulation
has helped Japan develop cheap alterna-
tives to RGB's and devise new techniques
to meet strict auto emission standards.
In Norway, environmental laws stimulated
the development of a cheaper energy-saving
alternative to open-furnace burning. The
French Government has even urged that
many unrecovered pollutants be recovered
for their economic value.
But no matter how much government
direction is provided to find innovative
technology, new investments will simply
not be made if those in the market place
do not see economic benefits from such
undertakings. This brings us to the third
reason why business believes innovation is
crippled—that it just doesn't pay.
I have already mentioned a few cases
where innovation has resulted in economic
benefits. We get a clearer picture of just
how economically important industrial
innovation and research are when we look
at cases where enough research has not
been undertaken. Even though some indus-
tries believe taking a short cut will result
in economic benefits, the reality of not
investing in research can mean long-term
problems and economic losses.
The recent corporate decision by Gen-
eral Motors to shift a large portion of its
production line to diesel-powered vehicles
has been met with strong public approval.
Quick economic benefits? The prospect
of an automobile which can get consider-
ably better mileage ratings is attractive,
but diesel engines also emit pollutants
whose effect on humans and the environ-
ment are unknown. One Environmental
Protection Agency study has already deter-
mined that diesel-powered cars emit
unacceptably high levels of air pollution
and should be altered to ward off possible
health hazards.
It is far less of a gamble to invest in a
major undertaking when adequate re-
search has already taken place or when
technology is already available to correct
pollution problems. The Senate Environ-
ment and Public Works Committee has hac
to make a special request of $4 million for
EPA to conduct a study on diesel health
effects—an important study in light of the
Incinerator designed to burn hazardous
wastes at the 3M company near St.
Paul, Minn.
apparent auto industry decision to invest
billions of dollars in diesels.
Probably the most urgent environmental
issue on the agenda for this Congress is
trying to solve the problems associated
with the release of hazardous wastes into
the environment.
Every week we read about yet another
case where hazardous wastes have been
haphazardly dumped or stored. Even
though acceptable ways to deal with such
wastes have been technically available
for many years, the cost of utilizing innova-
tive disposal methods, like recycling and
incineration, has always encouraged the
cheapest and easiest alternative in the
short-run. In the long-run, those companies
who have been directly or indirectly
responsible for improper waste disposal
and "midnight dumping" of dangerous
chemicals damage their reputation, force
legal action, and invite regulation.
Those companies which made technical
decisions long ago to deal with their waste
in the best possible manner find it much
easier and less costly to comply with new
Federal regulations which force all com-
panies within a certain industry to use
acceptable disposal techniques. Thus, the
regulations not only remove the competitive
advantage from less responsible com-
panies, but actually give the advantage to
the responsible ones.
To those who criticize the growing num-
ber of regulations which face American
industry, it should be clear that pollution
control regulation only fills the void left by
a lack of sound business approaches to
environmental problems. The more techni-
cal decisions made by industry to solve
pollution problems, the better the argument
that industry can manage the problems of
air, water, and land pollution on its own.
A competitive edge should always exist
for those companies seeking technical
ways to improve their product; but an eco-
nomic advantage should not continue for
those who are careless in their production.
Any assumption that the atmosphere for
industrial innovation in today's society is
less favorablethan in the past is unfounded.
I believe it does pay to be innovative.
It does pay to develop new technologies
to handle difficult pollution problems.
There is no question that the develop-
ment of new technologies needs a boost.
Not only does industry have to be shaken
from its current malaise, but more eco-
nomic incentives need to be pursued, and
a broader communications network to iden-
tify new technologies needs to be set up.
Most important, many more industries
will have to decide that the courage to be
different, the will to take a chance on new
technologies, is really beneficial.
It is important to the Nation as a whole.
As we are about to embark on another
major venture where government and sci-
ence together seek to reach important
goals, it is helpful to remember the impor-
tant new technologies this Nation discov-
ered on our way to the moon.
It is also important to hope that industry
and government can work together to pro-
duce that same stimulus for new technol-
ogies to help solve the many pollution
problems we stil! have here on Earth, fj
Senator Muskie is Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution,
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
SEPTEMBER 1979
13
-------
Making
Cleanup
Pay
By Dr. Joseph T. Ling
Air pollution control equipment at Chemolite
plant at 3M Company in Cottage Grove,
Minn
Dr. Joseph Ling is vice president of En-
vironmental Engineering and Pollution
Control for 3M, St. Paul, Minn. A native of
Peking, China, he served as director of the
Institute of Sanitary Engineering Research
for the Ministry of Municipal Construction
there in 1956 and 1957. In the U.S., Dr.
Ling received the first Ph.D. in sanitary
engineering given by the University of
Minnesota. He also was a Woodrow Wilson
Fellow.
like other companies, 3M found itself
caught between the pincers of inflation
and economic downturn in 1974 and
looked for ways to reduce costs and ease
the fiscal pains of recession.
In methodical sequence, our board
chairman, Raymond H. Herzog, asked each
division and department chief, "What can
you do to help reduce costs?" Everybody
had an acceptable answer but me.
"Not only can't we reduce our environ-
mental costs, they're going to increase
significantly," I said. "The only alternative
is noncompliance with regulations, and
then we have to decide which one of us
goes to jail!"
"In that case," Mr. Herzog responded,
"why don't you see what you can do to
eliminate the sources of pollution, so we
won't have to worry about complying with
guidelines and regulation?" It was a good
question. Some of ourtechnical people had
been exploring process changes and other
approaches along that line. However, these
efforts were individual and unorganized.
Like most companies, 3M primarily was
fighting pollution with "black box" controls
at the end of the production pipeline. This
was the conventional way.
Eliminating sources of pollution on an
organized, company-wide basis, however,
provided us with an escape route from
between the fiscal rock and compliance
hard place, where we had so uncomfortably
found ourselves.
Beginning in 1974, we developed a pro-
gram called Pollution Prevention Pays, or
3P, for short. Its objective was to eliminate
or reduce pollution at the source, before it
was created, and thereby reduce the cost
and complexity of environmental compli-
ance.
The program was begun in 1975 in the
United States and since then has been
adopted by 14 of our subsidiary companies
overseas as well. The results have been
significant and gratifying.
Thirty-nine pollution prevention or re-
duction programs have been selected for
recognition by 3M in the United States.
These represent a savings of $1 7.4 million,
primarily in the form of pollution-control-
facility costs which were reduced or elimi-
nated, and manufacturing costs, and some
retained sales. Our subsidiaries overseas
have contributed another 97 projects rep-
resenting an additional savings of $4.03
million.
At the same time, the 3P Program also
has eliminated or reduced a wide variety
of air, water, and so!id-waste pollution
problems. In our U.S. operations, for
example, we have annually reduced air
pollution by 75,000 tons, water pollutants
by 1,325 tons, sludge by 2,900 tons, and
wastewater by 500 million gallons.
Among the larger 3P projects is a
process change at one 3M plant which
eliminated an odor at another factory. The
problem occurred when bulk adhesive
from the first plant was coated to a variety
of industrial tapes and other products at the
second plant. An odor was released which
wafted through nearby residential areas,
causing a number of complaints.
The alternatives were to install a $1
million thermal oxidizer to remove the
odor-causing material from curing-oven
exhaust vents and spend another 550,000
a year to fuel and operate the oxidizer, or
to find out whether the adhesive formula
could be changed to eliminate the problem.
The problem was defined easily: The
bulk adhesive was produced using a chem-
ical process through which a simple com-
pound (monomer) was turned into a com-
plex compound (polymer). The process had
a conversion ratio of 90 percent. During
the coating process, the non-converted
portion of the adhesive escaped into the
atmosphere, creating the odor.
A team of engineers and scientists from
the adhesive manufacturing and using
plants developed a process change by
which they were able to double the per-
centage of solids in that adhesive formula.
This and other steps increased the conver-
sion ratio to 98 percent, the maximum
feasible limit. The process took about three
months to plan and implement—less time
than to install the thermal oxidizer—and
it reduced the amount of non-converted
monomers to where odor was no problem.
M
EPA JOURNAL
-------
h
Of, John D Crowe/I at work in a 3M laboratory He has won an award in the company's
pollution prevention program.
In another instance, cooling water was
recycled where it previously had been col-
lected for disposal with wastewater. This
allowed us to scale down the capacity of
a planned wastewater treatment facility
from 2,100 gallons per minute to 1,000.
It cost $600,000 to build the recycling
facility, but $800,000 was saved on the
treatment facility, for a net saving of
$200,000. In addition, operating costs
were lowered, because of reduced demand
for labor and treatment chemicals.
Another project involved the redesign
of a resin spray booth, which had been
producing about 500,000 pounds per year
of overspray that required special incinera-
tion disposal as wet scrap.
New equipment was installed to elimi-
nate excessive overspray and provide for
more effective recycling of the necessary
overspray. Efficiency was increased to pro-
vide a net reduction in the total amount of
resin used. This saves over $1 25,000 an-
nually, a handsome return on a $45,000
investment in equipment.
Some of our international results have
included improved process controls at a
plant in the United Kingdom, recycling of
wastewater in West Germany, and a va-
riety of combustion-control and heat-
recovery processes in Japan.
We recognize that pollution-prevention
technology is neither new noruniquetoSM.
We regard our results as no more than an
example of what can be accomplished in
an organized program.
We also recognize that it is fairly easy
for 3M to incorporate the pollution-preven-
tion concept into technical activity, because
ours is a research-oriented company, with
products and processes continuously being
developed or changed.
In some industries, processes cannot be
changed, or at least not easily, without dis-
rupting or halting total production. Change-
over may be too costly, or there may be
no pollution-prevention technology to elim-
inate the pollution sources. For example,
many heavy industries may not have real-
istic alternatives to conventional abate-
ment methods. Hence, the 3P program
concept would not be significantly effective.
We believe the goal should be to use
the pollution-prevention concept where
and when possible and practical. Each
industry must apply its own ingenuity to
develop its own know-how relating to the
concept, just as each has developed its own
technology to produce its own products.
These results are encouraged by provid-
ing technical employees with personal and
professional recognition for pollution-pre-
vention contributions through product re-
formulation, process modification, equip-
ment redesign, or recovery of waste
materials for reuse.
The name Pollution Prevention Pays was
selected after debate over whether the
word "pays" should be associated with
the concept of pollution prevention. Four
valid payoffs were defined: better environ-
ment, conserved resources, improved tech-
nologies, and reduced costs. Therefore, it
was concluded, payoff not only should be
equated with pollution prevention but is
an essential motivating factor.
The Pollution Prevention Pays program
is run by a 3P Coordinating Committee
which consists of management personnel
from our engineering, manufacturing, and
laboratory organizations, and corporate
Environmental Engineering and Pollution
Control. The environmental organization
provides a supervisor to carry out Coordi-
nating Committee plans and to administer
the program. The Coordinating Committee
—there is one in the U.S. and each of the
14 subsidiary companies having 3P pro-
grams—establishes criteria for 3P recog-
nition and makes award recommendations.
Recognition suggestions usually are ini-
tiated by 3M operating divisions. Only
those persons who have made a direct,
personal, technical contribution are eligi-
ble. To be eligible for recognition, a project
must meet four criteria:
• Through process change, product refor-
mulation, or other preventive means, the
project must eliminate or reduce a pollu-
tion that is a current problem or has the
potential to become one.
• It must exhibit more efficient use of raw
materials, reduction in energy consump-
tion or improvement in the use of other
natural resources.
• It must involve a technical accomplish-
ment, innovative approach, or unique
design.
• It must have some monetary benefit,
through reduced or deferred pollution-
control or manufacturing costs, increased
sales of an exciting product, sales of a
new product, or other reduction in capital
expenses or operating costs.
An extensive informational program for
technical employees is conducted on a
continuing basis to encourage pollution-
prevention thinking and action in their
daily work. Prizes and gimmicks are
avoided, because the 3P program is a
technical venture and not a contest or
promotion.
3P recognition centers around a certifi-
cate signed personally by the board chair-
man and division general manager for
whom the recipients work. I add my signa-
ture as well.
The certificates usually are presented at
a special luncheon or meeting of the divi-
sion's management organization. The ob-
jective is to bring 3P technical contributors
to the attention of their comrades and also
the bosses who sign their paychecks and
can offer promotional opportunities.
Being recognized for using technical
creativity to solve a pollution problem and
lower costs is good for career develop-
ment, our people have found. As it should
be, this is the best incentive for taking the
time and trouble to take the extra technical
step to find low- or no-pollution answers to
pollution problems. D
SEPTEMBER 1979
15
-------
Pollution Cleanup
Opportunities
C ince the first strict Federal and State
environmental pollution controls, it
has been charged that cleaning up the air
and water is too costly, placing an unfair
economic burden on industries-, utilities,
and consumers.
Is this true—or can pollution control
pay dividends? The four cases below,
selected from the files of the Environ-
mental Industry Council in Washington,
D.C,, show that cleaning up the environ-
ment can be a definite economic plus. The
Council is an association of manufacturers
of pollution control equipment and
systems.
The dollar and pollution control payoffs
may vary from company to company. On
the other hand, a cleanup technique may
be successfully used by many industries.
The citing of these cases provided by the
Environmental Industry Council should not
be interpreted to mean that EPA necessarily
endorses these methods.
Less Smoke, Less Fuel
In 1974, Florida Power Corporation had a
crucial problem at its Turner electric gen-
erating plant, located near Enterprise, in
the central part of the Florida peninsula.
The Turner plant's oil-fired boilers were
releasing twice as much heavy black smoke
and 40 percent more ash particles into the
air than State environmental laws per-
mitted. The plant would have to be shut
down if it could not be brought within
compliance.
Florida Power engineers had to choose
between two approaches to a solution. A
"front-end" cleanup would do the job by
burning fuel more efficiently. Or a "tail-
end" cleanup would in effect reduce the
smoke and ash on their way up the chimney.
Florida Power engineers decided to try
the more efficient front-end approach and
concentrated on looking for a better burner
system. They found one at Peabody Engi-
neering Corporation, a division of Peabody
International headquartered in Stamford,
Conn.
Peabody's own engineers modified the
Turner Plant's boiler to accommodate 1 0
Peabody Air Pressure Recovery (APR)
burners, developed and perfected in the
early 1970's.
The super-efficient burners use special
devices to send a flow of precisely regu-
lated air directly to the fuel. The amount of
oxygen mixed with fuel for burning is so
exact that excess air usually is less than
one percent. That compares with as much
as 20 percent in conventional burners,
which supply air to the fuel by less direct
and less regulated means.
The importance of precision in this case
is that the closer the air-fuel ratio is to the
absolute ideal, the more complete is the
burning of the fuel and the less waste there
is to go up the chimney, either as ash par-
ticles or as smoke.
The Peabody system includes a number
of sophisticated features. One of the most
important is a solid-state burner manage-
ment system that quickly detects and pin-
points trouble sources and also simplifies
maintenance.
The Turner Plant now has an average
ash level well within the State requirement,
and the heavy smoke has been cut twice as
much as compliance required.
Furthermore, the 10 Peabody burners
are saving Florida Power about 4,000
barrels of oil a year, and the cost of both
maintenance and operating manpower has
been reduced. (The efficiency of the Pea-
body system is boosted by the relatively
high quality of oil burned at the Turner
plant.)
