i '
Environmental Pro;
Agency
JOURNAL
A New Year
for the
Environment
-------
Future
Directions
In this issue of the Journal,
we take a look at the course
the Agency is charting for
next year.
Administrator Anne M. Gor-
such pledges stronger and
more efficient management in
the quest for environmental
improvement. Protection of
human health will also con-
tinue to be a top priority, she
notes.
In the article the Administra-
tor also reports some of the
accomplishments and gains
the Agency has made in the
past year. This issue also car-
ries reports on what EPA's
Assistant Administrators and
Regional Administrators ex-
pect for their programs in the
coming year.
Another article reports on a
major breakthrough by EPA in
implementing the Clean Water
Act and one which will have a
considerable impact in the
year ahead. The action was
the publication of guidelines
and standards to control pollu-
tion in wastewater discharged
by major industries such as
iron and steel mills, textiles,
inorganic chemicals, and coal
mining.
Administrator Gorsuch said
as part of the Agency's re-
sponsibility to protect the en-
vironment and health of the
American people "we had to
get these regulations moving.
Good intentions are admirable,
but they don't do a thing to
safeguard our waterways."
She also said that "we
don't want to, and we don't
have to, achieve cleaner water
by closing down factories.
Nobody wins in that case. We
want to establish realistic re-
quirements that will protect
both the economy and the en-
vironment, and we are doing
that in these regulations."
Other articles in this issue
include:
A report on a new portable
device which can be carried
by individuals to check on
levels of carbon monoxide
pollution at various locations.
A review of the Agency's
enforcement strategy.
A report on development of
environmental policy.
A summary of new steps
being taken in the toxics and
pesticides programs.
An explanation of what the
Federal government is doing
about acid deposition
research.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington, DC 20460
Volume 8
Number 6
November-December
1982
c/EPA JOURNAL
Anne McGill Gorsuch, Administrator
Byron Nelson III, Director, Office of Public Affairs
Charles D. Pierce, Editor
Articles
A New Year for the
Environment 2
Forecasts by EPA's top
officials about the year ahead
Common Sense in
Pesticide and Toxics
Controls 10
Dr. Todhunter notes steps
taken in his programs
EPA's Enforcement
Goals 13
A review of the Agency's
enforcement strategy
Making Environmental
Policy 15
A top EPA official analyzes
the Agency's goals
Portable CO Monitors 18
Mini computers being used to
check carbon monoxide
readings
Progress in Acid
Deposition Research 20
EPA's science chief reports on
massive interagency study
Wave of Regulations To
Help Clean Waters 22
EPA hits stride in controls for
industry wastewater
EPA is charged by Congress to protect
the Nation's land, air and water systems.
Under a mandate of national environ-
mental laws, the Agency strives to for-
mulate and implement actions which lead
to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published bi-monthly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA has
determined that the publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transaction
of the public business required by law of
this Agency. Use of funds for printing this
periodical has been approved by the
Director of the Office of Management
and Budget through 4/1/84. Views ex-
pressed by authors do not necessarily
reflect EPA policy. Contributions and in-
quiries should be addressed to the Editor
(A-107). Waterside Mall. 401 M St..
S.W.. Washington. O.C. 20460. No per-
mission necessary to reproduce contents
except copyrighted photos and other
materials.
Front Cover: Snow blankets Virginia's
Shenandoah Valley under a cloud-
swept sky.
Photo Credits: Photri, Al Wilson,
Steve Delaney, Charles O'Rear
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan and
Ron Farrah
EPA JOURNAL
Subscriptions
The EPA Journal will become a quarterly in 1983.
The annual rate for subscribers in the U.S. is $7.50.
The charge to subscribers in foreign countries is $9.40.
The price of a single copy is $2.50 in this country and
$3.15 if sent to a foreign country.
Subscriptions to EPA Journal, as well as to other
Federal Government magazines, are handled only by
the U.S. Government Printing Office. Anyone wishing
to subscribe to the Journal should fill in the form
and enclose a check or money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The request should be
mailed to: Superintendent of Documents, GPO,
Washington. D.C., 20402.
D Payment enclosed
D Charge to my Deposit Account No..
N
3m
3-F
rst
Last
|
f
ea
se
Pri
nt
1 1
I
Cc
>mf
>an
y Name (
1 1
>r t
Wd
itio
nal
Li
IB
1
St
ree
t A
dd
ess
1
1 1 1
1
1
Ci
ty
|
| |
1
Sti
te
Zi
PC
ode
|
-------
A New Year for the Environment Forecasts
The View
From the Top
The close of an old year and the
start of a new is traditionally a
time for assessing past perfor-
mance and setting goals for the
future. In keeping with this tradi-
tion, EPA's top leaders offer per-
spectives on the new year.
AM' i'
EPA Administrator Anne M. Gorsuch an-
ticipates stronger and more efficient
management to achieve the goal of en-
vironmental improvement. The Admini-
strator said that changes already taking
place, and which will pick up speed in the
months ahead, include:
Strategies to give priority to control of
the environmental hazards most harmful
to human health.
Greater emphasis in the water quality
standards and construction grants pro-
grams to ensure tangible improvements
from the investment made.
Improved management of the Agency
enforcement program, which has been
facilitated by a reorganization to centralize
enforcement activities. Some of the results
being achieved include: improved targeting
of compliance-enforcement resources to
support program goals; reduction in the
civil litigation backlog; and greater em-
phasis on achieving compliance through
negotiated agreements.
Establishment of a strong criminal en-
forcement program which has included
the hiring of 21 criminal investigators
and the training of 125 technical person-
nel and lawyers.
Continued review of Agency regula-
tions to streamline and reduce EPA's
rules. In the construction grants program,
removing procedures not required by
statute to protect the environment has
reduced the volume of regulations by
50 percent.
Proposed revisions in standards and
other requirements affecting the auto in-
dustry resulting in the following savings:
$188-376 million from changes to nitro-
gen oxide and paniculate standards af-
fecting diesels; $1.3 billion from pro-
posed changes to statutory high altitude
emission requirements; $2 to $5 million
from reduced assembly-line testing; and
$300 million in capital costs from chang-
es to paint standards.
Proposed workable rules for industrial
pretreatment of wastewater, ending six
years of proposal, litigation and negotia-
tion. The new rules will streamline ad-
ministration at the local level and focus
the program on toxics with serious envir-
onmental impacts. Projected savings to
industry: $1.3 billion annually.
Exemptions proposed to relieve the
chemicai industry from burdensome pre-
manufacture notification requirements for
certain polymers and low volume chemi-
cals, eliminating the need for 60 percent
of premanufacture notifications. This ac-
tion will reduce constraints on industry
innovation and reduce EPA's workload
for notifications by 50 to 60 percent.
Reforms underway in the pesticides
program will reduce the registration back-
logs, end delays and diminish un-
necessary paperwork. EPA reduced its
backlog by 30 percent during 1981 and is
using more negotiated agreements and
pre-decision conferences with industry to
speed up the process.
Reduction by 80 percent of the volume
of regulations covering grants to State
and local governments, eliminating re-
quirements which imposed an unneces-
sary burden.
Simplification of consolidated permit
regulations to reduce the confusion in the
Agency's permit programs. Further re-
forms are being made. For example,
monitoring and reporting reductions and
increases in flexibility in the Underground
Injection Control Program will save an es-
timated $70 million over five years.
Institution of systems which more ef-
fectively serve management's need to
monitor program performance and facili-
tate needed program changes.
Continued emphasis on doing more
with less to obtain environmental
benefits.
FPA .iniJRNAI
-------
EPA's top officials about 1983.
EPA Assistant
Administrators
Set Goals
Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Administrator for
Air, Noise, and Radiation
Amending the Clean Air Act
One of the most important challenges
facing us is the updating of the Clean Air
Act to deal with the problems of today.
While tremendous progress has been
made in improvement of national am-
bient air quality, amendment of the Clean
Air Act will be required to cope with the
problems of the 1980's.
Implementing Existing Standards
EPA faces a number of challenges in im-
plementing existing requirements under
the current Act. Thirty-one states
previously indicated that they would not
be in attainment for two pollutants,
ozone and carbon monoxide, and are re-
quired to submit plans for attainment of
the standards by 1987. Failure to attain
standards by 1982 in areas without ex-
tensions and to provide adequate plans
for areas with extensions will result in
bans on the construction or modification
of major sources of pollutants in the af-
fected areas. Federal funds for highways,
air pollution control, and sewage treat-
ment programs may also be withheld
from those areas.
Controlling Hazardous Air
Pollutants
The requirements of the Clean Air Act
have inhibited the control of airborne
hazardous substances. During 1982, a
policy group of senior level EPA officials
was established to deal with the scien-
tific, technical, and policy problems that
complicate control efforts. In 1983, EPA
faces the challenge of completing a com-
prehensive strategy for control of hazar-
dous air pollutants and beginning the im-
plementation of that strategy.
Revising National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review
and, when necessary, revise National
Ambient Air Quality Standards estab-
lished to protect public health. One of the
challenges — and opportunities — facing
EPA is to improve the scientific basis for
each standard as it comes up for review.
At least three standards will be proposed
or promulgated during 1983.
Compliance with
Automobile Exhaust Standards
New car emission standards are stabiliz-
ing. Technology has been developed to
meet the significant reductions envisioned
by Congress in air pollution emissions
from motor vehicles. In the year ahead,
we must continue to improve the cost-
effectiveness of our compliance program.
Only through emphasis on in-use com-
pliance programs will the technological
achievements made in new vehicles
translate to actual improvements in air
quality.