More Power to the People
Montana Power Company's problem in
1975 concerned its coal-fired electric gen-
erating plant at Billings. The plant could
not operate at full capacity and still meet
State air pollution standards.
Instead of producing 163 megawatts of
power, the plant could turn out only 148
megawatts. That meant less electricity for
customers and lower profits on the plant's
operation.
Here's how the problem came about:
When the plant was built, an electro-
static precipitator was installed to control
the ash and smoke. But the precipitator was
designed to meet its guaranteed efficiency
—removal of 96 percent of the boiler's ash
particles—while the plant burned coal with
a sulfur content of about 1.2 percent. That
was the sulfur level anticipated in coal
from a new mine being opened nearby.
As it turned out, the coal had far less
sulfur—one percent or less. And the lower
sulfur content meant the ash had a higher
resistance to the electrical charges it
needed in orderto be picked up by the
collector plate.
The precipitator's efficiency level plum-
meted to 85 percent at fulf capacity. The
only way to get back within State emission
standards was to cut power production by
1 6 percent.
A change in coal supply was out of the
question, and Montana Power was under-
standably reluctant to opt for a costly addi-
tional precipitator.
Instead, the company chose a system
that would chemically treat the ash, there-
16
EPAJOURNAL
-------
by restoring its ability to hold the right
electrical charge.
The system, a product of the Apollo
Chemical Corporation of Whippany, N.J.,
is known as Coaltrol LPA-LAC Flue Gas
Conditioning System.
Its active chemical is dissolved in water,
and the solution is injected into the flue gas
in a fine spray. The water evaporates rap-
idly, and the chemical in effect coats the
ash particles, changing their character-
istics.
Principally, their resistance to electrical
charges is lowered and they acquire a
tendency to stick together, making larger
particles that are easier to collect.
The plant now is well within the State
emission levels when operating at full
capacity.
An additional precip'tator would have
cost Montana Power about $3,350,000.
The expense of installing the Coaltrol LPA-
LAC system was less than $100,000.
Precipitator installation time would have
been between two and three years. Coal-
trol was installed in less than six weeks.
Slashing Sewer Costs
Sophisticated new sewage treatment tech-
nology holds the potential for revolutionary
changes in the Nation's broad approach to
sewage processing.
The technology could play an important
role in a current trend away from more
large central treatment plants. It is a con-
siderable plus for the environment and
could save small towns and their taxpayers
millions of dollars in coming years.
The advanced technology was perfected
by the Thetf ord Corporation of Ann Arbor,
Mich., after several years of research and
development. Systems using it treat waste-
water virtually to the clarity of rainwater
and recycle that water for flushing. Excess
water created by continuing waste addi-
tions is evaporated or is so pure that it can
be safely discharged either above or below
ground.
Because no fresh water is needed at
toilets and urinals, fresh water require-
ments are reduced by as much as 90 per-
cent at a given installation. And because
run-off water is of such high quality, drain-
fields, where they are needed, can be up to
90 percent smaller than other systems
would require.
Thetford is just getting into installations
as large as shopping centers and clusters
of housing. But the reliability of its system,
called Cycle-Let, has been established in a
number of smaller installations, such as
recreational facilities, service stations,
wholesale distributorships, and small fac-
tories and office buildings. As currently
designed, Cycle-Let is not primarily in-
tended for use by individual homeowners.
The Thetford technology virtually elimi-
nates the three principal sewage contami-
nants—biological oxygen demand, or the
tendency of waste to deplete oxygen in the
bodies of fresh water it pollutes; suspended
solids; and coiiform bacteria, originating in
human intestines.
The Cycle-Let process begins by gravity-
feeding wastes from toilets and other
wastewater-producing fixtures to a sump,
from which they are vacuum-transferred to
the first of three treatment components.
Here, aided by oxygen, beneficial bacteria
that are always present in such wastes con-
sume simple organic compounds.
The source of oxygen in this phase is
nitrate, present in the recycled water the
toilets used. In the course of doing its job,
the nitrate is converted into a gas and is
vented, along with carbon dioxide.
A follow-up activity in this first treat-
ment component aerates the waste liquid.
It converts ammonia into the nitrate that
will be needed for oxidation when the
treated water is recycled through the
toilets.
The wastewater now moves out of the
first treatment component to a stage of
highly efficient ultrafiltration. That takes
place when the waste water is pumped
through tubes lined wrth filtering mem-
branes.
Virtually all the contaminants have been
removed by the end of ultrafiltration. What
remains to be done is elimination of color,
odor, and any surviving coiiform bacteria.
This final work is accomplished in a
water-polishing component by activated
carbon adsorbers for odor and color re-
moval, and ozone for disinfecting.
The most important Cycle-Let technical
breakthroughs are a better technique for
denitrification; use of the membrane filters
to separate liquids from solids; prolonged
activated carbon life; and in-system ozone
manufacture, using ultraviolet light.
Installation of a number of such individ-
ual systems in new subdivisions and small
towns could result in multi-million-dollar
savings over installation of central sewage
treatment plants with their extended sewer
lines.
Resource Savings, Too
Few companies have been more successful
at turning a problem into a profit than has
Gould, Inc., whose Foil Division produces
thin, copper-plated foil the electronics
industry uses for its printed circuit boards.
Plating requires a considerable amount
of rinsing, which generates wastewater,
contaminated primarily, in this case, with
copper. At Gould's Cleveland, Ohio, facil-
ity, copper in wastewater being discharged
into the city sewer system potentially could
interfere with sewage treatment chemistry,
making sludge less acceptable for use as a
fertilizer.
Meanwhile, wastewater from the new
Gould plant at Chandler, Ariz..which was
targeted for an early 1979 opening, also
would be discharged into the city sewer
system. But the problem that would be
most keenly felt at Chandler would be
fresh water, which is extremely scarce in
the arid Southwest.
Engineers in the Foil Division, which
had been treating wastewater all along,
Continued on psge . •'•
SEPTEMBER 1979
1 7
-------
Reducing
Paint
Pollution
By Robert Kolbinsky
"The paint finishing industry, working
with the technical guidance of EPA, is
taking big steps to reduce fumes which
contribute to smog. The effort may involve
a total capital investment of billions of
dollars over the next 5 to 10 years.
Also, EPA is setting a standard which
will limit emissions from automobile paint-
ing in assembly plants. The standard will
cover painting equipment installed in the
future. The rule is scheduled to be pro-
posed in September, 1979.
Of the pollutants for which National
Ambient Air Quality Standards have been
set, the most troublesome have been
photochemical oxidants. They are formed
from nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and vola-
tile organic compounds (VOC's) in the
presence of sunlight.
The industrial and commercial sources
of volatile organic compounds are so nu-
merous and the chemistry of the photo-
chemical process is so complex that the
problem has gotten worse while scientists
were working on it. Photochemical smog,
once associated only with southern Cali-
fornia, has become commonplace in many
areas around the Nation.
EPA has been working closely with the
paint and coatings industry to reduce vola-
tile organic solvents used in protective and
ornamental coatings. With less solvent,
less volatile organics escape to the air.
With reasonably attainable cleanup, these
emissions from coating operations could be
reduced by more than two million tons a
year. In an added benefit, the cost to coat
products from furniture to machines maybe
cut as new, cleaner technologies develop.
Showing the extent of the cleanup pro-
gram, EPA estimates that General Motors
could spend more than a billion dollars to
convert its auto assembly plants so that
they emit less volatile organics. Ford Motor
Company has been spending S5 million a
year on coating technology research.
The finishing industry is made up of a
gamut of manufacturers who use paint on
countless products ranging from beer cans
to automobiles. The industry's initial con-
trol approach has been to destroy volatile
organics in an incinerator fired with natural
gas, though incineration has been applied
only where required by State or local regu-
lations. In view of the energy situation and
as a matter of common sense, burning large
quantities of scarce fuel for incineration is
not a desirable method of controlling these
emissions. As an alternative, EPA has en-
couraged changes early in the production
chain—long before paint leaves the spray
nozzle. The aim is to dramatically reduce
the amount of volatile organics needed in
the coating process.
To make this big cutback possible, paint
composition is being changed to increase
solids and reduce solvents, application
equipment is being modified or sometimes
completely replaced to handle new types
of coatings, and application methods are
being adapted to match the new equipment
and coatings with the job. Most important,
the attitudes of a lot of people have had to
change to accept unfamiliar concepts
rather than insisting on "the way we al-
ways did it."To join coat ing manufacturers,
application equipment makers, and users
into this common cause has not been easy,
but it is well on its way to happening.
EPA has relied heavily on the people who
make and use industrial coatings to solve
these problems. But at the same time, the
Agency has supplied leadership and a
strategy for success. For instance, to begin
EPA's campaign to control emissions,
Don Goodwin, Director of the Emissions
Standards and Engineering Division in
Research Triangle Park, N.C., established
the Chemical and Petroleum Branch. Rob-
ert Walsh, manager of the new branch, ini-
tiated a study to scrutinize the so-called
"exempt" solvents, long thought by some
authorities not to contribute to the photo-
chemical oxidant process. Common sol-
vents such as mineral spirits had been ex-
empted from regulation by many State and
local control agencies following the lead
of the Los Angeles County Air Pollution
Control District.
In an intensive investigation enlisting
some of the most knowledgeable people
in the country, engineers in the Chemical
and Petroleum Branch concluded that the
"exempt" solvents really do react with
other chemicals. They merely require
longer exposure to sunlight to react like
other solvents and, in fact, are contributors
to theformation of photochemical oxidants.
A study conducted by Basil Dimitriades of
EPA's Office of Research and Development
and S. B. Joshi of Northrup Environmental
Services produced much of the information
to support EPA's so-called "Reactivity
Policy," which was published in the Fed-
eral Register in July, 1977.
In an effort to identify "reasonably avail-
able control technology" for principal VOC
sources, EPA in 1977 began issuing guide-
line documents to State and local govern-
ments. The reports covering industrial
surface coatings were written mostly by
Bill Johnson, Vera Gallagher, and Jim
McCarthy in the Chemical Application
Section of the Emission Standards and En-
gineering Division. These EPA engineers
soon gained knowledge that covered the
whole paint and coatings field. Their tech-
nical leadership has been crucial in pro-
viding a cooperative and creative research
environment, an atmosphere that is now
bringing about changes involving a large
capital investment by industry.
The recognition gained by EPA through
these employees is shown by a letter to
James Berry, Chief of the Chemical Appli-
cations Section, from Louis LeBras, Divi-
sional Technical Director of PPG Indus-
tries, Industrial Coatings and Resins
Division. LeBras said, in part, "Many of
our most experienced personnel in the
coatings industry have been amazed at the
ability of your group to do such a profes-
sional job over a wide breadth of coatings
technology and in a short time period."
Johnson, Gallagher, and McCarthy kept
abreast of the emission reduction potential
of new techniques, equipment, and mate-
rials. To keep others' interest high, they
participated in meetings with industry and
trade associations and wrote articles for
journals in the finishing field. They became
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
an information clearinghouse for whatever
was new and potentially useful. The result
has been the creation of an unusual sense of
responsibility among members of industry.
A look at any industrial coatings trade
journal will show that EPA's efforts are
paying off. Coating suppliers are featuring
water-borne finishes, powder coatings, and
high-solids paints in their advertising.
Water-borne finishes, which primarily use
water instead of volatile organic solvents,
pose a minimal air pollution threat. Powder
coatings applied electrostatically and then
cured with heat that melts the powder into
a continuous, smooth surface have almost
no volatile organic emissions. In many
cases products with a high solids content
have been found to be acceptable sub-
stitutes for conventional coatings.
Equipment being marketed to apply the
new coating materials includes heated
spray guns, better electrostatic equipment,
improved spray booth designs, and even
programmed robots.
Application methods are also being
revised to improve the efficiency of spray
painting. Whereas 50 percent or more of
paintsolidsarelostintheairinatypical
industrial application, the use of the latest
electrostatic techniques can cut the loss to
less than 10 percent. The benefits are two-
fold—reduction of volatile organic com-
pounds and elimination of paint sludge
built up during spraying, a complicated
solid waste problem.
Industry representatives such as Ray-
mond Connor, technical director, and Larry
Thomas, executive director. National Paint
and Coatings Association, have become
familiar figures around EPA's,Durham,
N.C., offices. Industry faces the multiple
problem of realigning its painting oper-
ations and assuring that such changes are
economically feasible and compatible with
its energy resources. In addition to pollu-
tion control, benefits will include using less
petroleum-based solvents, a savings in
both energy and money.
The automobile industry, one of the
largest consumers of coatings and finishes,
is deeply involved in paint research. Most
American automobile makers use enamels
for their finishes, except for General Mo-
tors, which has preferred to use lacquers.
The spraying of lacquers results in the
highest emissions of volatile organic com-
pounds from an application process. The
lacquer is made up of as little as 11 percent
solids and 89 percent solvent, and only half
of the solids stick to the object being
coated. A 4-pound lacquer job on a car
could, therefore, cause the release of 40
pounds of volatile organic compounds to
the air.
General Motors has recently announced
a plan to reduce its volatile organic emis-
sions 66 percent by 1982 and 85 percent
by 1987. Although GM management has
not firmly decided on the ultimate coating
system to be used in its 42 paint lines at 28
plants in 13 States, the 1987 goal is
"water-borne equivalent." In Los Angeles
County, where stringent air pollution laws
limit these emissions, GM has been operat-
ing plants that apply water-borne finishes
on cars for the past three years.
Robot paint machines, like the one shown
here, are being used to simplify the painting
process and improve control of pollutants
A General Motors spokesman says, "The
company feels it has a realistic plan and
schedule. We have been able to put a tech-
nically sound program of emission reduc-
tion into motion because of the professional
approach of technically competent people
in EPA and in State governments with
whom we have been working."
Meanwhile, the Ford Motor Company
has the largest company research program
on low-solvent painting in the world, ac-
cording to the company. The studies are
done at Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario,
Canada, plant.
EPA is also working closely with manu-
facturers to reduce emissions from furni-
ture finishing. At the request of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA's Cincinnati Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory is coordinating a
project with eight manufacturers to apply
water-borne finishes to wooden furniture.
The project will give coating suppliers and
furniture manufacturers a chance to evalu-
ate the salability and durability of water-
borne finishes on wooden furniture. To
date, manufacturers have been reluctant to
deviate from volatile organic-based coat-
ings with proved market acceptance. If the
new coatings are found to be satisfactory,
using them would provide the added incen-
tives of saving solvents and reducing fire
hazards in furniture and manufacturing
plants.
EPA engineers are convinced that, if
given clear goals, the Nation's paint manu-
facturers and users can continue to provide
colorful and durable products while cutting
theuseof valuable petroleum-based sol-
vents and saving energy. (71
Kolbinsky is an environmental protection
specialist in EPA 's Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Office of A ir Quality
Planning and Standards, in Durham, N.C.
SEPTEMBER 1979
19
-------
Co-disposal:
A New
Technology
By Betsy Goggin and
Michele Hodak
"Two communities are the first in the
United States to adopt a technique
pioneered in Europe for simultaneously
disposing of garbage and sludge. The
technique is called co-disposal and re-
sponds to the Nation's continuing energy
crisis, the growing contamination of the
land and water, and the decline in waste
disposal sites.
The plants, now nearly completed, are
the Harrisburg Resource Recovery System
in Pennsylvania and the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District Co-Disposal
Facility in Duluth, Minn.
In the early 70's, the city of Harrisburg
faced a growing problem. The city had used
sludge—the solids in commercial and
residential wastewater—to fertilize farm-
land. As innovative as this disposal prac-
tice appeared to be, it suffered from some
shortcomings. Area streams became pol-
luted and the amount of harmful chemicals
in agricultural soil began to increase.
In Minnesota municipalities and indus-
tries for years had discharged wastewater
into the St. Louis River at 1 2 different
points. The pollutants flowed from the
river into Lake Superior, threatening the
largest body of fresh water in the world.
Both the Harrisburg and Duluth commu-
nities are solving their waste management
problems with co-disposal. Basically, ther-
mal co-disposal is the integrated process-
ing of garbage and sewage sludge through
combustion. Garbage is used as fuel to dry
sludge so that it can be burned. The volume
of wastes left for ultimate disposal is
greatly reduced. The system designed for
use in Harrisburg operates with garbage
incineration equipment such as a waterwall
furnace. This specially designed incinerator
is surrounded by water-filled tubes that
recover heat in the form of steam. The
Duluth system uses refuse-derived fuel,
the combustible portion of garbage, as fuel
for sludge incinerators.
In 1972, officials of the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District hired Consoer,
Townsend & Associates Ltd. to design a
sludge disposal system. The firm's original
plans called for the construction of oil-fired
multiple hearth sludge incinerators. Be-
cause of the 1973 energy crisis, however,
that proposal was dropped in favor of a
fluidized bed sludge furnace design which
burns refuse-derived fuel. This change
should conserve three million gallons of
oil costing $1 million per year.
The Western Lake Superior Sanitary
District Co-Disposal Facility, partially
funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency, will service a residential and in-
dustrial area of 500 square miles, includ-
ing the cities of Duluth and Cloquet, and
will incinerate daily 66 tons of sludge and
460 tons of refuse at full capacity. The
facility will reduce the amount of solid
waste and sludge—the latter by 95 per-
cent—that now must be disposed of at
landfills or used for land treatment. Bury-
ing only the residues of the wastes remain-
ing after incineration is expected to con-
serve an estimated 1,000 acres of land
during the next 20 years.
The energy for operating the Duluth co-
disposal facility comes from the 45,000
pounds of steam per hour generated by the
simultaneous burning of municipal refuse
and sludge. The facility has three distinct
operations: wastewater treatment, the
processing of refuse derived fuel, and
the incinerating of sludge and solid waste.
Wastewater is pumped into the treat-
ment plant at a rate of 8,333 gallons per
minute and screened to remove large par-
ticles. At the plant oxygen is extracted from
the air and bubbled into the wastewater,
creating an environment for bacteria. The
bacteria eat organic wastes in the water.
The sewage is then physically cleaned for
a second time. Chemicals are added to the
wastewater to remove phosphorous pollut-
ants. The sewage water is passed through
mixed media filters into chlorine tanks
where bacteria are killed. Next the water
is dechlorinated. The solid content of the
wastewater is increased by various treat-
ment processes called flotation sludge
thickeners.
Municipal garbage is trucked to the
facility and dumped into the receiving pit.
Primary shredders reduce the garbage to
fourto six-inch pieces and ferrous metals
are separated magnetically. Fourteen to
25 tons per day of these metals vaiued at
$35pertonwillbe reclaimed and resold.
The refuse is then shredded into 1 1/i inch
particles. The tight, combustible material,
or the refuse-derived fuel, is sorted from the
heavy, noncombustible matter such as
glass by an air stream. This material is then
stored in silos until it is incinerated.
The dried sludge and the refuse-derived
fuel are burned in fluidized bed incinerat-
ors, where a sand bed with temperatures
of 1,400 to 1 ,600 degrees Fahrenheit serves
as a heat reservoir. Wet scrubbers—a com-
bination of water and filters—are used to
control particulate emissions from the
incinerators. The dirty scrubber water is
circulated with the wastewater through
the treatment plant. Boilers are operated
by heat which otherwise would escape from
the system. Any surplus of this fuel will be
sold as will any unneeded hot water pro-
vided by burning this substance.
The Duluth thermal co-disposal plant is
the first commercial facility to combine
refuse-derived fuel and sludge incinerator
technologies. When completed this fall, the
facility, builtata cost of $21.7 million, will
demonstrate the feasibility of the fullscale
operation of this design.
In Harrisburg officials hired Gannett
Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. to
design a sludge disposal process that
could be incorporated into the existing
solid waste incinerator. In effect, this com-
bined the city's wastewater treatment plant
with the garbage incineration facility, and
the total system was named the Harrisburg
Resource Recovery System.
The city's sewage treatment plant, lo-
cated within one half mile of the incinera-
tor, processes ail commercial and residen-
tial wastewater. The liquid sewage sludge
from this plant is pumped into the sludge
drying building at the incineration facility
and dried. It is then burned along with the
city's refuse, generating steam. Adding
sludge incineration to Harrisburg's waste
disposal system, when completed early
next year, will cost $4.7 million. The Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency is helping
fund the project.
The Harrisburg Resource Recovery Sys-
tem is considered a forerunner of the inno-
vations needed to solve the Nation's grow-
ing waste disposal problem, according to
SteffenW. P.ehn, Deputy Assistant Admin-
istrator for Solid Waste. The system in-
volves the generating of power, the recy-
cling of ferrous metals, and the conserving
of land. It generates up to 92,500 pounds
of steam per day. In a year, this is the
equivalent in energy of 8.4 million gallons
of No. 2 fuel oil or one million barrels of
crude oil. Some steam is used to power the
sludge drying equipment, and the rest is
sold to the Pennsylvania Power & Light
Company for heating and cooling area
buildings. Harrisburg will receive an esti-
mated $1 million in steam revenue for
1979. Ferrous metal sales should total
.'O
EPA JOURNAL
-------
£K>out $15,000 this year. During the next
50 years, the city expects to conserve at
least 50 acres of land that otherwise would
have been used as landfills.
The Harrisburg system combines several
proven technological processes, specifi-
cally designed to solve the area's waste
disposal needs. One is the purifying of
sewage water at the city's wastewater
plant, where it is then released into the
Susquehanna River. The sludge is pumped
to the incineration facility.
Another process is the dewatering of
sludge in steam drying equipment, proven
effective in other industries. The steam for
this is derived from the process described
earlier—the co-incinerating of shredded
solid waste and dried sludge in waterwall
furnaces. The resulting residue is either
buried at a landfill or used in experimental
pavement.
Air pollution is controlled by electro-
static precipitators, which reduce the
amount of particulates in furnace emission
to comply with State and Federal standards.
Noxious odors from sludge drying are de-
stroyed in the incinerator's intense 1,400
degrees Fahrenheit temperature.
Europeans have used co-disposal tech-
nology successfully for many years.
There are now plans to construct three
additional co-disposal plants in the U.S.
Economic and environmental and health
effects must be considered when choosing
among the technological options for the
disposal of solid wastes and sludge, and
the new facilities will make available for
the first time operating cost data on co-
disposal. The initial capital investment for
a facility is large, although costs can be
defrayed if the area's present wastewater
treatment plant and/or garbage incinerator
can be incorporated into the co-disposal
system.
The costs of building a co-disposal facil-
ity can be partially met through EPA fund-
ing. New policy guidelines for funding
under the Construction Grants Program are
now being developed by the Office of Water
and Waste Management. The Office is
recommending that municipalities be
given partial grants for building solid
waste facilities that will be used for co-
disposal, but not solid waste disposal
projects alone. These guidelines should
encourage municipalities to investigate
the benefits of co-disposal.
Co-disposal facilities should do less
harm to the environment and public health
than the separate disposal of solid waste
and sludge since the residue from co-
disposal does not contain as many harmful
substances, such as organics and patho-
gens, as are found in raw garbage and
sludge. Leachates from the raw waste
would also pollute surface and ground
water more than those from co-disposal
residues.
"Many of the initial efforts to use co-
disposal in the United States failed," Plehn
said, "because they attempted to inciner-
ate sludge in garbage furnaces not de-
signed for this purpose. Today after exten-
sive research and development, the process
of co-disposal is becoming commercial-
ized. This innovative technology is proving
itself. "D
Betsy Goggin and Michele Hodak are in-
terns for the EPA Office of Public A ware-
ness.
This complex houses the co-disposal plant
in Duluth, Minn.
A technician takes sample from vacuum
filter in co-disposal plant at Du/uth, Minn.
SEPTEMBER 1979
21
-------
JWIodern societies have developed
immense skill in inventing and using
technology for processing natural resources
into marketable goods. This has been
rewarded by economic growth and has
improved our living and public health
standards.
Since the mid-1960's, however, we
have been experiencing the consequences
of constantly increasing our use of natural
resources. Some of the results of overuse
of our air and water resources are deteri-
oration of public health, lowered produc-
tivity of our land, and degraded environ-
mental quality.
Improvements in control capability are
the only way of improving the tradeoff
between continued use of natural resources
and further environmental degradation.
EPA invests in pollution control research
and development to provide the Agency
with up-to-date information in this field.
Following is a summary of some of the
achievements thus far.
Improving the Tradeoff
Air Pollution Controls: EPA's role in flue
gas desulfurization has been one of the
most successful and cost-effective re-
search efforts of any Federal agency. Past
projects such as the three one-megawatt
lime/limestone pilot units at the Tennessee
Valley Authority's Shawnee Power Plant
have produced most of the data for design-
ing more than 60,000 megawatts of scrub-
bing capacity now being planned and in-
stalled. Our participation in the funding
and evaluation of other systems, such as
forced oxidation of limestone sludge and
the Wellman-Lord system, have helped
bring advanced processes into commercial
reality, creating other alternatives for
controlling sulfur pollutants.
Three current developments will im-
prove the capability and reduce the cost of
desuifurization—adipic acid buffering of
lime or limestone scrubbing, spray dryer
reactors, and direct combustion of pow-
Research
and
Pollution
Control
By Steven Reznek
dered limestone and coal in controlled
combustion burners. EPA personnel or
contract researchers shared the initial dis-
coveries in the first and third technologies.
EPA's resources will help speed commer-
cial availability of all three.
TVA estimated that adipic acid modified
limestone scrubbing will improve overall
system reliability and lower costs by about
seven percent. We evaluated adipic acid at
the Shawnee Test Facility burning a high
sulfur coal and found that sulfur removal
efficiency increased from 80 percent to
between 95 and 97 percent.
In a spray dryer reactor, a concentrated
lime or limestone slurry is sprayed into the
hot flue gas. While the water is being evap-
orated from the droplets, sulfur dioxide
reacts with the hydrated lime. The sulfur
oxides become part of dry particles and
these, in turn, are collected by conventional
control technologies. The economics of
spray dryers I'm its their use to low sulfur
coals. However, for these coals, the spray
dryer system will reduce the total annual
cost of desulfurization by about 30 percent.
The national emissions of nitrogen oxide
at the end of the century may be twice as
large as the 1977 total. The increased
emissions from uncontrolled coal combus-
tion could far exceed the reductions
achieved for mobile sources. EPA research
has made real progress in developing the
design of a staged combustion coal burner
22
EPAJOURNAL
-------
that can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions
by 85 percent. A long term demonstration
is now in progress and will provide the
data for revising the new source perform-
ance standard for coal combustion.
Learning how to control combustion led
to the development of a very promising
technique for reducing sulfur dioxide. Dry,
powdered limestone is mixed with the coal
prior to combustion. In well-controlled
combustion, sulfur is trapped on the lime-
stone, and in pilot tests, sulfur oxide emis-
sions have been reduced 85 percent. Pre-
liminary estimates are that the cost of
achieving control may be reduced by 80
percent. The process will be applicable to
both high and low sulfur coals.
The ability to control other air pollut-
ants such as fine particles and hydrocar-
bons is also improving as new technologies
are discovered and applied. New methods
of particle precharging before electrostatic.
precipitation, for example, have appre-
ciably improved performance. Four meth-
ods also are known for controlling the
emissions of volatile hydrocarbons—high
temperature combustion, catalytic oxida-
tion, carbon absorption, and surfactant
enhanced scrubbing. No single vendor
offers all of these technologies, and engi-
neering information on their costs and per-
formance is limited, but research is creat-
ing the data necessary to understand them.
Water Technology: EPA is continuing to
make improvement in this field. One of the
most productive areas is the treatment of
drinking water supplies. Research has gen-
erated the information necessary for sys-
tems to increase removal of heavy metal
and pesticide contaminants.
Chlorinated and other organic com-
pounds can be absorbed on carbon. How-
ever, minimizing chlorinated organic com-
pounds in disinfected drinking water has
proved to be a complex engineering prob-
lem. Although carbon absorption technol-
ogy is capable of removing drinking water
and wastewater contaminants to very low
levels, it can be quite expensive. EPA
researchers are finding ways to reduce
the costs and hence extend the use of
carbon absorption to minimize the risk of
potentially carcinogenic organic materials.
One technique used in Europe is to add
ozone to the water. The ozone will oxidize
some of the organic material absorbed on
the carbon and extend its useful life.
Another technique dramatically lowers
the cost of reactivating used carbon. In-
stead of the very high temperature oxida-
tion normally used, the carbon is immersed
in high pressure carbon dioxide, which dis-
solves the organic materials, leaving the
carbon structure intact. This technique is
being demonstrated on carbon used in
treating wastewater from pesticides manu-
facturing.
Other contributions in water pollution
control include new use of the old tech-
nology of electrically-enhanced coagula-
tion of small particles. The finely divided
organic solids in many wastewaters, such
as those from dairies, fish, processing
plants, and petroleum refineries can be
agglomerated and efficiently removed. The
material recovered from the dairy and fish
processing wastewater can be used as
animal feed.
In improving the efficiency and effective-
ness of conventional treatment processes,
the most important change in biological
treatment has been the use of pure oxygen,
activated sludge systems. The first research
application of the technology occurred in
1968, but by 1980, over 150 systems with
a combined capacity of over five billion
gallons per day will be operating. This
rapid development would not have oc-
curred without Federal investments in
research and demonstration.
The increasing cost of energy and the
problems of disposing of municipal solid
wastes and wastewater treatment sludges
have prompted the engineering research
program to explore how these two waste
streams could be combined. Minneapolis-
Si. Paul was the first locality to propose
using this approach, and EPA helped sup-
port the research and design necessary for
a system in the Twin Cities. Today several
other metropolitan areas are exploring the
concept. {See story on p. 20)
The need to contain and decontaminate
spills of oil or hazardous materials has
created a separate new industry. A few
years ago, specific spill control techniques
did not exist. Today a capability exists for
deploying quite sophisticated technology,
much of it developed and demonstrated by
EPA. The Agency's National Response
Team is now equipped with mobile units
to isolate contaminated surface or ground
water, to treat it with biological and carbon
absorption systems, and to incinerate haz-
SEPTEMBER 1979
23
-------
ardous wastes. Firms are now using those
methods in spill response.
New Processes and Ideas: End-of-the pipe
pollution controls will only improve to a
degree. Industry must use new and cleaner
manufacturing processes. EPA is discov-
ering ways of operating complex facilities
to eliminate pollution, use waste as prod-
ucts, and reduce the cost of environmental
protection.