November-December
-------
A New Year for the Environment
Rita M. Lavelle
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Courtney Riordan
Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
Superfund Program
We have completed a proposed national
priority list of 418 hazardous waste sites,
ranked by their potential threat to health
and the environment. They are targeted
for cleanup by Federal and State
governments cooperating under EPA's
Superfund program. We expect to clean
up most of these sites in about three
years.
Hazardous Waste Facility Permits
Permits will be granted for all land
disposal treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. We are committed to improving
management techniques (protocols) to
expedite the permitting procedure.
Certification of State Programs
The States will play a more important
role in hazardous waste management in
the next three years. We are modifying
our authorization guidance to provide
them with greater procedural flexibility.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Compliance
In line with the President's order, we will
be taking another look at our regulations
for hazardous waste. We do not plan to
rewrite them, just refine them to make
them more applicable to the real work.
We will also fill in any gaps in our
regulatory coverage.
In summary, we intend to provide ef-
fective cradle-to-grave management of
hazardous waste, based on good
management, good science, dedication to
environmental results, and compliance
with the President's policy of New
Federalism.
Improved Quality and Direction in
Research and Development
In 1983, the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) is making major
strides to more clearly focus all research
efforts in support of EPA's regulatory pro-
grams. Research efforts have been
carefully scrutinized and redesigned to
provide the essential scientific support re-
quired by each program office. Particular
emphasis will be placed on dealing with
problems in the acid deposition and
hazardous waste program areas.
Joint regulatory-research planning
groups will continue to play a key role in
planning and budgeting activities with
emphasis on top-down planning to
establish a research and development
program of the highest quality. Improved
accountability procedures are being im-
plemented, and an integrated data
system which tracks both research and
budgetary activities has been developed
to enhance ORD's efforts to effectively
manage a fully responsive research pro-
gram.
In keeping with improved management
procedures, ORD is instituting a new
peer review system to ensure the quality
and relevance of research conducted in-
house and extramurally. Also, ORD is em-
phasizing the role of quality assurance
efforts in all research areas by implemen-
ting a more rigorous, viable program to
assure the quality of environmental,
monitoring, engineering, economic and
health data used by the Agency for
policy decisions and regulatory and en-
forcement actions.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
John P. Norton
Assistant Administrator
for Administration
Frederick A. Eidsness, Jr.
Assistant Administrator
for Water
John A. Todhunter
Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
Improving the Quality and
Timeliness of Services
The Office of Administration has set an
ambitious agenda for 1983 — to antici-
pate our clients' service needs, to im-
prove our effectiveness in meeting those
needs, and to provide our -services in a
cost conscious manner. Among the
challenges we face are:
To make our financial management
systems uniform, controlled and disci-
plined, and responsive to the Agency's
needs.
To keep up with fast-paced technology,
provide premiere service and control
costs in the ADP and communications
areas.
To simplify and streamline the procure-
ment process to make it easier for pro-
grams to get their products.
To develop a human resource manage-
ment program to ensure the effective and
productive use of EPA personnel.
To upgrade our working environment
Agency-wide.
The role of the Office of Administra-
tion, together with our administrative
partners in the Regions, is to help the
programs get the job done — effectively
and for the lowest possible cost.
November-December
Effluent Control
We will continue to place strong emphasis
on delegating programs to the state so that
decisions are made closest to the people
who are affected by them. This will include
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program, the pre-
treatment program (control of industrial dis-
charge of pollutants into public treatment
works, the Underground Injection Control
Program (protection of underground sources
of drinking water from injection wells), and
the construction grants program.
Drinking Water Regulations
We are also in the process of revising the
drinking water regulations and will be is-
suing regulations for Volatile Organic
Chemicals (VOC) in drinking water. As
we bring the VOCs under control, this
program will tie directly into our further
efforts to control ground water con-
tamination through implementation of the
ground water policy.
Ocean Dumping
The Office of Water will review the
ocean dumping program to provide a
clearly articulated Marine Protection
Strategy that improves the basis for inter-
and intra-agency consistency, provides a
more supportable balance between uses
of the ocean and other media, gives clear
guidance to permit applicants and insures
public understanding of EPA's intentions
and rationales. Completion of sludge
management guidance will complement
this effort and help local governments
make choices among alternative sludge
management practices.
We are actively reviewing the 404 (B)
(1) guidelines to shorten them, to
streamline procedures and to reform
where necessary in accordance with the
Vice President's directives.
Toxic Substance Operations
We expect to receive data from over 200
studies covering approximately 25 ex-
isting chemicals under negotiated test
agreements with industry. We will also
be initiating a new chemical follow-up
program. This is being done in acknow-
ledgement of the fact that while a par-
ticular new chemical may not pose an
unreasonable risk to health or environ-
ment under the conditions of its initial
manufacture, it may do so under different
conditions. In additon to follow up on
new chemicals, increased emphasis on
risk reduction measures for existing
chemicals will allow us to take rapid and
effective actions in the event that we
believe that specific exposures to in-
dividual chemicals should be reduced. I
also expect to convene a Formaldehyde
Consensus workshop next September
which will bring together government, in-
dustry and academic experts to discuss
various assessment methodologies and
data bases involving formaldehyde.
Pesticide Operations
We will continue to pursue the reduction
of backlogs in order to improve the
response time for registration, special
registration and tolerance reviews of
pesticides. Special efforts will be taken to
maintain our upward trend in the number
of registration standards established and
our Special Review process has been
streamlined in order to improve the effi-
ciency and timeliness of the decision
making process. I expect that in 1983 the
Office of Pesticide Programs' personnel
will match or probably exceed their
already excellent record of achieving their
Regulatory Relief objectives.D
-------
A New Year fo the Env'ronment
The View from
the Regions
Region 1
Lester A. Sutton
Regional Administrator
EPA Regions predict improved air and
water quality, increased cleanup and cor-
rective activities at priority hazardous
waste sites, more delegation of program
responsibility to state governments, in-
tense enforcement activities, and efforts
to improve the Agency's relationship with
the public for the new year.
During a recent poll conducted by the
EPA Journal, Regional Administrators
were asked, "What Do You Anticipate
As The Major Challenges and Oppor-
tunities In Your Region In 1983?" Here
are their answers.
United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Organization
'The year 1983 will present many
challenges, but also offers many oppor-
tunities to demonstrate continuing en-
vironmental progress in Region 1.
"Our major challenge will be to con-
tinue to press ahead with planning and
corrective work at a greatly expanded
number of hazardous waste priority sites
in the six New England states."
Region 1 also has a major opportunity
to complete cleanup work at a number of
sites where studies and planning were
first initiated in 1982. In all, some $20
million was spent at 15 priority sites in
1982. These totals are expected to more
than double in 1983.
Another major challenge and oppor-
tunity is to accelerate efforts to delegate
more program responsibilities to State
partners. Region 1 has made consider-
able progress in returning decision-
making authority to the states as Con-
gress clearly intended, Sutton noted. In
1983 the Region will intensify delegation
efforts in all program areas.
Other major challenges facing Region 1
— challenges that can be met — are:
• Elimination of program backlogs, in-
cluding State Implementation Plan revi-
sions, audits, payments, etc.
• Intensification of enforcement efforts,
particularly in the hazardous waste area.
• An expanded outreach effort to im-
prove relationships with elected officials,
professional and trade associations, en-
vironmental groups, business and in-
dustry.
6
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Region 2
Jacqueline E. Schafer
Regional Administrator
Region 3
Peter N. Bibko
Regional Administrator
Region 4
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator
"Region 2 is an area of extreme en-
vironmental contrast, from the highly in-
dustrialized Niagara Frontier to the
mangrove wetlands of Puerto Rico. We
expect to continue to find ourselves in
the forefront of discovering solutions to
unique problems.
"The new year will provide an oppor-
tunity to further the Agency's goals of
improved management, regulatory reform
and delegation of authority and respon-
sibility to the States for management of
environmental programs.
"In particular, Region 2 will be
challenged by the greatest number of
Superfund hazardous waste sites in any
region — up to a fourth of the final na-
tional priority list of 400. We will need to
apply the most efficient management
possible in these vital removal and
remedial programs."
In addition, 1983 will see an emphasis
on expanding Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act permitting. Most of Region
2's state delegations have been completed
and work will continue on the remaining
delegations during the year. Enforcement
objectives will be to encourage prompt
voluntary compliance while dealing fairly
and firmly with significant violators, using
all of the enforcement tools available: in-
formal, administrative and judicial.
Region 3's most important opportunity in
1983 will be to achieve real environmen-
tal results rather than measuring perfor-
mance by counting beans.
"In order to do this, we are concen-
trating our efforts on several long-
standing environmental problems. For ex-
ample, finding a final solution to sewage
sludge disposal, particularly in the
Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. areas.
We will also be working with the states
to develop a resources managment plan
for Chesapeake Bay, using the results of
our recently completed five-year study."
Increasing compliance with the law will
now be the most important goal of Re-
gion 3's enforcement program. Enforce-
ment resources will be focused on those
violators whose noncompliance is caus-
ing real environmental harm. Whenever
possible, voluntary compliance will be the
goal, since this usually results in swifter
cleanup than extended litigation.
However Bibko said Region 3 will use
"the full force of the law when polluters
continue to act in bad faith."
Better public understanding of the
hazardous waste problem is another
priority. More public understanding will
enable Region 3 to better implement the
hazardous waste management provisions
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act as well as cleaning up old
hazardous waste dump sites under the
"Superfund" law.
"Many of our actions have been mis-
understood by public interest groups, and
this has actually hindered our efforts to
improve the environment. Consequently,
our greatest challenge in 1983 will be to
gain better understanding and support
from environmentally concerned citizens.