We have designed a system for an inte-
grated iron and steel plant to reuse its
water, and if the design proves feasible,
iron and steel production need not dis-
charge wastewater.
Other applied research in iron and steel
production has documented the costs and
performance of dry quenching and continu-
ous coke-making processes used in Japan
and Russia. These processes have energy
and economic advantages and could elimi-
nate toxic air pollutants.
Perhaps the most important trend in
water pollution control is the use of less
energy and technology-intensive ap-
proaches. The Clean Water Act Amend-
ments set aside 10 percent of the con-
struction grant funds to be used for
innovative or alternative processes, and
the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) has produced guidance manuals
defining them. Such systems include solar
heating, the use of wastewater in agricul-
ture or aquaculture, and treatment by land
application.
Improving Environmental
Regulations
EPA controls environmental pollution by
regulation. The engineering skills and
expertise built up in the research program
make very valuable, and often vital, contri-
butions to accomplish that job.
Much of the technical information on
which construction grants are based has
come from EPA's research and develop-
ment projects in wastewater treatment. The
manuals for drinking water supply systems
also are the results of EPA's research.
ORD's personnel are being tapped to
help supply expertise in the preparation
of the Resource Recovery and Conserva-
tion Act's hazardous waste regulations.
Engineering researchers are helping to
develop effluent guidelines defining the
performance requirements for "best avail-
able control technology" for toxic water
pollutants. In a fewareas, ORD personnel
are managing projects that could supply
the basic engineering data for the formu-
lation of the effluent guidelines. ORD and
regulatory personnel also are creating new
concepts to help the Agency formulate an
approach to regulation.
Organic chemical manufacturing is an
extremely complex industry that makes
over thirty thousand chemicals. To help
establish effective regulations, a group of
professionals from EPA's research and
effluent guidelines programs are creating
a system to describe the generic types of
chemical process and the toxic pollutants
each creates. If the concepts prove practi-
cal, effluent discharge permits could limit
toxic pollutants based upon the generic re-
actions used at a facility and the material
processed through each type of reaction.
Another concept is a method of estimat-
ting the effectiveness of alternative treat-
ment technologies for specific chemical
components in wastewater. The result will
be a manual for permit writers evaluating
how well each technology removes toxic
pollutants.
EPA energy research has been instru-
mental in the Department of Interior's
regulation of coal mining and EPA's regu-
lation of air pollution from fuel combustion
for electricity generation. Research engi-
neers are now helping to assemble infor-
mation necessary to regulate disposal of
coal ash and desulfurization sludge and
regulate air pollutants from industrial com-
bustion sources.
To assure that the coming changes in our
energy systems are compatible with pro-
tecting public health and the environment,
we must evaluate the ability and cost of
technologies to control solid waste and air
and water pollution from new synthetic
fuel technologies. Our goal is to have pol-
lution control guidance documents devel-
oped in 1 8 months for oil shale processing,
industrial coal gasification, solvent refin-
ing of coat, and indirect coal liquifaction.
This will provide the basis for establishing
new source performance standards for
these facilities.
The challenge is a difficult one. Incom-
plete combustion, fundamental to process-
ing oil shale and coal, will produce toxic
and carcinogenic compounds. Effective
control requirements and designs must be
available as the new oil shale and coal
refineries are planned and constructed.
EPA's role must be to see that as new
energy technologies are developed en-
vironmental quality is preserved. D
Steven Reznek is EPA's Deputy A ssistant
Administrator for Energy, Minerals, and
Industry, in the Office of Research and
Development.
Pollution Cleanup
Opportunities
realized that the existing processes would
not provide the most cost effective method
for meeting EPA's proposed pretreatment
standards. But they now decided to do an
even better job than EPA and Ohio required.
They set their sights on a zero copper
discharge.
By 1377 they had achieved their goal at
the Cleveland, Ohio, plant, and the new
processing system they had perfected was
so efficient it had been scheduled for in-
stallation in the Arizona plant.
The new system's basic method is to
clean and recirculate most of the rinsing
water and to recover its copper for further
use. To make that possible Gould engineers
embarked on a different approach—involv-
ing a process known as reverse osmosis.
First, however, the company had to over-
come operating problems which in the past'
have severely limited the use of this tech-
nology. In particular, the division developed
a unique automated monitoring and buffer-
ing system which significantly extends the
lifetime of the reverse osmosis unit, reduc-
ing high downtime and replacement costs.
With the improved cleanuptechnology,
facilities use less fresh water a day than
would otherwise be needed. Significant
amounts of copper are being recovered, and
there are by-products savings of reduced
consumption of energy and reclaimed sul-
furic acid, among other resource and eco-
nomic benefits.
In another benefit, the change paid for
itself in less than two years, and the finan-
cial, resource, and environmental improve-
ments continue. D
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Explaining
New
Technology
A key part of EPA's research program
is technology transfer, communicat-
ing the facts about new pollution control
ideas and equipment to those needing
the information. The goal is to speed the
acceptance and use of these innovations.
More than 60 publications have been
produced in EPA's technology transfer
program over the past seven years. These
are available from the Center for Environ-
mental Research Information, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268. To receive one of these
reports, write to the Center with the title
and identifying number. There is no charge,
A list of the publications, with their title
and number, follows:
Process Design Manuals
Phosphorus Removal
Carbon Adsorption
Suspended Solids Removal
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plants
Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Nitrogen Control
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for
Sewered Small Communities
Municipal Sludge Landfills ....
Technical Capsule Reports
Recycling Zinc in Viscose Ra
Two Stage Precipitation
Rayon Plants by
iwu oidyt; rieuipiidiion
Color Removal from Kraft Pulping Effluent by
Lime Addition
Pollution Abatement in a Copper Wire Mill
First Progress Report Limestone Wet-Scrubbing
Test Results at the EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test
Facility
Pollution Abatement in a Brewing Facility
Flue Gas Desuifurization and Sulfuric Acid
Production via Magnesia Scrubbing
Second Progress Report Lime/Limestone Wet-
Scrubbing Test Results at the EPA Alkali
Scrubbing Test Facility
Magnesium Carbonate Process for Water
Treatment
Third Progress Report: Lime/Limestone Wet-
Scrubbing Test Results at the EPA Alkali
Scrubbing Test Facility
First Progress Report Wellman-Lord SO?
Recovery Process —Flue Gas Desuifurization
Plant .
Swirl Device for Regulation and Treating
Combined Sewer Overflows
Fabric Filter Paniculate Control on Coal-Fired
Utility Boilers: Nucla. CO and Sunbury, PA
First Progress Report: Static Pile Composting of
Wastewater Sludge
10O1
1 OO2
1003
1004
1005
1 006
. 1007
.1008
.1009
1010
2001
2002
2003
.2004
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
201 1
2012
201 3
2014
Efficient Treatment of Small Municipal Flows at
Dawson. MM 2015
Double Alkali Flue Gas Desuifurization System
Applied at the General Motors Parma. OH
Facility 2016
Recovery of Spent Sulfuric Acid from
Steel Pickling Operations 2017
Fourth Progress Report Forced-Oxidation Test
Results at the EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test
Facility 2018
Control of Acidic Air Pollutants by Coated
Baghouses 2020
Industrial Seminar Publications
Upgrading Poultry Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution (3 Vols.) 3001
Upgrading Metal Finishing Facilities to Reduce
Pollution (2 Vols.) . 3002
Upgrading Meat Packing Facilities to Reduce
Pollution (3 Vols.) 3003
Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution
(2 Vols) 3004
Choosing the Optimum Financial Strategies for
Pollution Control Systems 3005
Erosion and Sediment Control —Surface Mining
in the Eastern U.S. (2 Vols.) 3006
Pollution Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable
Industry (3 Vols.) . 3007
Choosing Optimum Management Strategies 3008
Controlling Pollution from the Manufacturing and
Coating of Metal Products (3 Vols.) 3009
Municipal Seminar Publications
' Upgrading Lagoons 4001
Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment Plant
Design 4002
Status of Oxygen/Activated Sludge Wastewater
Treatment 4003
Nitrification and Denitrification Facilities 4004
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plants —Case Histories 4005
Flow Equalization 4006
Wastewater Filtration 4007
Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal 4008
Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration 4009
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents (3 Vols.) 4010
Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems (3 Vols.) 4011
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (2 Vols ) 401 2
Benefit Analysis for Combined Sewer Overflow
Control 4013
Brochures
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives
Municipal Wastewater 5012
Forest Harvesting and Water Quality 501 3
Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality
Management 5014
Forest Chemicals and Water Quality 501 5
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives-
Economics of Wastewater Alternatives for
the Electroplating Industry 5016
Handbooks
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater 6002
Industrial Guide for Air Pollution Control 6004
Continuous Air Pollution Source Monitoring
Systems 6005
Industrial Environmental Pollution Control
Manuals
Pulp and Paper Industry Parti/Air 7001
Textile Processing Industry 7002
Summary Reports
Sulfur Oxide Control Technology Series Fiue
Gas Desuifurization the Wellman-Lord
Process 8001
Control Technology for the Metal Finishing
Industry —Evaporators 8002
Executive Briefings
Environmental Considerations of Energy-
Conserving Industrial Process Changes 9001
Environmental Sampling of Paraho Oil Shale
Retort Process 9002
SEPTEMBER 1979
25
-------
Appropriate
Technology
By William K. Reilly
^Joining has so altered society or
affected daily life in the modern
world as advances in technology. Tech-
nological progress has been so rapid and
remarkable, and living standards have
been so directly improved by new tech-
nologies, that most people quite naturally
have come to identify a nation's techno-
logical sophistication with its level of
advancement.
Only within the past 10 years or so has
there arisen a body of opinion which rejects
unqualified affirmation of technology and
draws attention to the dark underside of
technological innovations. Writers in sev-
eral countries have pointed to the unantici-
pated environmental degradation caused
by some technological developments as rea-
sons to rethink our attitudes toward new
technologies. The environmentalist critique
coexists alongside a conservationist cri-
tique, which points to the waste of natural
resources associated with some modern
technologies. Finally, there is a social cri-
tique of technology, associated particularly
with writers in developing countries, which
questions the societal consequences for
poor countries of industrial processes
that require large amounts of capital—
which poor countries lack—and require
few workers—which most poor countries
have in abundance.
According to the technological skeptics,
innovations in technology tend to move
along one of two pathways. The first, char-
acterized by ever-more complicated, capi-
tal-intensive, and automated processes,
includes such items as minicomputers,
agribusiness combines, SST's, automated
automobile assembly factories, huge chem-
ical complexes, and nuclear power plants—
in short, the technological baggage of the
world's industrialized nations.
The second pathway calls for no less
creativity than the first, but seeks to de-
velop simpler, smaller, more flexible tech-
nologies which require less capital and
generally place less of a burden on an
area's natural environment and societal
framework. Products of this technological
track—which have been called small-scale,
light-capital, intermediate, or socially-
relevant technologies—can include every-
thing from windmills, bicycle-powered
pumps, and hollowed-bamboo irrigation
systems to highly sophisticated, small-scale
paper recycling factories and solar-heated
homes.
In recent years, the latter pathway has
attracted increasing attention and support.
Indeed, it has given rise to a new move-
ment which goes under the banner of
appropriate technology.
Appropriate technology (or AT for short)
has grown in importance primarily because
the more common "high technologies" of
the industrialized world sometimes create
more problems than they solve. A massive
hydroelectric dam or highway system or
oil refinery may actually aggravate prob-
lems such as unemployment, shortage of
capital, maldistribution of income, urban
migration, and environmental deteriora-
tion, particularly in developing countries.
Appropriate technology follows closely
on the heels of another recently evolved
concept: "technology assessment." Once a
technology has been assessed and found
wanting for whatever reason—pesticides
because of their effects on wildlife, for
example—other more appropriate technol-
ogies must be developed. AT ensures that
these new technologies take account of a
region's human and natural resources.
According to David Elliott, a lecturer at
Britain's Open University, "It's a matter of
selecting the technologies to fit the political
process and social ends you happen to have
in mind." Amory Lovins of Friends of the
Earth says that appropriate energy tech-
nologies are "matched in scale and in geo-
graphic distribution to end-use needs."
And according to the late E. F. Schumacher,
the British economist whose book Small is
Beautiful helped energize the appropriate
technology movement, technology should
be "gentle in its use of scarce resources."
The appropriate technology movement
got its start in developing countries where
the gap between low-level technologies and
the marvels of the modern world was so
great. Schumacher and others recognized
that modern, large-scale technologies were
unsuitable for most developing countries
and set out to develop "intermediate" op-
tions. They found, to their surprise, that
options abounded in all fields: transport,
building, medicine, manufacturing, water
resources, energy, agriculture.
One example of an AT solution involved
metal bending or, specifically, how to get
a metal rim around the wooden wheel of an
oxcart. The least expensive modern equip-
ment cost about $1,400 and required elec-
tricity. Research in France turned up a pre-
industrial machine operated by human
power. The machine was upgraded using
modern engineering principles and now
can be produced by a blacksmith for
only $14.
I think it is very encouraging that the
World Bank, U.S. Agency for International
Development, the Inter-American Develop-
ment Bank, and dozens of private voluntary
organizations have attempted to incorpo-
rate AT principles in their foreign aid
projects.
It would be a mistake, however, to limit
appropriate technology to developing na-
tions or somehow to equate it with quaint
or out-of-the-ordinary life-styles. AT might
call for radical rethinking but it need not
lead to radical restructuring of a person's
—or a nation's—way of life. In fact, AT
should apply to many aspects of modern
industrialized societies. Some examples:
26
EPAJOURNAL
-------
• Agriculture—The large-scale agricul-
tural operations that created the "green
revolution" in America depend heavily on
petroleum-based fertilizers, pesticides, and
herbicides, and expensive irrigation equip-
ment and farm machinery, indications are
that over the long term yields may diminish
because of erosion, soil compaction, low-
ered water tables, and loss of soil nutrients.
Many farmers are returning to organic farm-
ing techniques—including use of natural
fertilizer, crop rotation, and soil conser-
vation strategies—and finding that their
yields stay relatively high and their operat-
ing costs decrease. Others are distilling
alcohol from grains and using it to power
tractors and other machinery.
• Mass Transit—Many medium-sized
cities are ill-adapted for highly technical,
expensive mass transit systems such as
Washington D.C.'s or San Francisco's sub-
ways. Instead, flexible transit strategies
using bus routes, streetcars, and bicycle
paths should be explored.
• Energy—The energy field holds perhaps
the greatest promise for the application of
AT principles. Nuclear power plants, oil
supertankers, coal-fired industries, and the
like have wrought environmental havoc
and are extremely complex and expensive
energy systems. The development of alter-
native energy sources such as solar photo-
voltaics, windmills, biomass, tidal and
wave power, geothermal, and solar space
heaters could lessen our dependence on
foreign oil supplies while also protecting
the environment. In addition, a wide range
of energy conservation technologies—in
homes, industries, and automobiles—are
particularly appropriate in today's energy-
starved industrialized world.
Appropriate technology suggests a mul-
titude of applications to communications,
marketing, housing, work places—and
even environmental protection. One expen-
sive lesson of the clean water program
was that many localities didn't want or
need large tertiary sewage treatment plants
and could have gotten along much better
with upgraded septic or land-application
systems.