This is an essential ingredient in our ef-
forts to provide more efficient environ-
mental regulations for future generations
of Americans."
'The diversity of Region 4 always pro-
duces many challenges and oppor-
tunities.
"We have a high degree of delegation
to the states in the Southeast. Working
relationships with them are quite good
and we continue to develop our oversight
role to assure strong, consistent im-
plementation of Federal programs with-
out duplicative use of resources,"
The municipal wastewater treatment
plant construction program in Region 4
has matured to the point where emphasis
for 1983 should be to complete construc-
tion of plants, wrap up final inspections
and audits quickly, and assure compli-
ance with permits.
Many dredge and fill projects in the
Region's wetlands will be considered this
year and will require a closer working
relationship with the many other agencies
involved to make accurate and timely
decisions.
Permit issuance required under the
hazardous waste provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act is rapidly gaining momentum. Effec-
tive program delegation will be a chal-
lenge for both permit issuance and en-
forcement activities. The closely related
Superfund program offers real opportuni-
ty for obtaining environmental improve-
ment if all available cleanup mechanisms
are used.
"Now that our State Implementation
Plan backlog has been eliminated, we
will concentrate on preventing new
backlogs from being formed. Past pro-
grams to assure compliance for signifi-
cant air pollution sources must continue
if we are to maintain good air quality in
the face of industrial and population
growth.
"Finally, we expect opportunities to im-
pact national policy in the radiation pro-
gram area. New nuclear reactor construc-
tion and startup of old reactors are on the
fiscal year '83 agenda, and we still have
a continuing dialogue on radioactive
waste disposal."
November-December
-------
A New Year for the Environment
Region 5
Valdas V. Adamkus
Regional Administrator
"How to do more, better, with less,
through close cooperation with the
regulated community and increased pro-
gram delegation to our States represent
both major challenges and opportunities
for heavily industrialized Region 5. Com-
pliance activity, and enforcement action
where required, will receive equal atten-
tion as we strive to strengthen the en-
vironmental quality of life for residents in
our six Midwestern states."
The Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery program provides new opportunities
to work with states on permit re-
quirements, the implementation of new
requirements related to financial respon-
siblity, and groundwater monitoring. Ap-
proximately 25 percent of the list of 400
top hazardous waste sites to be pub-
lished in fiscal year 1983 will be in
Region 5. High priority will be given to
the aggressive pursuit of privately financ-
ed cleanups such as those accomplished
at Seymour, Chem-dyne, and Gratiot
County, thereby making remaining Super-
fund monies available for undertaking
remedial response actions at other en-
vironmentally threatening sites.
"In water programs, new regulations in
Water Quality Standards, construction
grants, and the soon to be launched
Underground Injection Control program
will require an intensified cooperative ef-
fort with our states, while working at the
same time toward increased program
delegation. An international challenge,
shared with our Canadian neighbors to
improve the Great Lakes water quality,
will be addressed through the Great
Lakes Agreement with focus on Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie.
"In air programs, too, more authority
will be turned over to other states. Key
efforts will be aimed at reducing vehicle
emissions in eight urban areas currently
unable to meet clean air standards. Pro-
tection of pristine air areas from signifi-
cant deterioration and reduction of overall
emissions in highly industrialized areas
are key goals, along with continued im-
provement and streamlining of our SIP
process.
"All of these challenges, successfully
met, will result in real, measurable im-
provement in the quality of life for
Midwestern citizens."
Region 6
Dick Whittington
Regional Administrator
"The major challenges facing EPA as we
enter 1983 are to complete the im-
provements to the Agency organization
we now have underway and to create an
atmosphere of reasonableness and
cooperation between the Agency, the
regulated community and the State agen-
cies.
"I believe that if we do meet those
challenges, we will keep not only EPA
but the environmental movement in this
country alive and well. If we fail, I am
convinced, in the long run we will lose
our credibility and ultimately our strong
base of public support for environmental
quality.
"The 1980s present major opportuni-
ties in the areas of sorting out the sound
from the unsound in environmental law
and regulation, in abandoning the un-
necessary while retaining the needed, in
developing a more cooperative relation-
ship at all levels of government and in
utilizing shrinking resources to attain the
best environmental results for the dollars
spent.
"Only through this shift in our direction
can we assure the American people of
clean air, clean water and clean land.
Region 7
Morris Kay
Regional Administrator
"The major environmental challenge in
1983 for Region 7 will be to deal effec-
tively with the various known and poten-
tial sites in the State of Missouri where
the presence of dioxin has been con-
firmed or may exist.
'The current activities are the legacy
of events that occurred in the early
1970s. At that time, a now defunct com-
pany was engaged in the manufacture of
hexachlorophene at a facility in south-
west Missouri. During the manufacturing
process, dioxin was formed as an un-
wanted by-product, and residue contain-
ing this dioxin was stored in a tank at the
plant.
"During 1971 a waste oil dealer in
Missouri picked up several shipments of
the residue containing dioxin, apparently
mixed it with waste oil and sprayed it for
dust control at numerous locations in the
State of Missouri. Several horse arenas
were among the sites sprayed and short-
ly thereafter many horses as well as other
exposed animals died.
"As a result of leads that have
emerged from investigations conducted
by the Center for Disease Control, EPA
and the State of Missouri, an increasing
number of sites have been identified as
possibly having been sprayed with diox-
in-contaminated oil. Sampling has con-
firmed the presence of dioxin on at least
14 sites, and more than 40 other poten-
tial sites are being investigated and,
where deemed necessary, are being
sampled. Throughout this intensive field
effort, EPA is working very closely with
state environmental and health officials.
"One of the major challenges as work
continues will be to avoid unduly alarm-
ing the public while investigating
suspected dioxin sites and finding the
most cost-effective means of taking
necessary remedial action at those sites
where the presence of dioxin is confirm-
ed. Toward this end, regional personnel
will be meeting frequently with local resi-
dents and striving to provide citizens and
the media with factual, current informa-
tion as it becomes available."
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Region 8
Steven J. Durham
Regional Administrator
Region 9
Sonia F. Crow
Regional Administrator
Region 10
John R. Spencer
Regional Administrator
"We in Region 8 look forward to 1983
with a sense of anticipation and op-
timism. While there are several major
challenges facing us in the upcoming
year, we are confident we can meet
those challenges and do so with fewer
resources.
"Superfund-related issues are likely to
occupy a lot our time in 1983. The
Region has seven sites on the interim
priority list, with more expected to be in-
cluded on the final 400 list. The Region
has already signed cooperative agree-
ments on three of the sites which will
achieve environmental results at no cost
to the taxpayers, and hopefully, we can
make similar progress in 1983 on such
sites as the Denver radium sites and Mar-
shall landfill near Boulder, Colo. Air quali-
ty in Denver and Salt Lake City, the
Region's two population centers, also is
expected to be a major concern.
Residents of the two cities are going to
have to make some tough decisions
if the cities are to meet clean air
standards for carbon monoxide and
ozone.
"One thing we look forward to in 1983
is the opportunity to wisely allocate ex-
isting resources to achieve greater pro-
ductivity, which in turn should lead to
better environmental protection. We must
learn to live with a leaner budget and
fewer people, but I am optimistic that
through streamlined management, we
can meet the challenge.
"In short, 1983 should be a year of
achievement in which both the environ-
ment and the American taxpayers are the
big winners."
"Region 9 will enter 1983 in full expecta-
tion of achieving major accomplishments
in State-EPA relations and environmental
results. As a result of our developmental
efforts in 1982 — the reorganization, ac-
countability systems, and the elimination
of backlogs — we are now in prime posi-
tion to realize the opportunity for well
managed environmental programs, im-
plemented at the state level, to protect
public health.
'The major program challenges Region
9 will face in 1983 are:
• Completion of the installation of
authorized hazardous waste regulatory
programs in the States and the State
development of new treatment technolo-
gies and disposal facilities. At the same
time, the joint EPA-State site cleanup
under Superfund will be continued.
• Passage of the auto inspection program
in California provided the air program
with a major tool but the implementation,
on the vast scale of California presents a
challenge in 1983. The Clean Air Act
deadlines will present many uncertainties;
the challenge is to provide stability, con-
solidate gains, and continue to make pro-
gress in emissions reductions.
• The protection of the ocean environ-
ment will be a priority challenge as the
new provisions for ocean discharge waiv-
ers and the termination of sludge
discharge are implemented.
"On balance, our challenges are major,
but Region 9, in concert with our states,
will capitalize on our opportunities to
make a positive difference to the en-
vironmental quality of our beautiful
Region."
"Improving the quality of drinking water
in Oregon is one of the most important
goals for Region 10 in 1983. The need
for improvement is abundantly clear: In
Oregon, the incidence of reported water-
borne disease outbreaks, on a per capita
basis, was the second worst in the coun-
try for the period 1971 to 1980.
'The situation will not change until
Oregon adopts a properly funded State
program that will overcome the accelerat-
ing breakdown of the water supply infra-
structure in Oregon. There is a serious
shortage of qualified personnel to operate
the water systems. Treatment of drinking
water is often inadequate or non-existent.
Facilities need replacement or upgrading.
"Once the State of Oregon assumes
surveillance and enforcement responsibili-
ty for the Safe Drinking Water Act {so
far, it has not done so), there is a better
chance that all the 900 or so community
water systems in Oregon will regularly
sample their water and test the water for
purity.
"It's a sad fact that slightly more than
130 system operators ignore this require-
ment, with the result that all too many
Oregonians have no way of knowing
whether their water is safe to drink. Peo-
ple in Oregon simply cannot take their
drinking water for granted."D
November-December
-------
Common
Sense
in Pesticides
and Toxics
Control
by Dr. John A.Todhunter, EPA
Assistant Administrator
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
a year ago when I testified before
Congress during my nomination hearings,
I stated that I saw my nomination as an
opportunity to contribute to two goals
which I believe are vital to the future of
the Agency: protection of the public
health and the environment and cultiva-
tion of sound science as a data base for
regulatory decision making. Since that
time, I have seen considerable progress
towards these goals.
In assuming responsiblity for the pesti-
cide program, I recognized that protec-
ting health and the environment meant
reducing backlogs of actions on pesti-
cides and improving turnaround times to
meet statutory deadlines. The Presidential
Task Force on Regulatory Relief reinforc-
ed these goals and provided impetus and
focus for this policy direction.
The emphasis of the Task Force was
that the system should be made more ef-
ficient and less burdensome, but without
changing its basic function of ensuring
that pesticides marketed in this country
meet standards adequate to protect pub-
lic health and the environment.
tn addition to these basic concerns, I
recognized the importance of improving
both industry and public perception of
the Agency's credibility by taking a non-
adversarial approach to problem solving,
and ensuring that regulatory decisions
rest on a firm foundation of scientific
evidence. We have taken a number of
positive steps to lessen the negative ef-
fects of an adversarial stance toward in-
dustry while retaining a firm control
posture.
We are now conferring with pesticide
registrants at the beginning of the
registration process which establishes a
clear understanding of what will be re-
quired and avoids later misunderstand-
ings. The Agency is also negotiating with
registrants to the extent possible to
resolve individual chemical problems. The
goal is to come to quick, voluntary label
changes which achieve appropriate risk re-
duction measures without expensive, time
consuming formal review procedures.
Negotiations also play a big part in
EPA's investigative process into pesti-
cides called Rebuttable Presumption
Against Registration (RPAR). This formal
review involves weighing risks and bene-
fits of pesticides suspected of causing
unreasonable adverse effects to human
health and the environment. The burden
of rebutting evidence that a particular
pesticide causes unreasonable risks rests
with the company registering the prod-
uct. Ultimately, based upon negotiations
with the registrant to reduce exposure, if
possible, and upon all the evidence need-
ed to make a scientific decision, the
agency does one of three things: Allows
the pesticides unrestricted use, imposes
some restrictions or bans the product
outright.
L/uring the past year, we have been
able to conclude 15 RPAR's. Among
these is the recent decision to ban most
uses of toxaphene. This action finally
resolved five years of internal review by
facing up to and dealing with significant
environmental problems that toxaphene
poses: Chronic effects on fish, birds, and
mammals; acute toxicity to acquatic or-
ganisms and animal tests which suggest
that toxaphene could be an oncogenic
(tumor) risk to humans.
Important savings for the Agency may
be possible by involving the industry in
developing the documents for Registra-
tion Standards, which establish the health
and safety data requirements for register-
ing or reregistering pesiticide products
based on a specific active ingredient. A
pilot program involving five companies is
presently underway.
We have streamlined and improved a
number of pesticide registration pro-
cedures to reduce backlogs, cut down on
the number of times the industry needs
to interact with the agency, achieve
speedier decisions and thus facilitate the
registration process. Some of these ac-
tions are:
• expanding the policy of waiving the
submission of performance of effec-
tiveness data for the registration of all
non-public health use products;
• the elimination of agency approval for
supplemental registration by different
firms marketing the same product for
identicaf uses;
• modifying the testing requirements for
child-resistant packaging to simplify them
while maintaining a practical level of pro-
tection;
• and eliminating agency review of final
printed labels.
Not only have backlogs been over-
come, but we have reviewed and reached
decisions on 68 percent more new chem-
icals this year than last, on 56 percent
more old chemicals and 61 percent more
tolergnce petitions (residues of pesticides
allowed to remain on raw food or feed
products).
The pesticides industry expressed
strong concern about the potential bur-
den and inflexibility of data requirements
imposed as rules. 1 decided that flexibility
could be introduced into the require-
ments by separating testing protocols
from data requirements, resulting in two
packages.
The first is a rule setting out the
"when" and "what" of data requirements
for various types of pesticides and use
patterns. This rule sets down for the first
time in a clear, concise, and usable form,
the data which the Agency requires to
support pesticide registration. In terms of
regulatory relief, this new rule is principal-
ly an efficiency measure, which gives the
industry the benefit of knowing exactly
what the Agency requires for registration.
The second package will consist of
testing protocols, the "how to" develop
data, covering twelve scientific disci-
plines. These documents wilt be guid-
ance, not rules, which allows for the use
of other scientifically valid methods that
may already be available or will be devel-
oped in the future. This approach allows
for flexibility to develop data with the
most up-to-date methods. These guide-
lines will be available early next year
from the National Technical Information
Service.
I firmly believe that sound regulatory
decisions must have a basis in objective
scientific information. To help ensure this
is the case, procedures were developed
and published to provide for scientific
peer review of studies which are impor-
tant in making regulatory decisions. An
example of this is the highly emotional
and polarized fire ant issue. With several
decisions on fire ant control pending, I
decided to co-sponsor with the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture a symposium of
experts in the field to bring together the
latest information and advice on the
multifaceted problem. The symposium,
held in June 1982 in Atlanta, provided a
wealth of information for EPA and other
agencies to consider in future fire ant
related program decisions.
The actions to regulate pesticides
taken so far show: New products and
new uses of old products reach the
market faster; both producers and poten-
tial users are better able to plan ahead if
the Agency can be relied on to act within
its stated target dates, whether self-
imposed or statutory; and in numerous
cases, because difficult but firm decisions
W
EPA JOURNAL
-------
were made and not delayed as was
prevalent in the past Administration, the
health and safety of the public and the
environment was enhanced.
V^onsiderable progress was also made
during the 1982 Rscal Year in the
implementation of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).
A number of projects, some of which
had been on the agenda for years were
finally completed. Included were major
asbestos and PCB rulemaking decisions,
the publishing of nearly 100 test guide-
lines, proposed exemption criteria for re-
viewing new chemicals, and negotiated
agreements for chemical testing.
Throughout this period, the TSCA Inven-
tory of Chemicals in Commerce was up-
dated to include over 58,000 chemicals.
During this year, the Agency has es-
tablished a set of firm priorities in order
to effectively and efficiently protect pub-
lic health and the environment: meet all
statutory and court deadlines, clean-up
backlogs, and reduce unnecessary regula-
tory burdens. These priorities were large-
ly met and the TSCA program personnel
reflected a commitment to high quality
scientific analysis in carrying out their re-
sponsibilities to protect human health and
the environment.
In the area of regulatory reform, policy
reforms emphasize focusing resources on
chemicals of greatest potential concern,
negotiated agreements where appropri-
ate, flexibility when possible, and en-
couragement of small business initiatives.
Regulatory changes have reduced un-
necessary regulatory burdens, and pro-
vided for exemptions to requirements
when such exemptions did not adversely
affect health or environmental protection.
Administrative changes were created to
meet legislative and judicial time
schedules. As a measure of our success
during the past year, for the first time
since TSCA became effective, all
statutory and court imposed deadlines
were met for every section of the law.
w.
Fith respect to our enforcement and
compliance programs, over the last year
four trends have become keystones: a
decreased emphasis on "adversarial en-
forcement" and more emphasis on tech-
nical assistance towards compliance; del-
egation of enforcement authority to the
states; vigorous enforcement of serious
violators; and avoidance of unnecessary
restrictions on the regulated community.
Both compliance inspections and en-
forcement actions have flourished in this
atmosphere. For example, FY'82's en-
forcement actions are nearly 50 percent
higher than FY'81 while compliance in-
spections are up almost 100 percent.
During FY'82, EPA continued to be ac-
tively involved in international efforts to
harmonize chemical testing and assess-
ment activities.
For example, the Agency participated
in the work of the multi-national Chemi-
cals Program of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). EPA provided experts to work
groups responsible for developing further
OECD test guidelines, for updating
previously adopted guidelines, and for
work under the Hazard Assessment proj-
ect. The Agency was designated to head
the U.S. delegation to the second High
Level Meeting of the Chemicals Group
where the Environmental Ministers of
OECD nations will provide for further
work on implementation of OECD Princi-
ples of Good Laboratory Practice, infor-
mation exchange between member na-
tions, trial use of Data Interpretation
Guides, and an OECD Existing Chemicals
Program.
EPA has also spent a significant
amount of time preparing for its annual
bilateral consultation with the Commis-
sion of the European Communities in Oc-
tober of 1982. Issues of mutual concern
in the areas of new and existing chemi-
cals under TSCA and the Sixth Amend-
ment of the European Economic Com-
munity's Directive in Classification,
Packaging, and Labelling of Dangerous
Substances are to be agenda items.
These are some of the highlights of
what I consider to be a highly productive
fiscal year. It is my expectation that the
new year will be equally so.D
November-December
11
-------
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA's
Enforcement
Goals
by Robert M. Perry
Robert M, Perry is EPA's Associate
Administrator for Legal and Enforcement
Counsel and also serves as the Agency's
General Counsel.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy's first priority — indeed its first duty
— is to produce results in its enforce-
ment activities. This Administration has
achieved significant improvements in the
management and organization of the EPA
department which is charged with enforc-
ing this country's environmental laws,
Some of the most important major in-
itiatives undertaken by the Administrator
to strengthen the Agency's enforcement
program include:
• Reorganization of the Agency's various
legal components into one office, the Of-
fice of Legal and Enforcement Counsel,
to ensure that the Agency speaks with
one legal voice, both at the Headquarters
and in the Regions.