Appropriate technology need not ex-
clude large corporations or established
research institutions. In fact, big business
may be particularly suited to the develop-
ment of new, creative, decentralized tech-
nologies in many fields. Grumman Aero-
space, for example, manufactures one of
the Nation's best solar heat collectors; and
Sears and Roebuck now markets collectors.
The best cogenerators are made by Cum-
mins Engine and Fiat. There is little doubt
that the research laboratories of our major
corporations can contribute much in the
field of appropriate technology if given the
chance.
I do not subscribe to the malign, anthro-
pomorphic view of technology looming
menacingly over civilization like King Kong
—out of control and destructive. All tech-
nology, big or small, is subject to human
control and direction. The point of appro-
priate technology is to prompt an inquiry
into the long-term human consequences of
technological innovations, and to adopt the
most appropriate—i.e., least wasteful—
system to do a given job.
Unfortunately, people often are unable
to agree on which technology is appropri-
ate. One possible solution is mediation.
All parties involved—businessmen, en-
vironmentalists, government officials, sci-
entists, engineers, and consumers—should
discuss with each other proposed technol-
ogies before irrevocable commitments of
capital, land, and other resources have
been made.
The mediation process operates on the
premise that some people know what so-
ciety needs and others know what is tech-
nologically feasible. Only by working to-
gether can technologies be developed
which are truly appropriate. C]
William Reilly is President of the Conser-
vation Foundation in Washington, D.C. He
was Executive Director of the Rockefeller
Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth,
and editor of the task force report, The Use
of Land. He a/so was a senior staff member
of the President's Council on Environmen-
tal Quality, and Associate Director of the
Urban Policy Center at Urban America.
SEPTEMBER 1979
27
-------
Small
Business
and
Pollution
Control
An Interview With
Milton D. Stewart
Mi/ton D. Stewart is Chief
Counsel for Advocacy in the
Small Business Administration.
He was a small businessman, as
Chairman of the Board, Terra
California; founding director,
vice chairman, and president of
a major venture capital small
business investment company;
and director and/or counsel to
numerous small companies.
Your position, Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, is a new one
within the Federal Govern-
ment. Why was it created?
The last three Congresses have
been particularly concerned
with small business, largely
through the increased efforts of
House and Senate Small Busi-
ness Committee members. In
their view, small business
wasn't getting enough help
through existing programs. As
it stood, the programs were
good, but they only reached a
fraction of the enormous num-
ber of small businesses in this
country. What was needed, they
felt, was an office in the execu-
tive branch of the government.
which would work for the bene-
fit of all small business people.
What eventually evolved was
the Office of Advocacy and my
position as Chief Counsel.
Even though the post had been
created well before his Admin-
istration began. President
Carter is the first President to
have filled the position.
How does an individual small
business person see environ-
mental regulation in the EPA?
To be candid, as one of too
many sources of burdensome
regulation. He doesn't think of
EPA as any more his enemy or
problem than Occupational
Safety and Health or wage
regulations or any other kind of
rules by Federal, State and local
government.
In some particular industries
EPA is the big regulatory bur-
den. If you are in the chemical
manufacturing business, or are
in any kind of finishing business
involving the use of chemicals
that are pollutants, EPA is at
the top of your laundry list.
How much actual impact does
environmental regulation
have on small business? How
many firms have actually been
forced out of business?
The right answer is far more
than government regulators
believe and far fewer than small
business people believe.
I know of at least one busi-
ness that is subject to 42 public
agency regulators, Federal,
State, and local. We are doing a
study of just the paper-work
side of this. I remember one
person, one little firm, which is
in the undertaking business,
which received 486 agency
forms, Federal, State, and local
in one month.
To the small businessman it
looks like the world is made up
of over-zealous, pettyfogging
regulators who unnecessarily
increase the burden of comply-
ing with more and more regu-
lations.
To the regulator it looks like
the world is made up of con-
niving, deceiving, and whin-
ing small business people who
try to undercut proper regula-
tion.
While everyone in each group
is not an angel, there are sin-
cere, sensible people on both
sides who should be talking far
more and much earlier about
regulation than they now do.
There is common ground here
and it can be found.
What can be done to ease the
regulatory impact on small
business?
The turnaround, I hope, is here.
The President has clearly made
the turnaround possible with
the idea of weighing the costs
of regulations against the bene-
fits. I hope we will help with
some things we would like to
accomplish with the coopera-
tion of the regulatory agencies
and the Regulatory Council.
One example is a multi-
tiered regulatory standard
which we think makes great
sense. In areas where EPA is
dealing with terribly toxic pol-
lutants, for example, the begin-
ning of wisdom is to say there
must be some smail firms which
pollute so little we can forget
about them. If you have small
firms which add little to pollu-
tion, it is only reasonable to say,
well, look, don't burden them at
all. If they are polluting so tittle,
we don't have to worry about it.
Then if we do have to worry
about it, give them more time to
comply. Give them simpler
regulations. Let there be larger
tolerances for them.
Finally we are developing a
"fairness code" for smali busi-
ness which we want Federal
agencies to follow in the volun-
tary way. We are asking, for
example, that agencies not
make the assumption that if
they put something in the Fed-
eral Register ten million small
business people are going to
know it automatically. If you
want to inform a half a million
people, you have to take the
trouble to really do it.
Do you see economic benefits
and opportunities flowing
from regulatory reform
efforts?
Absolutely. There are plenty of
entrepreneurs who make money
out of translating regulations,
helping people to comply. There
are some interesting things
going on in technology; new
devices, new instrumentation
to enable people to monitor
polfution. The company I
headed helped to finance a
couple of businesses when I was
in the venture capital field that
are in this area and those firms
are doing very well.
Have you in your SBA research
activity taken a look at how
small business has responded
to requirements, regulations
of all kinds, particularly en-
vironmental?
We may shortly sponsor a study
in the energy field to see about
responses there. The people
who have proposed it have
already done some preliminary
work. It indicates that larger
firms have been much more
effective and successful in re-
sponding to shortages of energy
by using other fuels, than were
the very small ones.
What troubles us most is that
the small companies, while they
are innovative, have less eco-
nomic capacity to adjust to
regulation and innovate.
We also have a major study
underway on paperwork. That
is only one part of the regula-
tory burden, but it is an im-
portant one. When the study is
finished we believe we will have
the first definitive log of Fed-
erally required small business
paper work. We think that will
be of great help to regulators,
letting them know what every-
body else in the government is
asking in the way of informa-
tion, questionnaires, that kind
of thing.
Perhaps we can then begin to
cut down the number of in-
quiries and the resultant paper
work.
Why is it more difficult in
some ways for a small busi-
ness to innovate?
There is less free capital for it
from within or outside than
there is for a large firm. Yet the
studies that we have indicate
that small firms are four to 24
times as cost effective in inno-
vating as big ones. That is based
on studies financed by the Na-
tional Science Foundation.
By the time this interview
appears we will have made
public a new report on small
business innovation. We had 20
presidents of small science-
EPAJOURNAL
-------
based firms and nine venture
capital managers in for four
days to review their situation.
These are innovative compa-
nies and innovative people. They
simply think the regulatory
burden isn't warranted by the
goals to be served, in the way
we are now regulating.
They were all confident that
most of our problems can be
dealt with by innovative tech-
nologies. Out of every Federal
R&D dollar though, small busi-
ness gets only four cents.
What can EPA do to encourage
new technology from small
business?
We think EPA should be doing
much more in a direct effort.
For example the NSF has
modeled a program we like
very much. It is a competitive
effort for innovative research
transferable to the market-
place. A small firm submits in
a letter, 20 pages or less, a pro-
posal for an idea it has but can't
fund. The subject must be one
of a list proposed by NSF as
needed by the Nation.
The agency then chooses,
using scientists andtechnicians,
the proposals which seem the
most promising and funds them
very minimally for a feasibility
study. They give them $25,000
to start with.
The business comes back in
six months and says, "Here is
what we found. We think the
project will work and here is
why. Now we are going to need
$200,000 to take it through
prototype."
Now the agency says, "We
will give it to you as a grant,
but we want you to get $200,-
000 from somebody in the
private sector for a third stage
of research if you are successful
in the second with our money.
We want to know the business
market prospects are good."
That is where the innovations
are going to come from that will
modify our pollution-creating
technology. Those are the
people who are going to come
up with the breakthroughs. We
are just not investing enough in
them yet, nor doing it very well.
Some firms have probably
already found part of the
cleanup solution, but others
in a similar field may not
know. How do we get informa-
tion to them?
With computers and data proc-
essing. As time goes by, we are
going to be able to do a better
job of getting this kind of in-
formation out to the small busi-
ness people in particular.
I have great hope as data
processing capabilities get
spread around the small busi-
ness community. This will be
a big revolution in the next ten
years. Because of silicon chips
and other technology, the cost
of computer equipment is going
to keep coming down, and in-
formation sharingand data proc-
cessing are going to increase.
But let me remind you that
many innovative breakthroughs
tend to be interdisciplinary.
They come from different kinds
of people in different places.
This is particularly true of the
kinds of things that small busi-
ness can contribute.
What SBA programs are avail-
able to help smalt business
adjust to environmental
standards?
Our general guaranteed loan
program is the best bet a small
business has. We try all the time
to educate people about how to
make use of it.
We now also have an impor-
tant experiment under way. We
are delegating to a group of
banks the total responsibility
for processing loans where we
guarantee to reduce the time,
the trouble, and the paper work.
The banks will simply, in
effect, act for both themselves
and for us. We have 25 banks
certified to experiment with this
now and the project has, I guess,
two or three months more to
run. There is every reason to
think that our Administrator
will then extend it for six
months more, perhaps with an
additional group of banks and
we will move still further in the
process of delegating much of
this activity.
Some other forms of support
in lending are necessary. We
guarantee pollution control
bonds issued by State facilities.
I don't think that that program
has been used at all as much
as it should.
Each State can set up what is
in effect, a lending agency, and
that agency can issue paper
guaranteed by SBA to make
pollution compliance loans. And
those loans, because they carry
government guarantees, are
long-term and low-cost. That is
a program which really should
be pushed very hard in the
States.
Are there areas where EPA and
SBAcan cooperate more fully?
The two agencies really should
be working more closely to en-
courage establishment of the
State lending agencies. Their
loans are based on money bor-
rowed in the private sector
through investment banks. That
means no addition to the Fed-
eral budget. This is terribly
important in this inflationary
time. We may be able to do
more on our side now that we
have some Regional Advocates
in the field.
What do you expect from the
White House Conference on
Small Business?
If the conference is successful,
it will lead to three to five years
of legislative, regulatory, and
executive branch progress; new
legislation, new imperatives,
new impulses by raising the
priority, the level of concern
with small business problems.
Do you have a special mes-
sage that you would like to
give EPA regulators and small
business?
Small business people often
complain again and again. They
summarize their own views by
saying, "Just get the govern-
ment off my back. I don't want
it to do anything for me. Just
get it off my back."
Regulators, on the other side,
will say, "Just get them to obey
the regulations and stop whin-
ing and complaining."
We've got to say to the entre-
preneur that what you really
mean is you are willing to put
up with regulation if it is sen-
sible. It is your government still
and we know it will listen.
We've got to say to the regu-
lator, "Listen, the small busi-
ness person out there puts on
his or her clothes just the way
you do. He or she is a citizen of
this republic just as you are.
Nobody wants children growing
up in polluted environments
any more than you do. But the
small business person has got
a problem doing what you want
him to. Now, you guys have got
to work out more reasonable
ways to get it done."
An EPA official should sit
down with a small businessman
and say, "Look, we have to hurt
you, how can we do it least?"
And the small businessman
should have confidence that if
he is willing to make a sincere
effort to clean up his wastes he
will get fair treatment including
a fair deadline from EPA. D
White House
Conference
A White House Conference
on Small Business is sched-
uled for January 14-17,
1980. The theme is "Small
Business: The Next Twenty-
five Years." The goal is to
provide small business and
the Federal Government with
new ideas and options for
cooperation.
EPA's role in the Con-
ference and followup is to
find innovative ways to help
business comply with en-
vironmental laws while les-
sening the burden of the
Agency's rules.
To prepare for the meet-
ing, Regional Conferences
and Open Forums are being
held across the country.
Through these sessions,
delegates are being chosen
for the January Conference
in Washington, D.C.
SEPTEMBER 1979
29
-------
Environmental Almanac: September 1979
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
River
Walking
C plashing on foot along the
pebbly and rocky bottom of
a breeze-swept shallow stream
under arching trees is one of
the most delightful ways to
spend a warm Autumn day.
Sloshing through water
may be slow but as Thoreau,
a man fond of "fluvial walks,"
pointed out in his journals a
stream is often "the coolest
highway" and always offers
fresh scenic rewards.
In many rural areas the
people who often can't afford
country club pools or visits to
distant ocean beaches flock to
their nearby rivers.
A visitor to a stream in the
countryside near Washington
found the waterway being
used by several families on a
recent scorching weekend.
Some people drove their cars
into the river and proceeded
on the rocky bottom to one of
several small islands where
they parked.
Children jumped out in their
bathing suits and began toss-
ing frisbees back and forth as
they staggered through the
knee-high water, whooping
and laughing.
As a mother began cooking
on a grill on one of the islands
the aroma of barbecued chick-
en was wafted over the river.
Her husband drove his car in-
to tue river until the water
reached the wheel hub caps
to begin washing it.
Another man placed some
deck chairs in the stream un-
der a huge willow tree over-
hanging the water. Two plump,
barefooted, and perspiring
older women seated them-
selves in the chairs and let
the water flow over their feet
as they began to spend the
long hot afternoon fanning
themselves and talking quietly.
The peace of the river scene
was harshly interrupted when
a sports car with a radio blar-
ing rock and roll music roared
up, dipped down the river bank
and showered water high into
the air as it swooshed down
the stream bed.
Suddenly the car slowed
and came to a halt as the rear
wheels sank in a soft gravel
section of the stream bottom.
Boisterous catcalls greeted the
red-faced young driver as he
stepped from his stranded
vehicle.
Finally several men gathered
to help him. Shouting conflicting
directions at the driver to point
the wheels to the right, left,
and straight ahead, the men,
with much grunting and josh-
ing, lifted and shoved the car
to a firmer section of the bot-
tom. The crestfallen driver
eased his vehicle back onto
the shore and disappeared with
a sudden spurt of speed.
While this is not the type of
river scene Thoreau was famil-
iar with, many of the natural
attractions that appealed to the
famed naturalist-philosopher
can also still be found.
There are miles and
miles of quiet river stretches
far from the blacktop roads
which are rarely visited. Here
a river walker can see small
schools of fish weaving their
way upstream through riffles
where the water foams over a
rocky bottom.
in quiet shoreline pools
whirligig beetles race across
the water surface. Sometimes
you can find the Great Blue
Heron, one of our tallest native
birds and a frequent river
walker, striding along using its
long sharp bill to eat crayfish,
salamanders, frogs, and practi-
cally anything else it can find
in the water.
One of the glories of Au-
tumn days spent river walking
is the spectacle of such late
blooming plants as the asters
and the red cardinal flowers
which dot the banks.
One of the last flowers to
bloom is the rare and exquisite
fringed gentian. This lavender
gem is usually found in moist
locations along streams or
swampy areas. It continues
displaying its beauty until it
is nipped by the first frost ot
approaching winter.
Whatever your interests—
fishing, boating, nature watch-
ing, swimming, wading—rivers
have much to offer. The mount-
ing use of a stream by individ-
uals could have a beneficial
effect if each visitor will as-
sume a responsibility to help
guard the waterway.
Neither the Federal, State
or local governments ever will
have enough employees to
protect all the thousands of
miles of rivers in this country.
However, if all visitors served
as scouts to report the pres-
ence of pollution, the cause
of preserving environmental
quality would be greatly ad-
vanced.
For people interested in
such an approach the Izaak
Walton League has a national
program entitled "Save Our
Streams" which encourages
citizens to adopt a section of
waterway in order to protect it
not only for recreation but, in
addition, for vital municipal
and industrial needs. — C.D.P.
30
EPAJOURNAL
-------
News Briefs
Williams Named
Acid Rain
Research Centers
Roger L. Williams, 41, was recently named to replace
Alan Merson as Regional Administrator of EPA's Region 8.
Merson is returning to teaching at the University of
Denver Law School. Williams has been the Deputy Regional
Administrator in the Denver regional office of EPA since
1976, with key responsibilities in managing technical and
administrative aspects of the 375-employee operation and
$200 million budget.
Acid rain--a threat to food crops, fish, trees, lakes,
soil fertility, and buildings-- is the subject of an ac-
celerated research effort by the Environmental Protection
Agency. An overall budget of $4 million is planned by
EPA in the next year for acid rain research, the largest
being budgeted by any Federal agency. Acid rain results
when sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, primarily from
electric power plants, smelters, and automobiles, are
chemically changed into acids in the atmosphere. The
stepped up research is part of President Carter's call
for increased efforts in dealing with acid rain and his
directive that a comprehensive research plan be completed.
The EPA is establishing three new innovative, explora-
tory research centers to focus on long-term environmental
oroblems. The centers are being established at the Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh, the University of Illinois and at
the University of Oklahoma under a consortium.
States Served by EPA Regions Region 1 (Bostonl
'Jew
Vri mont
223 7210
Region 2 (Now York
City)
'•'ork.
Pin" liCO
Region 3
(Philadelphia)
•ai4
Region 4 (Atlanta)
404 881 4727
Region 5 (Chicago)
312 353 2000
Region 6 (Dallas)
'67 26OO
Region 7 (Kansas
City)
816
Region 8 (Denver)
.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Name-First, Last
Please Print
Company Name or Additional Address Line
Street Address
City
Zip Code
1 I
Q Payment enclosed
] Charge to my Deposit Account No.
Do you know someone in industry or *
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-
iption price is $12 per year and $1 5.00 if
mailed to a foreign address. A single copy
sells for $1.20, (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 lorn
(Superintendent of Documents)
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
SEPTEMBER 1979
31
-------
Regulation
and
Technical
Innovation
By Nicholas A. Ashford and
George R. Heaton
Dr. Nicholas Ashford is an Associate
Professor nf Technology find Pol'cy find
; Director of the Center for Policy
::nt;ves at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. He developed a methodol-
ogy for decisionmaking in chemicals regu-
lation for EPA find the U. S. Council on
Environmental Quality. Dr. George Heaton,
i> research ,i.s.sr><;/.-/fe .if the Center for
Policy Alternatives, has been involved in
various research efforts concerning the
in of regulatory policy and its relation-
ship to technology.
environmental, health, and safety
regulation and technological innova-
tion are related concerns because: (1) past
technological growth has resulted in prob-
lems that created the need for regulation;
(2) regulation may affect the future rate
and direction of technological innovation,
thereby affecting economic growth; and
(3) technological innovation is an impor-
tant pathway to the solution of environ-
mental, health, and safety problems.
The characteristics of regulation, the
firm, and its technology principally deter-
mine how regulation affects technological
change. Regulation is a complex stimulus.
It may have different purposes, control dif-
ferent aspects of development or produc-
tion, rely on different policy instruments,
and have differing legal authority to
"force" the development of new tech-
nology.
Informal government actions, which
usually occur well in advance of formal
rulernaking, also provide important signals
to firms and often result in significant tech-
nological change. Uncertainty in the sig-
nals given the firm to meet environmental,
health, and safety goals—particularly
about the level of, and time frame for,
compliance—may play a crucial part in
the firm's response and may either stimu-
late or retard innovation. The uncertainty
associated with regulation results from
both industry and government action and
may be a necessary consequence of the
administrative flexibility in the U.S. politi-
cal system.
It is useful for analytical purposes to
separate the impacts of regulation into
those affect'ng: (1 ) innovation for ordi-
nary or "main business" purposes, and
(2) abatement/compliance responses. In
the first case, regulation affects a tradi-
tional, although slowly evolving, activity;
whereas, in the second case, regulation
demands technological changes which
would not have been previously considered
within the ordinary scope of business
activity.
Regulation may cause changes in main
business innovation by affecting profitabil-
ity. Increased costs have been reported in
the pharmaceutical industry, but the un-
usual character of both regulation and
innovation in that sector may make its
experience unique. The effect of cost
increases on rates of return throughout
industry has not been demonstrated. These
costs may be passed on. Increased com-
mercial risk may occur as a result of regu-
lation; however, regulation may also de-
crease risk as compared to, for example,
the threat of products liability suits. The
number of new products in the pesticide
and pharmaceutical industries has been
shown to have decreased; however, it is
neither clear that the level of significant
innovations has declined, nor that the de-
cline is attributable to regulation.
Regulation may increase the number of
technically successful innovations that fail
because of environmental, health, or safety
concerns. On the other hand, regulation
may reduce the number of products that
would have ultimately failed for environ-
mental, health, or safety reasons by dis-
couraging their development. Even if fail-
ures do increase, there will be a compen-
sating effect from increased safety, health,
or environmental quality. Moreover, any
change in the failure rate is likely to be a
transitional, rather than a permanent, effect.
Because regulation can increase market
risk, it changes the nature of investment
opportunities. Increased risk may deter
investment, especially in low-volume prod-
ucts. New applications for demonstrably
safe technologies may be preferred to
investments in environmentally unproven
products and processes. Regulation is also
likely to direct resources away from con-
ventional R&D activities into compliance.
To the extent that R&D diversion exists, it
may tend to reduce main business innova-
tion. There is substantial evidence of a
change in corporate R&D, including over-
all decreases in some industries and a
shift from basic to applied research.
Whether this results from other factors
or from regulation is not clear. Moreover,
marginal decreases in R&D have not been
shown to lead to a corresponding decrease
in innovative output.
Some research has shown that the
change in R&D patterns may actually
32
EPAJOURNAL
-------
result in more overall innovation, espe-
cially in areas "ancillary" to compliance
efforts. This phenomenon may occur pre-
dominantly in industries which were rela-
tively uninnovative before regulation, but
which have responded creatively to regu-
lation. In addition, R&D induced by regula-
tion can often lead to general process
improvements. Although these benefits
(e.g., greater output, smaller energy costs)
do not usually outweigh the cost of com-
pliance, they offset compliance costs to
some extent. Finally, new organizational
structures and skill mixes have been
found in firms as a result of regulation.
This can rechannel firm creativity.
Because regulation has different impacts
on differently situated firms, it tends to
change industry structure. Regulation
creates barriers to entry when comoliance
measures are expensive and subject to
economies of scale. On the other hand,
many new entrants have solved regulatory
problems that estab'ished firms were not
successfully addressing. In addition, be-
cause regulation can 'ncrease the need
to compete and the difficu'ty of survival
in the market, it may lead to more innova-
tion by established firms.
Regulation obviously encourages tech-
nological change for compliance purposes.
However, these changes will not neces-
s=>rily be new or novel technologies; in-
deed, regulation often prompts compMance
through new uses or diffusion of existing
technologies. In regulated industries (in
contrast to the pollution control industry),
the adoption of compliance measures may
result in health and safety benefits only,
with little or no benefit to the firm. On the
other hand, even though most compliance
technologies appear to be developed with-
in the regulated firm for its own use, many
compliance technologies are also saleable.
In some industries, the relationship be-
tween suppliers and producers has been
altered by regulation, with suppliers often
developing innovative compliance tech-
nology. It should be recognized that the
division of industry into regulated seg-
ments and the pollution control industry
SEPTEMBER 1979
-------
Regulation and Technological
Innovation
may not be a real one, especially in the
chemical industry. There, the regulated
firm and the creator of new compliance
technology are often one and the same.
Over a period of two years the M IT
Center for PoHcy Alternatives conducted
a National Science Foundation-sponsored
study of the effects of environmental,
health, and safety regulation on technolog-
ical change in the U.S. chemical industry.
The study involved both the construc-
tion of a model of the effects of regu-
lation on compliance technology and an
investigation of the characteristics of regu-
lation, the technologies employed by the
regulated or responding firms, and the
resulting technological responses. Data
were obtained from interviews with about
50 firms subjected to the principal regula-
tions on lead, mercury, PCB's, and vinyl
chloride.
The study concluded that the character
of the technology in use is a major factor
determining the response to regulation.
Most firms in a given industrial segment
responded very similarly. Moreover, their
response was often what would have been
expected, given the h'story of innovation
in the segment. We therefore concluded
that compliance responses to regulation
are usually predictable.
On the other hand, there were some
surprises. Particularly when regulation
precipitated "crisis" conditions, industry
responded creatively, changing its histor-
ical patterns. Sometimes innovative re-
sponses arose from firms outside of the
regulated group. The responding firms saw
the development of compliance techno'ogy
as a way to capture new markets.
Most compliance technologies used
were actually modifications, or sometimes
even simple adoptions, of existing technol-
ogies rather than new ideas. Very few radf-
cally new technologies arose in response
to regulation and very few required much
development time. There are significant
exceptions to this pattern, however, espe-
cially in the case of recent regulations con-
cerned more directly with chemical process
technology or product safety.
Perhaps our most important findings
concerned systemic changes in the innova-
tion process and the ancillary responses
traceable to regulation. The principal sys-
temic change observed was the establish-
ment of environmental or regulatory affairs
units in 65 percent of the firms in our sample.
The environmental affairs units maintained
liaison with regulatory agencies and often
established in-firm environmental safety
standards and review procedures for new
and existing products and processes. Thus
they are likely to provide a continuing in-
centive for safer products and processes.
We also saw a change in personnel skill-
mixes as a result of regulation. For exam-
ple, regulation has greatly increased the
need for analytical chemists. Companies
often reported that the addition of such
new skills allowed them to find more and
better uses for their products.
Ancillary or "spin-off" changes were
evident as well. These changes occurred
as a result of the need to comply with regu-
lation but were not necessary in order to
meet regulatory requirements. Twenty per-
cent of the firms interviewed remembered
or readily admitted to the existence of
ancillary improvements, but we believe
that more would have been revealed had
we interviewed several persons in each
firm. Many ancillary changes arose when
companies took advantage of the opportu-
nity created by regulation-related changes
to institute other changes—long-desired
but postponed. Thus, we saw regulation
accelerating new developments. Other
ancillary changes arose directly out of
compliance R&D—for example, several
new catalysts for petroleum refining were
developed as part of the effort to switch to
lead-free gasoline. Although these ancil-
lary responses were often unforeseen at
the time compliance efforts began, our
experience shows that they are not rare
events.
In the past, the chemical industry has
been resilient in its response to significant
regulatory efforts. It has reached or sur-
passed the technological requirements of
regulation. In part, this is because the pre-
vious standards imposed appear to have
been based on present technological feasi-
bility or best available technology. But, in
addition, the industry has been able to
accelerate the development of new process
technology needed for compliance—for
example new polymerization techniques
for vinyl chloride. There is strong evidence
that regulation can change the overall char-
acter of product and process innovation in
the industry, providing that the regulations
are stringent enough and properly designed.
The industry might well be viewed as
being in a transition period between a past
history of little emphasis on environmental
and health concern and a future pattern of
much greater activity. This is evidenced by
increasing managerial attention to these
issues via both the formal establishment
of environmental affairs units and shifting
emphasis in the nature of chemical product
desrgn and production.
The newer regulatory efforts, especially
those concerned with workplace hazards,
consumer products, and new activities by
EPA under the Toxic Substances Control
Act, may be particularly important for in-
novation both in compliance technology
and in process or product redesign. This
is to be contrasted with past efforts at air
and water quality control, which focused on
single pollutants as emissions or effluents
at the end of the production process.
The most important effect of regulation
on technological innovation may be its
potential for restructuring the nature of
industrial production. Over the longer
term, industry may adiust to environmental,
health, and safety demands with changes
in the nature of production that will be
more basic and can be accomplished with
far 'ess disturbance.
Regulations should be designed to elicit
the best possible technological response
from the industry. The past pattern of bas-
ing standards on existing technology must
be altered by promulgating regulations
which are "technology forcing." In addi-
tion, the overall stimulus for change must
be made strong enough to effect a shift in
the general management approach to all
possible hazards associated with produc-
tion. The adoption of generic regulations or
regulation of classes of chemicals would
provide a stronger impetus for change
than a substance-by-substance approach.
In the past, one of the impediments to
the design of "technology forcing" regula-
tions has been the fact that the agencies
have relied on the regulated industries as
the source of their information about the
potential for technological change. Ac-
cordingly, compliance has been largely
the adoption of "off the shelf" technology
and has resulted in less protection of
health and the environment than might
have actually been possible. Our research
suggests that important changes in tech-
nology can be encouraged by regulation.
This will be the case especially if, in the
future, both the agencies and the industry
develop an appreciation for the complex-
ities of the regulation-technological change
relationship. The regulatory agencies
should be aware of the fact that it is pos-
sible to design regulations to stimulate
the deveiopmen: of new technologies
whose performance exceeds the expecta-
tions of both industry and government. D
34
EPAJOURNAL
-------
People
Jeffrey G. Miller
He has been named to head a
National Hazardous Waste En-
forcement Task Force, which
reports directly to Deputy Ad-
ministrator Barbara Blum. Un-
der his direction the new Task
Force will coordinate Federal
clean-up activity with the Re-
gional Offices and with the
States. It will supply technical,
scientific, and legal support.
The Task Force also will keep
a running report of the number
of sites containing hazardous
waste and their clean-up status.
Miller has been Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Water
Enforcement since 1975. He
joined EPA in 1971 as Chief of
the Enforcement Branch in the
Agency's Boston Regional
Office. He later became Direc-
tor of the Enforcement Division
and served in that post for two
years. Before coming to EPA,
Miller practiced law. An honor
graduate of Princeton Univer-
sity in 1 963 and Harvard Law
School in 1967, Miller was a
Research Fellow at Harvard for
a year following his graduation.
Charles E. Findley
He was recently hired by the
city of Seattle, Wash., to help
municipal officials work with
other local governments to
develop coordinated control
programs for a wide range of
environmental problems. Find-
ley has been a senior technical
advisor and program manager
at EPA's Region 10 headquar-
ters in Seattle. The assignment
was made under the Intergov-
ernmental Personnel Act. A
similar arrangement was made
earlier this year with the city of
Spokane, Wash., and a third
agreement, with Portland,
Oreg., is expected soon.