• Improved coordination with the Depart-
ment of Justice to involve the Land and
Natural Resources Division as early as
possible in the case development process
and to streamline the method by which
EPA develops and refers enforcement
cases to Justice for litigation.
• Establishment of a centralized enforce-
ment policy office to develop agency-
wide enforcement procedures and to en-
sure adequate coordination between the
agency's legal shop and the technical
program offices.
• Improved information management
systems to use computers to record and
track the status and progress of EPA
litigation and pending grant appeal cases.
EPA's enforcement philosophy is
designed to encourage voluntary com-
pliance with environmental laws. As the
Administrator has stated on numerous
occasions, our initial enforcement ap-
proach should not be confrontational.
Therefore, rather than setting industry
and EPA in an adversarial posture, we
must deal with the regulated community
with a presumption of good faith. We
must act upon the presumption that
responsible industries, like good private
citizens, want a clean, healthful environ-
ment and are willing to contribute their
skills and resources to achieve it.
However, this approach can only be
successful if the regulated community
understands that we are willing to resort
to civil prosecution if negotiation does
not yield the desired results within a
reasonable period of time.
No one should doubt our resolve to en-
force the law where parties are either un-
willing to come to the bargaining table or
bargain in bad faith. Those who are re-
sponsible and reasonable can expect EPA
to respond in kind. On the other hand,
we are prepared to litigate with those
who refuse to shoulder their fair share of
responsibility for the environmental
damage to which they have contributed.
Three excellent examples of voluntary
settlement to clean up some of the worst
hazardous waste sites have taken place
in the past several months.
On August 26, a settlement was
reached with 112 companies to con-
tribute $2.4 million toward surface
cleanup and scientific studies at the
Chem-Dyne site in Hamilton, Ohio. The
site had been operating since 1974 as a
hazardous waste handling, storage and
disposal facility. There were 12,000
55-gallon drums and 15 bulk storage
tanks on the site, many of which were
severely corroded and leaking. The same
day the voluntary cleanup was an-
nounced, the Department of Justice filed
suit on EPA's behalf against those firms
refusing to cooperate in the cleanup.
In the second case, which was settled
on October 26, 24 generators whose in-
dustrial wastes were among the hazar-
dous wastes sent to the former Seymour
Recycling Corp., in Seymour, Ind., agreed
to provide $7.7 million to undertake a
complete surface cleanup at the site. The
Seymour site is one of the largest hazar-
dous waste facilities in the United States.
The cleanup involves the removal of
some 60,000 55-gallon drums with solid
November-December
13
-------
and liquid wastes and 98 bulk storage
silos. Negotiations are continuing with
another 340 generators, businesses, and
individuals that the agency believes are
also responsible for contributing wastes
to the site. If these negotiations do not
yield the desired results within a
reasonable time, EPA is prepared to deal
with these parties through the courts.
A settlement reached with the Velsicol
Chemical Company on November 18 pro-
duced the largest settlement ever agreed
to by a private party for remedial action
in an environmental case. The company
agreed to a settlement estimated to be
worth $38.5 million for the cieanup of four
hazardous waste sites in Michigan. One of
the sites, the Gratiot County Landfill, had
been designated by the State of Michigan
as its first priority hazardous waste site.
An estimated 269,000 pounds of wastes
containing polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)
were placed in the landfill between 1971
and 1973 resulting in groundwater
pollution and surface runoff contamination.
These cases are benchmarks in hazar-
dous waste enforcement. They clearly
demonstrate three important points. First,
that EPA can effectively and expeditious-
ly conduct multi-party hazardous waste
case negotiations; second, that EPA will
take strong action by pursuing litigation
against companies that refuse to par-
ticipate in reasonable and fair set-
tlements; and, third, that this enforce-
ment strategy ensures the immediate
release of settlement monies to engage
private contractors in obtaining prompt
cleanup of hazardous waste sites.
Results are starting to flow from the
improved coordination and management
of the enforcement program. Of the TOO
cases referred to the Department of
Justice in fiscal year 1982, 88 were sent
in the last six months of the fiscal year.
These 100 referrals included 27 Clean Air
Act cases, 43 Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Act cases, 29 RCRA and Super-
fund cases and one Toxic Substances
Control Act case. Thirty civil cases have
already been referred to the Department
of Justice in the first 2 months of FY 83.
EPA's criminal enforcement program is
now operational following a nation-wide
recruitment effort to add 17 experienced
criminal investigators to the staff. The
agency now has 21 criminal investigators;
another four will be added shortly. For
the first time in the agency's history,
seasoned investigators will be available
to every EPA region to manage the de-
velopment of potential criminal cases and
to provide investigative support to prose-
cutors after cases are referred to Justice.
Twenty criminal cases were referred to
the Department of Justice in FY 82.
The newly hired investigative staff is part
of an overall effort to improve the sound-
ness and sophistication of criminal case
development in the agency. Investigators
will work closely with the agency's
technical and legal staffs to produce the
type of quality prosecutions that are
essential for securing lasting environmen-
tal protection. Each investigator has a
minimum of six years experience and
most have far more.
Foremost among the agency's criminal
enforcement priorities are cases involving
the illegal handling of hazardous and tox-
ic wastes; long-term, repeated or particu-
larly serious incidents of illegal pollution
activity under all environmental statutes;
cases involving falsification within the
context of agency reporting systems, and
cases of deliberate violations of en-
vironmental consent decrees.
In the past, EPA concentrated its en-
forcement initiatives on violations of the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Enforcement of these Acts in the 1970's
required litigation to obtain capital expen-
diture by the regulated community to in-
stall pollution abatement and control
equipment. Most of that type of enforce-
ment activity is completed. For example,
most of the steel industry is operating
under existing consent decrees. Enforce-
ment of the Clean Air Act in this industry
is increasingly by contempt action and
administrative order.
We are now placing our priority on
bringing enforcement action to induce
regulated parties to achieve compliance
with our newer programs, particularly
those associated with hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, we need to continue to
place increased attention on potential
criminal violations, which involve some of
the most significant cases of environmen-
tal harm, and on violations of existing
consent decrees. These areas — hazar-
dous waste enforcement, criminal en-
forcement and consent decree enforce-
ment — provide the framework for en-
forcement priorities this year.
We are now refining EPA's first real
enforcement strategy, a strategy which
will emphasize careful identification of
major multi-media polluters; a strategy
demanding full and persuasive case pre-
paration; and a strategy which en-
courages resolution based on negotiation
within firm deadlines under the realistic
threat of major court action.
EPA enforcement policies will be ap-
plied fairly but firmly and parties who
violate environmental laws and regula-
tions will be dealt with swiftly and
surely. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Making
Environmental Policy
By Joseph A. Cannon, EPA
Associate Administrator for
Policy and Resource Management
In analyzing broad questions of industrial
environmental policy, one of the issues is
not whether this Administration stands
for environmental protection and a credi-
ble EPA. Of course it does, and the re-
cord shows it. We have banned virtually
every use of Toxaphene, a widely used
pesticide suspected of causing cancer.
We have issued regulations that will
drastically reduce the levels of lead in
gasoline, due in large part to the health
hazards of airborne lead to young chil-
dren. And, after the Agency had missed
years and years of court-ordered dead-
lines, the effluent guidelines required by
the Clean Water Act are hitting the street
on schedule.
The issues, then, are: What is the pre-
sent situation; Where do we want to go;
What's the best way to get there? I
doubt that anyone could deny that the
present situation is encouraging to the
notion that a large industrial nation can
succeed in cleaning its own house. The
gross and obvious pollution that plagued
us a decade ago is largely gone. The
number of days of unhealthy air in major
cities has declined virtually without a
break since 1974. Despite growth in pop-
ulation and gross national product the
U.S. Geological Survey reported no
decline in water quality over the past
several years. Important rivers have
shown remarkable come-backs; we are
seeing game fish in places they have not
inhabited for a generation. The hazardous
waste problem has been identified, the
really dangerous sites have been located,
and we have established mechanisms
and resources for cleaning them up.
Of course there are still problems. But
they are certainly not as bad as they
were ten years ago. They are not even of
the same magnitude. (This produces, I
think, a bittersweet situation for the en-
vironmental movement, rather like that of
the doctor who has rendered all his pa-
tients reasonably healthy, but still has a
heavy mortgage. When he meets one of
them on the street and the man says,
"Doc, I feel great!", he may have an ir-
resistible urge to say, "Oh, really? You
look terrible to me — better stop by the
office."}
It must be said, in the wisdom ot hind-
sight, that we made this admirable pro-
gress in a crude way. A dozen years ago
we entered a national debate about how
to control pollution. Industry by and large
took the view that you had to set quality-
based standards in water and air and
then attribute the pollutant effects on
those standards to particular plants. Only
then could you ask the plants to stop
polluting. The environmentalists under-
stood that this policy would open a bot-
tomless pit of litigation during which
pollution could continue. They fought for
technology-based standards instead; if
machinery was available to reduce pollu-
tion, industry had to get it on, according
to strict schedules. In large part the Clean
Air and Clean Water Acts reflect the lat-
ter view. The machinery went on and, as
we've seen, the environment did become
much cleaner.
But the problem with a technology-
based standard is that science marches
on. New and better removal technology
is developed. The technology of pollution
detection races ahead even faster. As the
smog vanishes and the waters clear we
discover pollutants we hadn't noticed
before — at ever diminishing concentra-
tions. The laboratories are busy as well.