Alfred West
He received the Distinguished
Career Award upon his retire-
ment from EPA's National
Training and Operational Tech-
nology Center in Cincinnati,
where he was Chief of the Oper-
ational Technology Branch.
During his 18 years with EPA
and predecessor agencies West
developed and demonstrated
improved operating procedures,
personnel training, and plant
modifications. He received an
EPA Gold Medal for Exceptional
Service in 1972.
New Lab Opens
The Environmental Protection
Agency last month dedicated a
new regional laboratory occupy-
ing mo re than 17 acresat Clam
Bay on the shores of Puget
Sound west of Seattle, Wash.
The facility will utilize chemi-
cal, biological, and microbio-
logical expertise to support the
full range of the Agency's
activities.
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
(D., Washington), Representa-
tive Norman D. Dicks (D.,
Washington), and Donald P.
Dubois, Administrator of EPA
Region 10, were scheduled to
participate in the opening
ceremonies. Dr. Arnold Gahler
is laboratory director.
The laboratory staff will pro-
vide analyses needed for EPA's
programs in regulating hazard-
ous and toxic materials, to pro-
tect drinking water, detect
contamination from solid waste
disposal, improve air and water
quality, and control water pollu-
tion from nonpoint sources.
Scientists also will provide
technical assistance and ana-
lytical support to State, Federal,
and local agencies involved with
pollution control and the man-
agement of natural resources.
Louise P. Giersch
She has been named Director
of the Air and Hazardous Mate-
rials Division in Region 9.
Giersch is a graduate of the
University of Colorado with a
BS in chemical engineering.
She has an extensive back-
ground in regional and local
government. Before coming to
EPA she was Mayor of the City
of Antioch, Calif., and had been
a member and Chair of the
Antioch Planning Commission.
She has been Chair of the San
Francisco Bay Area Metropoli-
tan Transportation Commis-
sion, is a member of the Cali-
fornia Seismic Safety Commis-
sion, and is active in the League
of California Cities and the
National League of Cities. In
addition to her public offices,
Giersch has been active in the
League of Women Voters.
Gordon G. Robeck
He has been honored by the
American Water Works Associ-
ation for his role in promoting
the exchange of information
regarding safe drinking water.
Robeck is director of Drinking
Water Research at EPA's Cin-
cinnati Environmental Research
Center. The Medal for Out-
standing Service, which the
Association has awarded an-
nually since 1925, was pre-
sented to Robeck at the annual
summer meeting. As a member
of the technical and profes-
sional council of the Associa-
tion from 1972 to 1978 Robeck
served as a liaison between the
Federal Government and public
water works, advising on gov-
ernment activities on research
and regulation of drinking
water.
SEPTEMBER 1979
35
-------
Update
A DDT Legacy
Con!'1 • •: ft "i page 11
whose average annual income was about
$7,000, on the unemployment rolls.
"1 hope I live long enough for people
responsible for the DDT pollution of the
Tennessee River to hear and do something
about what they've done to commercial
fishermen and market operators in this
area," said the president of one fisher-
men's organization.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
has made a start at doing something about
the fishermen's plight. Earlier this year,
the Authority provided motorboats and
commercial gear for some of the area's
fishermen to fish clean portions of the Ten-
nessee on behalf of the whole community.
This has put fish back in the diet of some
Triana residents, but has not entirely solved
the unemployment problem. In July, the
fishermen filed a S50 million suit against
the Olin Corp. and the Army for destruction
of their livelihood.
Other Federal efforts to aid the commu-
nity took a jump forward this summer.
EPA Administrator Douglas M. Costleand
TVA Chairman S. David Freeman listened
to the troubles of Triana residents at a
town meeting there on June 6. They prom-
ised to help.
Shortly afterward, Costle obtained
President Carter's permission to determine
what additional relief Federal agencies in-
volved with Triana could provide. Costle
asked Science Advisory Board Director
Richard Dowd to develop a cooperative
plan of assistance among the Federal
groups. Phone calls were made, a meeting
was held, and on July 24, four agencies
announced a program. As Costle said,
"We've attempted to move quickly on this
issue . . . EPA, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, and the Army
have pooled their efforts to speed eco-
nomic and medical aid to this area."
The specifics of the program were:
• TVA will make $100,000 available to
fund a Triana agricultural cooperative to
establish a community greenhouse so that
local residents could increasingly substi-
tute vegetables for fish in their meals. The
Authority also is considering retraining
local residents for jobs other than fishing.
• HEW will grant $22,500 to the commu-
nity for "primary health care planning" to
determine whether additional medical
facilities are needed in the area. In addi-
tion, the Department will work with other
health officials to expand diagnostic and
treatment services for Triana residents.
HEW will establish a "hotline" for medi-
cal information about DDT and attempt to
inform all citizens within a 3-mile radius of
the insecticide's possible health hazards.
• EPA is testing more than 70 water sup-
plies in the Triana-Huntsville ares for DDT
residues. Results from this monitoring
should be available by October 1.
• The Army is conducting a $500,000
study, to be completed next year, on the
extent of DDT contamination in the Ten-
nessee River and its tributaries and on
methods for cleaning up or improving the
situation. (This indeed will be a worthy
challenge for the Army. EPA's $1 A million
1978 study of Kepone in the James River in
Virginia concluded that only limited clean-
up was practical and that attempts at com-
plete removal would cost billions.)
The assistance and studies being carried
out by the Federal government are hardly
a cure-all for the financia I woes and medi-
cal ambiguities of Triana. But they do
demonstrate continuing concern on the
agencies' part, and they do illustrate that
the Federal machinery can respond quickly
and in an organized fashion.
Meanwhile, the Olin Corp. says it has
been in contact with the parties concerned
and discussed what the corporation's in-
volvement or assistance might be. D
Larry O'Neill is an EPA Headquarters
Press Officer,
A review of recent major
EPA activities and devel-
opments in the pollution
control program areas.
ENFORCEMENT
Permits
The EPA has proposed
regulations that speed up
and simplify the process
of obtaining necessary
environmental permits.
The new rules could cut
red tape and reduce
paperwork for thousands
of industries and munici-
palities.
A key aspect of EPA's
effort toward "permit
consolidation" is the use
of a single, simplified
form to apply for permits
under a number of differ-
ent EPA programs. This
standardization will make
it easier to apply for EPA
permits.
The proposals, if
adopted following review
of public comments, will
streamline the regulatory
process for obtaining per-
mits to cover discharges
of air and water pollut-
ants; the treatment,
storage or disposal of
hazardous wastes; the
underground injection of
wastes; and dredge or
fill operations.
NOISE
Symposium
Proceedings
EPA's Office of Noise
Abatement and Control
recently announced that
the published proceed-
ings of the EPA Noise
Technology Research
Symposium are now
available. Over 200 ex-
perts representing a
broad range of domestic
and foreign interests in
the public and private
sectors participated in
the symposium, which
focused on research
needs for improving noise
abatement technology.
36
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Single copies of the pro-
ceedings, Noise Techno-
logical Research Needs
and The Relative Roles of
the Federal Government
and the Private Sector
EPA 550/9-79-311,can
be obtained by contact-
ing:
Documents Clerk
Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control
(ANR-490)
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 557-7370
PESTICIDES
Use Extended
Pear growers have been
given permission by the
EPA to continue using
the pesticide, amitraz, for
four more years.
EPA said it will con-
sider giving a permanent
registration for the use
of the pesticide on pears
at the end of that period
after receiving and re-
viewing additional labo-
ratory tests of its effects
on health and the environ-
ment.
Under EPA's condi-
tions, pear growers must
continue to observe re-
strictions in the use of
amitraz, known by the
trade name, Baam, as a
safeguard to the health
of both the people who
eat the pears and the
growers who mix and
apply it.
To protect consumers,
the agency specified that
pears treated with ami-
traz may not be harvested
until seven days after ap-
plication. This precaution
will reduce the residues
of amitraz, a suspect can-
cer agent, on the fruit.
Citizen Notification
The EPA plans to require
that citizens be notified
in advance of broad-scale
aerial pesticide spray
programs.
Testifying recently be-
fore the House Subcom-
mittee on Oversight and
Investigations, EPA As-
sistant Administrator for
Toxic Substances Steven
Jellinek said, "To en-
courage informed and
early participation (in
pesticide spray pro-
grams), EPA will in the
future be requiring more
and earlier public notice
of broad-scale spray pro-
grams such as has been
done with Dimilin as used
in gypsy moth control in
the eastern U.S. this
year.
"Awareness of where
and when aerial spraying
will take place should
allow people who are in
the area and concerned
about the spraying to
make greater use of exist-
ing legal options and en-
forcement procedures,"
he noted.
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT
Innovation Program
Seven EPA scientists
have been selected to
participate in a new
"Innovative Research
Program." The program
relieves staff researchers
of daily administrative
routines in order that they
may devote full time to
the exploration of inno-
vative scientific ap-
proaches.
The seven Innovative
Research Program gran-
tees are: Dr. Gary E.
Glass, a chemist at the
Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth,
Minn.; Dr. John J. O'Neil,
a physiologist at the
Health Effects Research
Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.; Dr.
Ronald Eisler, an aquatic
biologist at the Environ-
mental Research Labora-
tory, Narragansett, R.I.;
Dr. James M. McKimm
III, an aquatic biologist at
the Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Duluth, Minn.; Andrew E.
O'Keefe, Technical
Advisor to the Director
of the Environmental
Sciences Research Lab-
oratory, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.; Dr.
Philip L. Hanst, Senior
Research Scientist and
Chief of the Atmospheric
Characterization and
Special Projects Group
at the Environmental
Sciences Research
Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, N.C.; and
Dr. Wayne R. Ott, senior
systems analyst in the
Office of Monitoring and
Technical Support,
Washington, D.C.
TOXICS
Chemicals Review
EPA has begun reviewing
new chemical substances
before they are manufac-
tured for commercial
purposes to evaluate any
risks which they may
present to human health
and the environment. The
program officially began
July 1.
"Nearly 400 new
chemicals are introduced
into the market each
year," said EPA Deputy
Administrator Barbara
Blum. "For the first time,
the government will be
able to review these sub-
stances before their ex-
posure to people or the
environment."
This program, author-
ized by the Toxic Sub-
stances Control Act,
requires chemical manu-
facturers to notify EPA
at least 90 days before
they manufacture new
substances. The notices
must include information
on chemical identity,
intended production
volumes and uses, worker
exposures, and disposal
plans. Manufacturers also
must submit all test data
in their possession or
control concerning their
new chemicals' health
and environmental
effects.
WATER
Drinking Water
In an effort to increase
government efficiency,
EPA and the Food and
Drug Administration
(FDA) have agreed on
how the agencies will
share responsibility for
regulating drinking water.
Under the new agree-
ment, EPA now has com-
plete authority over drink-
ing water served by public
water supplies. This
authority applies to all
additives contained in
the water. Some additives
are chemicals such as
chlorine, lime, and alum
used to treat water. Other
additives get into the
water indirectly through
leaching from paints and
coatings, and from pipes,
tanks, and other
equipment.
FDA will continue to
regulate the purity of
bottled water. For this
purpose, it considers
bottled water a "food,"
the purity of which is
controlled under the
Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. It will also
retain its responsibility
for water—and sub-
stances in water—used
in food and food
processing.
DBCP Found
Preliminary tests by EPA
have found small
amounts of a partially
banned pesticide in some
water wells, used for
drinking water and other
purposes, in two Arizona
counties.
Similar tests on drink-
ing water supplies in 13
counties of four other
States—Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, and South
Carolina—turned up no
trices of the pesticide.
EPA undertook the
water testing program
with State agencies in
June after California offi-
cials reported finding
levels of DBCP (dibrorno-
chloropropane) between
.1 and 39.2 parts per
billion (ppb) in numerous
irrigation and drinking
water wells in the State.
In 1977, EPA stopped
the use of DBCP on 19
vegetable crops believed
to retain residues of it.
Other uses of DBCP,
including cotton, soy-
beans, citrus fruits,
grapes, pineapples,
lawns, and golf courses,
have been restricted to
trained users who must
wear protective clothing.
"The Federal govern-
ment has not set any
formal safety levels for
DBCP in drinking water,
but the Arizona and
California Departments
of Health Services have
advised against drinking
or cooking with water
containing more than
1 ppb. of DBCP," said
EPA Deputy Administra-
tor Barbara Blum. "EPA's
Office of Drinking Water
will work with the States
to mitigate the ground-
water contamination
problems suggested by
the preliminary findings."
Rules Proposed
EPA has proposed
regulations to clean up
water pollution caused by
leather tanning and
finishing plants. The rules
proposed under the Clean
Water Act are the first
to be issued under the
Agency's program to deal
with toxic pollutants
discharged by U.S.
industries.
The proposals apply to
plants that process
animal hides and skins
into finished leather. EPA
has identified 188 such
plants nationwide, which
together discharge about
52 million gallons of
polluted wastewater
daily.
EPA's new rules, if
adopted following public
review, would require the
industry to control toxic
discharges by July 1,
1984, as required by the
Clean Water Act of 1977.
n
SEPTEMBER 1979
37
-------
Around the Nation
environmentally sound
disposal methods.
Region 4 is preparing
for enforcement actions
expected to result from
the investigations.
Urban Assistance Grants
Region 1 has awarded
Urban Assistance Grants
to New Britain, Conn.,
and the Massachusetts
Bureau of Solid Waste
Disposal for solid waste
disposal studies. These
grants were among the
first in the nation to be
awarded under the Presi-
dent's Urban Assistance
Policy Program.
New Britain has re-
ceived $76,950 to
develop a feasibility
study for a curbside
source separation pro-
gram and to implement
the program if the study
is positive.
The Massachusetts
Bureau of Solid Waste
was awarded $213,000
to support a resource re-
covery project in Central
Massachusetts. The funds
will be channeled to a
voluntary coalition of
20 municipalities and will
be used to accelerate the
planning and developing
of a regional resource
facility in the area.
Watershed Coalition
Formed
Region 1 has joined
together with the Massa-
chusetts Department of
Environmental Manage-
ment and local environ-
mental organizations to
form the Massachusetts
Coafition of Watershed
Associations. The group
has been formed for the
purpose of keeping public
attention focused on
efforts to restore and
revive the Common-
wealth's water resources.
Paper Recycling
Program
EPA has started the
Presidentially sponsored
highgrade office paper
recycling program at the
Federal Plaza Office
Building and Customs
Court building. The
Federal Plaza in New
York City is second only
to the Pentagon in num-
bers of Federal office
workers. Some 8,000
employees in 34 agencies
are expected to
participate.
Two staffers, Drew
Lehman and Jane Don-
heffner, are implement-
ing the program in Re-
gion 2 and are sharing
the responsibility for
coordinating the involve-
ment of all the Federal
agencies. The program
expects to reduce the
annual cost of hauling
waste by $17,000. Apart
from the cost savings to
the taxpayer, recycling
conserves both paper and
energy. Reduction of
waste relieves pressure
on the Region's overbur-
dened landfill operations.
Up to 50% of the office
building waste is partially
recoverable under this
program. According to
EPA figures, paper made
from secondary fibers
conserves as much as 60%
of the fuel oil required
for paper production from
virgin materials.
Donheffner said she is
hopeful that a successful
program at Federal Plaza
will stimulate interest
for similar programs in
State, municipal, and
commercial office build-
ings in Region 2.