A milligram of something exotic kills rats:
Is a microgram loose in the environment
really safe for people? Now industry must
respond to demands to control not just a
few well-understood pollutants but many
new ones. More machinery must be de-
signed, financed, and added to the
plants. New plants can be made cleaner
than the old, but at some point design
has to be made final. Industry begins to
ask, "What is that point? Where does it
all end? Should our waste streams be
cleaner than the air and water surroun-
ding the factories? Do you really want us
to pretend that a steel mill is a filter?"
This is a real quandary. I maintain that
it has its root not in politics or stingy re-
calcitrance but in the laws of nature,
which are not under the jurisdiction of
any congressional subcommittee. It is a
fact that whenever you purify something,
I don't care whether it's a chemical on a
laboratory bench or a waste stream from
November-December
-------
a pulp mill, removing the last increments
of the impurity will account for a very
large fraction of your total cost in getting
to that point. One example: In meeting
the 1977 water discharge standards, the
iron and steel industry brought pollution
down a little more than 97 percent from
the no-control level. The small additional
increment required by the 1983 standards
will cost two-thirds what it cost to
achieve the earlier huge improvements.
The issue is not the sheer magnitude of
the costs but the fact that they should be
explicitly considered — we should know
what we're buying, and at what price.
Let's try a little thought experiment to
illustrate the problem. Imagine, if you
will, that all the subtle and vexing ques-
tions about the connection between pol-
lutants and their effects — have been
resolved. We now know with some preci-
sion what various concentrations of
pollutants do to each of the values we
want to protect: Human life and health,
fish and wildlife, recreation, esthetics,
and so on. Now let's imagine that we're
wise enough to assemble all these values
into a single environmental protection
score that goes from zero to one hun-
dred. Zero means no pollution control
and no protection, one hundred means
total protection for all those values. Now
we array that scale along the bottom of a
graph and let the vertical scale stand for
pollution control cost. Assume further
that in our new wisdom we can specify
the most effective combination of con-
trols for achieving any particular level of
protection.
As we begin to put on pollution con-
trols we generate a curve. At first it is
pretty flat — we're taking out a lot of
gross pollution and achieving a good deal
of environmental protection for each in-
crement of cost. In the middle of our
scale the curve begins to rise: The cheap
gains are over — it costs more to pick up
each additional point of score. Later the
curve heads up sharply and eventually
it's pointing nearly straight up. The mar-
ginal dollar is buying almost nothing.
I submit that what we know about the
nature of removal technology supports
this picture. But what does it mean in the
world of practical environmental policy?
Well, if we were able to draw such a
curve — call it a cost effectiveness curve
— for a particular industry, I would ex-
pect to find that the actual combination
of controls imposed on that industry is
not in fact the most effective way to ob-
tain any particular set of environmental
values. That is, however much we want
to buy — and reasonable people can dis-
agree about how much we ought to buy
— we are probably paying more than we
should for the level of protection we are
getting from the combination of controls
in place or in the pipeline.
This result might have been expected
and no one is really to blame. In the past
at EPA, amid the press to get out regula-
tions, availability of some technology was
the important fact. Differences in the effi-
ciency of a technology at removing a par-
ticular substance may have been con-
sidered, but people rarely asked what
was the best way to minimize some
specific effect of pollution. Because of
the traditional division of EPA into quasi-
independent offices responsible for the
different environmental media, the
cumulative economic impact from all
regulations on a specific industry was not
often addressed. For the same reason,
we did not always pay sufficient atten-
tion to the transfer of pollutants from one
medium to another. We would tell in-
dustry to remove something from the air
and it would wind up in the water. Then
we would tell the industry to take it out
of the water. We now have a sludge pro-
blem of substantial dimensions in this
country, not unconnected to our "suc-
cess" in air and water pollution control.
In sum, our pollution control policy has
largely been a matter of removing
substances from diffuse media and con-
centrating them. Was this correct in all
cases with respect to efficiency and total
reduction of risk? We don't know.
lo return to our hypothetical curve: I
said that reasonable people can disagree
about where we should be on the curve.
That is true, but reasonable people can-
not disagree in ignorance and still claim
to be reasonable. I believe that it is an
essential responsibility of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency to demonstrate to
the extent possible what it is we buy for
what we ask industry to spend. Any such
calculation will be rough given the cur-
rent state of knowledge. Assumptions
must be made in ignorance of the full
facts, but these assumptions must be
made explicit at the policy level rather
than buried in the appendices, as has
often been the case in the past. What do
you believe about dose and response for
the whole spectrum of pollutants produc-
ed by any industry? What is your best
estimate of exposure? What health ef-
fects do you want to control? Do they all
have the same value to you? What about
environmental effects? Will you make
trades among them? We have to accept
the fact that any combination of controls,
including any current one on any in-
dustry, is the result of implicit trade-offs
between different values. I think it is time
that we developed the ability to do this
explicitly, to the extent that the latest
knowledge allows.
If you think that the amount of money
available for pollution control is unlimited.
then there's no problem — you can buy
anything you want. But if the purse has a
bottom after all then you are obliged to
choose between alternatives, and if you
are a public agency you should be able
to defend your priorities rationally, using
the best scientific and economic informa-
tion available. EPA has not done this well
in the past. But we are starting to do so
now.
How do we start? The task is made
feasible by the concentrated distribution
of pollution problems with respect to
both industrial sectors and geographic
areas. We can specify a dozen industries
that account for about half of all conven-
tional air and water pollutants, three
quarters of all hazardous waste produc-
tion, and virtually all toxic water pollution.
These industries also spend over half of
all control operating costs and nearly
two-thirds of the capital invested in con-
trol equipment.
Oimilarly, we can point to one hundred
counties (out of about 3000 in the nation)
that account for a third of the hydrocar-
bon emissions, one-fourth of the chemi-
cal production, a third of the hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, and over a third of the super-
fund interim priority sites. The bulk of
this pollution is located in only seventeen
clusters of counties, on two per cent of
the nation's land area.
I should say at this point that my dis-
cussion has not been entirely theoretical.
Our staff has begun to examine particular
industries and particular geographic areas
with an eye toward determining the most
cost-effective ways of obtaining desired
levels of pollution control in all en-
vironmental media. This work has already
started to produce interesting results. We
are now able, for example, to produce
cost-effectiveness curves for particular in-
dustries that take all media into account
and show what the most cost-effective
steps in further regulation are. This gives
us a way to set priorites, and to avoid
very expensive regulations that have only
marginal payoffs in health and environ-
mental protection. We can use analo-
gous, somewhat more complicated proc-
esses to analyze environmental controls
in specific geographic areas.
We will be soliciting comment, on
these and other regulatory strategies,
from all interests connected with environ-
mental protection during the coming
year. Again, I think that all of us,
although we may reflect conflicting in-
terests, need to make the effort to iden-
tify the critical assumptions on which
broad environmental policy must be
based. At the very least we need to dis-
tinguish as much as is possible between
issues of value and issues of fact. We've
started to build the base for those sorts
of discussions.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
At the same time we are developing a
system that will connect the actions of
the Agency and of State Agencies to dis-
tinct environmental results. By results i
mean real improvements in the environ-
ment, not the movement of pieces of
paper, fascinating though that might be
to connoisseurs of bureaucracy. When
we say "managing for environmental
results" we mean that we will develop
ways to keep track of whether Federal
and State actions are resulting in intend-
ed environmental improvements or pro-
tection; modify our strategies where it ap-
pears that they are not fulfilling expecta-
tions; and make decisions based on what
alternatives are likely to yield the greatest
concrete environmental benefits. We real-
ize that this is not a simple task — con-
ections between cause and effect in the
environment are often obscure. Also, we
can't restrict this effort to a headquarters
exercise. The States must be heavily in-
volved as well, since they have the nec-
essary information on such things as
compliance levels and enforcement ac-
tions.
Still, I belive that EPA has to focus
more of its energy in that direction. We
can't continue to claim the brass ring just
because we got a regulation out the
door. I have a great respect for the legis-
lative and regulatory achievements of the
environmental decade. But I think the
country deserves a good hard look at
what we bought then and a chance to
consider if that is what we realty ordered.
Between what comes out of a legislative
mark-up session in Washington and what
comes out the end of a smokestack in
Gary stand literally hundreds of decisions,
compromises, and negotiations, and pos-
sibly one or two mistakes.
Y,
lou all know the story about the man
who saw a poisonous snake and picked
up a stick to kill it. But the snake he saw
was a stick and the stick he picked up
was a snake, I think we've made errors
of judgement like that. I think we've mis-
directed resources — both ours and in-
dustry's. I don't think we can afford to
do much of that anymore.
I'd like us to progress toward our na-
tional environmental goals sensibly and
rationally and without histrionics. I'd like
us to develop techniques for dealing with
the environment as a whole rather than
as fictitiously isolated packages labelled
air, water, and solid waste, and to relate
what is happening in that whole to what
an entire industry is spending.
I want to develop a quality control
system for environmental protection anal-
ogous to those springing up in industrial
plants, so that we could for once connect
what we do to what is happening to the
values we seek to protect. I'd like to deal
with cost in an explicit way so that peo-
ple could begin to understand the rela-
tionship of cost to risk avoided or bene-
fits gained, as they do in other aspects of
public and private life. Finally, I would
like to develop a system of rational
priority-setting, so (' ;at we could say to
the world, "We're working on A, B, and
C and not on X, Y, and Z because A, B,
and C are more important, and here's
why."
I would like to change the grounds on
which environmental policy debate pro-
ceeds in this country. I believe it has for
too long been dominated by fear-monger-
ing from both sides. 'They're poisoning
the children!" 'They're driving us out of
business!" That sort of talk is easy and
unhelpful, and I think it's time is past.