Delegation Agreement
Region 3 and Pennsyl-
vania have signed an
agreement which will
provide the State up to
$7.5 million during the
next two years to adminis-
ter the Wastewater
Treatment Facility Con-
struction Grants Program.
Under the Delegation
Agreement, certain func-
tions of the grants pro-
gram will be turned over
to the Pennsylvania
Department of Environ-
mental Resources (DER).
These functions include
the handling of applica-
tions for amendments to
grants, review of facility
plans, construction plans
and specifications, sewer
use ordinances, user
charge schedules, and
industrial cost recovery
systems, and inspections
of plants during
construction.
PCS Storage Protection
The owners of a Youngs-
ville, Pa., warehouse used
for storage of polychlori-
natedbiphenyls (PCB's)
have agreed to change
PCB containers at the site
and to improve the ware-
house construction to
comply with the Toxic
Substances Control Act
of 1976.
The agreement, signed
by the warehouse owners,
was approved by the U.S.
District Court for the
Western District of
Pennsylvania in June,
1979.
The Department of
Justice, on behalf of
EPA, had filed suit at an
earlier date in the U.S.
District Court against the
owners and operator of
the PCB storage facility.
Task Force Created
A newly created, five-
member Hazardous
Waste Task Force has
started its investigations
of 147 sites in the South-
east reported to contain
hazardous wastes. The
sites have been identified
by local and State offi-
cials, EPA personnel and
private citizens. Some 50
inspections have been
made with good coopera-
tion coming from indus-
tries and the States.
An analysis of well
water samples taken from
an area near the New
Hanover landfill in North
Carolina confirmed earlier
State findings showing
contamination due to
metals and organic com-
pounds. Residents were
notified that water could
not be used for drinking.
The landfill was closed
by order of the State.
Region 4 investigators
sampled three other sites
in and around Charlotte
and Mecklenburg County.
None presented an immi-
nent health hazard but
local and State officials
were advised to dispose
of chemical waste-bear-
ing drums in an approved
facility.
In Tennessee, sampling
showed PCB concentra-
tions of three parts per
billion in water down-
stream from the Waynes-
boro landfill. At a meeting
with State and local
officials, it was recom-
mended that an activated
charcoal filter system be
installed and a dam
repaired. Tests showed
elevated chromium levels
slightly exceeding the
drinking water standard
in a stream near a
Lawrenceburg landfill. An
industrial discharger was
urged to come up with
more acceptable and
Pretreatment Program
Proposed
Minnesota has received
EPA's approval for its
proposed industrial toxic
substances pretreatment
control program. The
program will supplement
the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System permit program
for facilities discharging
wastes directly into
Minnesota waters. The
State has been adminis-
tering the permit program
since June, 1974.
The pretreatment pro-
gram, authorized by the
Clean Water Act Amend-
ments of 1 977, limits the
types and amounts of
industrial pollutants,
particularly toxicants,
that may be discharged
into municipal sewerage
systems. It also seeks to
improve the recycling and
reclamation of municipal
wastewater and sludge.
Reg:onal Administrator
John McGuire said,
"While some municipali-
ties have existing pre-
treatment programs, it is
Minnesota's and EPA's
intent to upgrade existing
programs and to establish
additional programs
where needed."
Together with the
permit program, the pre-
treatment program will
help assure the control of
toxic substance dis-
charges and provide
better overall wastewater
control. It will also help
bring some Minnesota
industrial dischargers
into compliance with
Federal, State, and local
EPAJOURNAL
-------
water, air, and sludge
standards and regula-
tions. Other Region 5
States are developing
similar programs.
De-Designation
Decision
Regional Administrator
Adlene Harrison has
decided to concur with
former Governor Dolph
Briscoe's removal of the
designation of the San
Antonio 208 planning
area and the Alamo Area
Council of Governments
(AACOG) as the area-
wide water quality
planning agency.
After careful consid-
eration and review of the
testimony received at
two separate public
meetings, the Regional
Administrator approved
the removal of the desig-
nation and the inclusion
of this area in the State-
wide Water Quality
Management Program.
The Texas Department of
Water Resources and the
Texas State Soil and
Water Conservation
Board will serve as
planning agencies.
The Regional Adminis-
trator determined that
procedures for changes
in designation had been
followed and that the
replacement agencies
have the authority and
capability to carry on the
water quality planning.
To insure the continua-
tion of a strong citizen
voice in water quality
planning, Region 6
developed a program
which provides for area
planning to be conducted
by the City of San
Antonio, the San Antonio
River Authority, and the
Cibolo Creek Municipal
Authority through sub-
agreements with the
Texas Department of
Water Resources.
SEPTEMBER 1979
Quiet Communities
Program
Kansas City was selected
as the third city in the
Nation to participate in
EPA's Quiet Commun:ties
Program. The announce-
ment was made by Mayor
Richard Berkley, adding
Kansas City to this
national program to study
the cause and treatment
of noise pollution. Kansas
City signed a contract
for the first year of a
two-year program in
which the city will receive
$40,000 annually to
measure actual city noise
levels, gather public
opinion on irritating
noises, and develop
methods to control noise
throughout the city.
AHentown, Pa., and
Spokane, Wash., are the
other two cities conduct-
ing similar studies under
the Quiet Communities
Program.
Gasohol Production
Seminar
More than 25 scientists
and researchers attended
the first EPA Gasohol
Seminar in Kansas City.
The seminar was co-
sponsored by Region 7
and the Industrial En-
vironmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Scientists and re-
searchers from univer-
sities and various Federal
and State agencies along
with members of the Na-
tional Gasohol Commis-
sion were in attendance.
This was an early attempt
to evaluate the efforts,
progress, and status of
gasohol and the Farm
Energy Program. The
environmental effects
from the production of
alcohol from biomass
(or living matter) to pro-
duce gasohol were also
evaluated.
Research
The Denver Regional
Office recently created a
special team to research
and promote Innovative
and Alternative (I & A)
wastewater treatment
technology systems. The
program has identified
74 communities which
have potential projects in
the Region.
Two cities, Yankton
and Milbank, S. Dak.,
have already requested
funding from EPA for a
project. The Region 8
technology team will be
guided by the Water Pro-
grams Division with ad-
ditional staff support from
the Office of Public A ware-
ness and Intergovernmen-
tal Affairs.
Consent Decree
The Public Service Com-
pany of Colorado's Chero-
kee Plant has decided to
put in new bag houses in
two units, following an
engineering study by the
EPA National Enforce-
ment Investigations Cen-
ter which indicated con-
tinued particulate matter
emission problems for the
facility. Not only is it esti-
mated that building and
maintaining these bag
houses will be cheaper
over a 20-year period
than it would have been
to continue maintaining
the existing equipment,
but the facility will also
be able to meet standards
that are 20 times more
strict than present ones,
offsetting $5 million
worth of potential civil
penalties. Even after re-
imbursing the Investiga-
tions Center $55,600 for
the engineering study, the
Public Service Company
will stiil be able to realize
savings for the rate payer.
Smog Alert
The city of Los Angeles
experienced its worst
smog alert in five years
in June. The second stage
alert reached a high of
.43 parts per million. The
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
responded with imple-
mentation of emergency
smog abatement plans.
These plans required
companies emitting
pollutants to reduce
emissions by 20%, com-
panies with more than
100 employees in one
location to reduce em-
ployee driving by 65-
75%, and utilities to burn
low polluting natural gas,
if possible. A spokesman
for the District esti-
mated that 80% of the
companies had been in
compliance with traffic
plans and 99% of the pol-
luting companies had
held to their reduced
emission plans. Smog
inspectors cited 40 com-
panies for failing to im-
plement traffic abate-
ment plans. In an effort
to reduce oil vapor emis-
sions, oil tankers were
also prevented from dis-
charging their contents.
Water Code Violated
California's Water Re-
source Control Board
has requested the State
Attorney General's Office
to take action against the
Occidental Chemical
Company of Lathrop,
Calif., for violations of
the State's Water Code.
This action stems from
allegations that Occi-
dental had been illegally
disposing of pesticides
(including DBCP) into
groundwater around its
factory in Lathrop for
over four years. Viola-
tions of California's water
quality laws carry a maxi-
mum fine of $6,000 per
day.
Compressed Work
Schedules
More than 200 employees
at EPA's Region 10 head-
quarters have begun
working longer hours
each day in exchange for
working fewer days each
year, in an experimental
use of compressed work
schedules by Federal
agencies in the Seattle
area. Donald P. Dubois,
the regional administrator,
encouraged other local
employers to try the
experiment with their
workers. If the com-
pressed work schedules
were to prove success-
ful and to catch on at
other places of business,
declared Dubois, it would
help relieve traffic con-
gestion to the point where
harmful build-ups of air
pollution would be less
likely in the downtown
Seattle area.
Noise Control Program
Spokane, Wash.—the
second city in the coun-
try to participate in EPA's
Quiet Communities pro-
gram—this summer de-
ployed crews of EPA-
trained volunteers to
make noise measure-
ments around the city,
in what could be a step
toward the development
of a community noise
ordinance. The two-year
Quiet Communities pro-
gram in Spokane is being
funded by $80,000 in
EPA funds to determine
the most appropriate
approach for the city to
control excessive noise.
In addition to training
volunteers. Region 10
will loan the city sound
level meters and other
equipment necessary for
the program. D
39
-------
Resources,Technology,
and the Environment
went out to build a new coal-
fired plant, or a new nuclear
plant, and that's the only elec-
tricity it had, it has to charge
you an amount way above what
you were paying for the older
power plants, and you wouldn't
be able to compete in the mar-
ket place.
And now let's talk about a
solar device that you want to
put on your roof—say it's going
to cost you $10,000. John Q.
Citizen has a hard time getting
that $10,000—maybe he's
already making mortgage pay-
ments on the house, and he's
got to go out and try to borrow
$10,000 to put this device on
his roof. And the economics
for that new kind of energy
many times is higher than for
the electricity he's buying from
the utility.
But the cost of the solar
energy could be less than that
incremental energy from the
new nuclear plant or new coal
plant. His solar unit doesn't
get averaged in with the cost of
the other energy. So wouldn't
it make sense for the govern-
ment to require that public util-
ities have the responsibility for
providing electricity or energy
to the homeowner via the solar
route, as well as via the cen-
tralized plants, so that they
could go out and borrow a bil-
lion dollars from banks to put
up 100,000 of these units—put
up units on 100,000 homes?
And charge the homeowner a
monthly fee for paying off the
cost of that unit, just like they
charge him a monthly fee for
paying off the cost of a nuclear
plant, or a coal-fired plant?
And to me that makes per-
fectly good sense. But these ar-
rangements don't provide for.
that. So the net result is, on-site
solar energy is uniquely disad-
vantaged by our current way of
doing things. I like to say that
"we get carried into the future
by the momentum of the status
quo."
We want to keep doing things
the same old way, and the mo-
mentum is so great we keep on
doing it that way, even when
it doesn't make any sense
many times.
I'd like to ask a couple of
broad, sweeping questions.
One is, what is the major
environmental problem facing
the world today? How can
we cope with it?
The major environmental prob-
lem is the growth of human
population. It is the underlying
cause of most of the pressures
on the natural environment.
And growing world population
is resulting in overgrazing,
over-deforesting, over-fishing,
over-cropping, which in turn
are reducing the Earth's capac-
ity to produce food and fish and
wood.
Increasing population is
putting a much greater amount
of pollution into the environ-
ment and thus interfering with
our life support systems. While
I was in high school, the world's
population reached two billion.
So throughout all the history
of humanity—for the several
millions of years in which hu-
mans have been around—pop-
ulation had grown to two bil-
lion. Yet today it's about twice
that—about 4.3 billion. In this
portion of my lifetime, the world
added more people than it had
added in all of that previous
time.
And in spite of the substan-
tial progress being made in
some of the developing coun-
tries in reducing birthrates, the
world's population is still going
to at least double before it will
level off.
Lester Brown in a recent
publication showed what's been
happening to the ratio of the
various important things like
food production, fish produc-
tion, wood production, arable
land—divided by the world's
population. Throughout the
past, that ratio has continually
increased until thi.s past dec-
ade. And in spite of increasing
population, the food per person
managed to go up, on the
average.
But now, in the last 10 years,
one after another of these
things has peaked out and
started downhill. Obviously, as
the world's population in-
creases, you have to increase
the production of the things
that humans need, if you're
going to just stay even with the
quality of life per individual.
But as the population builds up,
it brings pressure on the
environment and reduces the
capacity of the Earth to produce
these things. Eventually, those
two forces will get to the point
where you have this downturn
in the ratio of critical resources
to population. That to me is the
underlying cause of world
inflation.
There gets to be less per
person available. As demand
increases, the price goes up.
So we need to focus on popula-
tion. Let's take the population
problem here at home, out on
the front range, in Colorado.
They have one of the world's
most serious population prob-
lems. There the population is
growing at about 2.4 percent
a year.
In most of the critical de-
veloping countries, they've low-
ered their birthrate—-their pop
ulation growth rate has gone to
below 2 percent a year. When
you add a person in the de-
veloping world, he or she comes
in with little more than his or
her hands and feet, but when
people move into the Front
Range out in Colorado, they
come with their cars, and their
airplanes, and their chain saws
and their snowmobiles and
their high-rise buildings and
so on.
Each such person has a thou-
sand-fold greater impact on the
environment than a person in a
developing country. Why do
they come to Colorado in such
great numbers? It's an immi-
gration problem, rather than a
natural birthrate problem. They
come in order to enjoy the
natural environment—fantastic
scenery and experiences there.
But the magnet is being
destroyed by the influx of so
many people, and unless the
leadership in that area can put
a throttle on that, the quality of
life of those people is going
downhill, and the very magnet
drawing them there is being
destroyed.
Are we winning or losing the
struggle for environmental
quality?
We are heading toward greater
and greater difficulty, but we
are winning in this respect:
the birthrates are being brought
down in the developing world.
Major efforts are being made
to teach people about family
planning and to provide them
with the knowledge and the
wherewithal so that parents
can decide on the size of their
family and the spacing of
their children.
These efforts have really
been working in a great way in
China, Indonesia, Singapore,
Hong Kong, South Korea, Costa
Rica. They're working in coun-
tries where there are Moslems
and Hindus and Catholics and
Protestants.
The key to it is getting the
knowledge and the where-
withal available to the poor
people, and then they do prac-
tice family planning just like
affluent people.
So that's a big plus. But
even with that, young people
already born are going to
have an impact on the growth
rate which will at least double
the world's population before
it levels off. In fact, over the
next 20 or so years, we're going
to be adding people in absolute
numbers at a faster rate than
we ever have.
So the answer is yes and no
to your question. D
This interview was conducted
by Charles Pierce, Editor of EPA
Journal, and John Heritage, an
Assistant Editor.
Opposite:
Using 55-gallon barrels which
have been cut in half, this verti-
cal rotor catches the wind and
generates electricity. It was port
of a display on appropriate tech-
nology held recently on the
Washington Ma/I.
Back Cover:
The changing of the leaves in
this scene marks the beginning
of another fall.
40
EPAJOURNAL
-------
tl*.
fei
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Office of
Public Awareness (A- 107)
Washington DC 20460
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
15]
I U&MAIL
Third Class
Bulk
------- |