And I would like to think that the efforts
that we have begun to rationalize the
development of environmental policy will
become a central part of this administra-
tion's legacy to the country. D
November-December
77
-------
Portable
Monoxide Monitors
Aid EPA
Portable monitor being used to test for
carbon monoxide in Washington, D. C,,
and Denver.
Fifteen hundred residents in Washington,
D.C. and Denver, Colo., are helping EPA
to measure the urban American's expos-
ure to carbon monoxide in a unique
study making use of portable monitoring
devices. Scientists believe the project will
give a clearer idea of just how much of a
problem this pollutant is in our daily lives.
The program, which will be completed
next month, uses a small blue two-pound
device about the size of a portable
radio carried on a shoulder strap. Par-
ticipants in the two cities carry the
monitor for a day or two and record their
activities in a diary. A miniature computer
known as a microprocessor inside the in-
strument records the average level of car-
bon monoxide during each activity of the
participant and the time of day that the
reading occurs. This information will
document an individual's actual 24-hour
exposure to carbon monoxide during his
normal daily activities, and how much
each activity (driving, cooking, smoking,
etc.) contributes to that exposure. The in-
formation will ultimately lead to more
focused and efficient regulations for the
control of this pollutant.
The project differs from previous ef-
forts to measure carbon monoxide by
taking readings relatively close to the
"nose level" of city dwellers. In the past,
pollution experts have been forced to rely
on relatively large stationary monitors
that were installed at fixed sites in areas
free of obstructions and safe from van-
dalism. This meant that the monitoring
stations often were placed on the roofs
of buildings or close to roadways with
heavy traffic.
As a result, specialists believed the
data from the stations may not have
given a realisitic picture of actual outdoor
exposures at ground level or those inside
buildings and homes.
EPA scientists and engineers also felt
there was a growing need for more ac-
curate readings of levels of this pollutant
that people are exposed to as they move
from one location to another during a
typical day. For example, carbon monox-
ide levels would be expected to be high-
er inside a slow-moving car or bus in
heavy traffic than inside an office build-
ing or on a patio in a quiet residential
neighborhood.
At this point it is not clear whether the
present fixed monitoring stations under-
estimate or overestimate the concentra-
tions to which people are exposed. More
accurate information is needed to assess
the adequacy of data from these stations
to protect public health.
Carbon monoxide is an odorless, color-
less gas produced by burning such fossil
fuels as gasoline, oil, and coal. Because it
inhibits the ability of the blood to carry
life-giving oxygen, carbon monoxide can
pose a health hazard. At high levels it
can cause dizziness, impaired judgment,
reduced muscle coordination, and in ex-
treme cases even death.
Washington was chosen to represent a
"commuter city" since it has a high
degree of traffic and movement of peo-
ple during the day and a massive exodus
in the evening as commuters return to
outlying communities. Since the level of
carbon monoxide in the air at these times
is primarily the result of emissions from
vehicles, it fluctuates with traffic pat-
terns and directly affects the exposure
levels experienced by commuters.
Denver was chosen because of its high
elevation above sea level. There is ap-
proximately 15 percent less oxygen avail-
able at that altitude for combustion of
fuel, resulting in higher levels of auto ex-
haust emissions. In addition, carbon mon-
oxide levels are especially high during
winter months when low-level tempera-
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA Roy
Development A : iva Officer,
"fe monitor while
shopping.
ture inversions form over the city, trap-
ping pollutants.
In Washington, the project is being
jointly managed by EPA and the
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. Austin Librach, Director of
Environmental Programs for COG, is coor-
dinating the involvement of the focal
governments. The project in Denver is
being managed from the office of Mayor
William McNichois where his special
assjstant. Dr. Cooper Wayman, is coor-
dinator.
Participants, who represent a cross-
section of Washington and Denver resi-
dents, were selected for the project using
statistical procedures developed by the
Research Triangle Institute, a private
organization. Officials said the data ob-
tained will be forwarded to EPA's Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards for
evalutation later in 1983. The Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at
Research Triangle Park, N.C. is managing
the project.
"National ambient air quality standards
for carbon monoxide are not currently
met in the Washington area," declares
Walter A. Scheiber, COG Executive Direc-
tor. "For the last two years, as part of the
process of revising State Air Quality
Plans in the region, COG has worked
with EPA and the State and local govern-
ments to assess the carbon monoxide
problem and its solutions. Currently, no
reliable information on actual population
exposure to carbon monoxide is avail-
able. This project will be the first major
effort to define actual public exposure to
carbon monoxide from all sources."
Dr. Courtney Riordan, EPA Acting As-
sistant Administrator for Research and
Development, noted at a press con-
ference announcing the project that the
study was designed to help the Agency
"assess health risks associated with car-
bon monoxide "as well as evaluate the
effectiveness of the fixed-site monitors as
a reliable tool for estimating average ex-
posures. Officials also say a long-range
purpose of the study is to help EPA
establish national air quality standards.
The portable pollution-sniffing box at
the heart of the project is an evolution of
the small monitors that miners have used
for years to alert them when CO reaches
unhealthful levels in mines. The new per-
sonal monitor, however, has added fea-
tures developed by engineers from Stan-
ford University. It relies on a data logger,
a tiny computer that continuously com-
piles, averages, and stores carbon mon-
oxide level data, according to Dr. Wayne
Ott, a senior environmental engineer with
EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment.
'The monitor is actually a full lab in a
tiny box," Dr, Ott says. "It replaces a
machine that is roughly the size of a re-
frigerator." The $1,600 computerized
monitor displays and stores hourly aver-
ages of carbon monoxide the wearer has
come in contact with during the day. It
stores the pollution data until command-
ed to replay it. As the data is recalled, it
can be charted onto a graph resulting in
a carbon monoxide "pollution profile" for
the wearer.
"With this machine," explains Dr. Ott,
"we can track the activities of people as
they go through their day and match it
with the different levels of carbon mon-
oxide they are exposed to. For example
the machine might tell us the person is
exposed to a lot more carbon monoxide
while stuck in rush-hour traffic or while in
a parking garage."
He noted that similar "personal moni-
tors" can be made to detect other
pollutants and even airborne particles. D
November-December
19
-------
Progress on
Acid Deposition Research
by Dr. Courtney Riordan, EPA
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Research and Development
During my tenure as Acting Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Research and Develop-
ment, I have not faced a more complex
phenomenon than acid deposition. It is a
problem upon which many reputable sci-
entists disagree. The implications of this
issue have a far-reaching effect upon our
national energy policy, particularly regard-
ing increased coal use as a substitute for
imported oil.
When I first became involved in this
subject, I was overwhelmed by the
amount of scientific information that we
had at our fingertips. After careful review,
I found that much of it lacked quality;
and, in the end, I have concluded that we
do not have an adequate scientific foun-
dation upon which we can erect a firm
set of decisions for dealing with this in-
ternational problem. Because the Presi-
dent is also concerned about this unusual
and somewhat perplexing problem, he
has committed this administration to a
Government-wide research program.
He has approved an increase in the re-
searching funding for this activity by more
than 70% from fiscal year 1981 to 1983.
To deal with this problem, this Ad-
ministration has copied a very successful
management style which was popularized
with the establishment of the NASA
space program.
Under the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program, which was estab-
lished by Congress as part of the Energy
Security Act, an Interagency Task Force
was created to manage the entire Federal
research effort on acid deposition. It has
adopted an integrated systems approach
for both the planning and the management.
The administrative headquarters of the
Task Force is located in the offices of the
Council on Environmental Quality; but it
has its own separate Executive Director.
The Task Force is divided into ten task
groups and each unit is devoted to a par-
ticular aspect of the acid deposition prob-
lem. Membership for these task groups
are drawn from a number of Federal
agencies, which include the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Depart-
Dr. Riordan is co-chairman of the
Federal Interagency Task Force
on Acid Deposition.
20
ment of Energy, U.S. Geological Survey,
National Park Service, National Science
Foundation, National Air and Space Ad-
ministration, and Tennessee Valley Ad-
ministration.
EPA is specifically responsibie for
chairing the task groups on Aquatic Ef-
fects, Policy Analysis and Control Tech-
nology. At the same time, we participate
as members on the other seven. Even-
tually, the products of all the research be-
ing conducted under the tutelage of the
task groups will be pulled together just
as the various products of the NASA
subcontractors came together and pro-
duced a finished spaceship which landed
on the moon. By using the systems ap-
proach, this administration is determined
to move ahead and address those key
areas of uncertainty on acid deposition.
A major aspect of this massive re-
search program is the level of the re-
sources. In FY-82, over 18 million dollars
will be spent. To insure that virtually
every aspect of the issue is thoroughly
examined, that budget line item will be
increased to 22 million dollars for FY-83.
Furthermore, business and industry as
well as some state governments, are
spending millions of additional dollars on
research and development in related
areas in order that we, as a nation, can
get all of the facts needed to make effec-
tive, realistic decisions.
What are the major scientific issues as
I see them? Permit me to answer that by
outlining some of the key questions that
we, in the Task Force, are trying to
answer with our Federal research pro-
gram:
• How severe and widespread are the ef-
fects (aquatic and terrestrial)?
• Has acid precipitation really been in-
creasing?
• What source-receptor relationships
could be used to:
— determine emission control strategies?
— compare deposition from local sources
with deposition transported from different
sources?
— determine the importance of acid
aerosols from natural sources?
• To what levels should acid deposition
be reduced to mitigate aquatic effects in
susceptible watersheds?
• Is mitigation of acid deposition effects
at receptor locations a practical control
strategy?
The answers to these questions are the
results of our research activities. We are
making every effort to develop the credi-
ble scientific and technical data which
will provide the regulators and legislators
the information which they need to for-
mulate sound policy decisions.
I would like to return to some of the
questions on that list and to discuss
them in more detail in order to specifical-
ly outline some of the things we are do-
ing in this research program.
Is acid deposition
increasing?
Regardless of where acid rain has been
observed and measured, there is insuffi-
cient evidence to state with certainty that
acid rain is increasing in North America.
Even after a careful examination of all ex-
isting historical data, there would be in-
sufficient evidence to support claims that
acid rain is now more prevalent than in
the past. At one point, we thought that
core samples taken from the glaciers and
ice fields of the Arctic, Antarctic, and the
high mountains would contain a historical
record of the trends in the chemistry of
acid deposition. To date, the few efforts
to detect such patterns have produced
no definitive results. We eventually dis-
covered that a major stumbling block
was that we could not detemine whether
the observed acidity in the core samples
came from man-made sources, or natural
processes or local contamination.
In looking at the historical records
about air quality and precipitation in the
U.S., we concluded that there was inade-
quate data to establish scientifically
rigorous trends regarding atmospheric ac-
idity or the concentrations of precursor
chemicals. We even looked at the data in
foreign countries. For example, in Scan-
dinavia, where data records are more
complete and of higher quality than in
North America, the analyses suffered sim-
ilar shortcomings. Strong correlations
found between the concentrations of sul-
fates and nitrates in precipitation and pre-
cipitation acidity were not reproducible
when sulfur emissions data were col-
lected from arrays of monitoring stations
over extended time intervals. We could
not discern whether the differences in
correlation between concentrations and
emissions may reflect year-to-year varia-
tions in atmospheric transport patterns or
the complexity of atmospheric mechan-
isms.
Our research plans call for the con-
tinued gathering of data from which acid-
ification trends can be determined. Our
study plans include the examination of
tree rings, sediment cores, acidification
damage to tombstones, and a continual
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Dr. Steve Norton of the University of Maine examines sediment core sample
from acidic lake bottom in Adirondack Mountains.
reexamination of historical acidity meas-
urements. The results from these ac-
tivities will be reported in 1984 and 1985.
What is the relationship
between source and receptor?
Before we can focus on this key ques-
tion, we need to do some preliminary
homework. We need to better under-
stand the atmospheric chemistry proc-
esses that form acid rain. Through mathe-
matical modeling and other means, we
hope to quantify the atmospheric proc-
esses in hopes of helping scientists to
better understand several important fac-
tors now under study.
For instance, scientists know that the
presence or absence of certain oxidants,
other chemicals, moisture and particu-
lates influence the conversion of S02 and
NOX to atmospheric acids, but the com-
plex interactions of all these elements
have yet to be unravelled. Likewise,
ozone and hydrogen peroxide are known
to play a significant role in the formation
of oxidants, but their effect on the con-
versions has yet to be determined.
Another major preliminary requirement
for defining source-receptor relationships
is the identification and measurement of
factors which control the atmospheric
transport of acid-forming compounds and
aerosols. The intricacies of meteorological
mechanisms, which we are just begin-
ning to understand, make it difficult to
specify the atmospheric paths along
which compounds may be transported.
The U.S. National Commission on Air
Quality (NCAQ) summed up these diffi-
culties by stating in its March 1981 report
that these relationships are "speculative."
A third preliminary area of concern re-
lates to large-scale meteorological models
which need more refinement. One severe
shortcoming is that current models as-
sume that the rate of conversion for
sulfur and nitrogen compounds to acidic
compounds is proportional to their
respective atmospheric concentrations. In
other words, the more S02 present in the
atmosphere, the more acid sulfate will be
produced. Based upon recent experimen-
tal evidence, that assumption may be too
simplistic to describe actual photochemi-
cal conversion rates. Instead, models
must be improved to include additional
facts. They should include the facts that
atmospheric transformations depend on
the mix of oxidants. That there is chemi-
cal competition for oxjdants. That conver-
sions require aerosols and particulates to
act as reaction sites. Without such
refinements our ability to describe depo-
sition phenomena using these models
will continue to falter.
Another refinement is needed in the
area of the vertical transport of com-
pounds between the various layers of the
atmosphere. We know that horizontal
transport rates, and hence the extent of
dispersion, depend in large measure
upon vertical exchange rates; but, to
date, our models fail to reflect that
aspect.
A fifth preliminary problem with using
existing models to differentiate between
deposition from local and long-range
sources is that calculations for sulfur
compound depostions are far more devel-
oped than are those for nitrates; yet, in
some areas, locally produced nitrogen ox-
ides are major contributors to acid rain.
Finally, current long-range transport
models fail to differentiate between the
different types of sources and the
amount of emissions each contributes to
the problem. Our models cannot indicate
whether the emissions come from utili-
ties, industries, homes or automobiles.
Until refined to do so, their usefulness,
especially in formulating and testing con-
trol strategies, is limited.
In hopes of improving these models,
we will begin, in FY-83, field studies to
gather more information about long and
short-range acid rain transport and the
relative importance of wet and dry depo-
sition. That model data will also help us
to determine oxidation reaction pathways
and atmospheric oxidant concentrations.
Building upon the results of this research,
we expect to use better numerical trans-
port models to reveal improved source-
receptor associations. Results of this
research will be available in 1985 or 1986.
We believe that these results will make
a considerable contribution in knowledge
and insight of the whole air media which
will have benefits for other air pollution
problems.
Henri Poincare, the eighteenth century
mathematician, said that science is built
of many facts in the same way that a
house is made up of many carefully laid
bricks. In the area of acid deposition, our
research activities are the bricks; and
when we are finished we expect to have
built a strong house that will exemplify a
sound Federal program for solving the
acid deposition issue.D
November-December
21
-------
Wave of Regulations
To Help Clean Waters
|n May of this year, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency published guide-
lines and standards to control pollution in
wastewater discharged by iron and steel
mills.
The following month, a similar regula-
tion was issued establishing controls for
most manufacturers of inorganic chemi-
cals. Textile mills were covered in Aug-
ust. Coal mines and oil refineries were
added in September. And a half dozen
more major industrial categories were
brought under controls before 1982 ended.
This series of new regulations did not
claim great attention in the press. Terms
like "effluent limitations" and "best
available technology" and lists of tongue-
twisting chemical names don't seem to
sell newspapers or captivate TV viewers.
Nevertheless, these regulatory actions
represented a major breakthrough in im-
plementing the Clean Water Act enacted
10 years earlier. For the first time ever,
EPA was carrying through on the man-
date laid down by Congress and the
courts to impose specific wastewater
treatment requirements upon the nation's
primary industries, with specific atten-
tion to the control of toxic pollutants.
It was a task some had come to believe
was well nigh impossible.
In December 1980, a House subcom-
mittee reported that "in spite of court de-
crees and legislative amendments aimed
at clarifying the original law, for the ap-
proximately eight years since its enact-
ment the nation has not had a function-
ing and effective water-related toxic
chemical control program."
In this report, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Review of the House Com-
mittee on Public Works and Transporta-
tion went on to say:
"Current efforts to move the toxic con-
trol program off dead center are still
beset by such an array of problems as to
call into grave question whether the EPA
is truly capable of putting into effect a
genuinely workable, legally defensible
and cost-effective regulatory scheme with
which industry and local government can
reasonably expect to comply within statu-
tory deadlines."
But now, just two years after this
gloomy forecast was made, EPA is on
track and — another first — meeting a
court-approved schedule for promulgation
of the regulations.
Agency Administrator Anne M. Gor-
such sees the achievement as a multi-
faceted reflection of the Reagan Adminis-
tration's approach toward the manage-
ment of EPA.
"Our primary objective at EPA," she
said, "is to protect the environment and
the health of the American people. As
part of that responsibility, we had to get
these regulations moving. Good inten-
tions are admirable, but they don't do a
thing to safeguard our waterways.
"Second, we believe that good man-
agement can achieve results even when
resources are limited, as they are now.
The hard work and dedication of our EPA
staff would be wasted without sound
management to direct these efforts.
'Third, regulations must be under-
standable, workable, and economically
feasible. We don't want to, and we don't
have to, achieve cleaner water by impos-
ing unnecessarily heavy costs on our in-
dustries. Nobody wins in that case. We
want to establish realistic requirements
that will protect both the economy and
the environment, and we are doing that
in these regulations."
I he regulations emerging now imple-
ment the new strategy for cleaning up in-
dustrial wastewater adopted by Congress
in enacting the Clean Water Act of 1972.
In addition to the longtime objective of
controlling conventional pollutants.
Congress established as a national goal in
the new legislation that "the discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited."
Congress also mandated a new con-
cept for establishing maximum pollutant
levels in industrial wastewater. Rather
than trying to determine the total
assimilative capacity of a given water-
way, and allocating permissible pollutant
levels to individual industries accordingly,
EPA was to establish technology-based
standards that would require a given
level of treatment without regard to the
quality of the receiving waters.
Industries discharging wastewater were
to meet "effluent limitations" based on
the capability of treatment technologies
available for their particular manufactur-
ing processes. An interim level of treat-
ment, Best Practicable Technology (BPT),
was to be achieved by July 1, 1977, with
more stringent requirements, Best Avail-
able Technology (BAT), to be met by Ju-
ly 1, 1983.
The law listed 27 industrial categories
for which effluent standards were to be
developed for new plants (NSPS), with
the expectation that they would apply to
existing plants as well. The guidelines
were to be completed by October 1973.
In addition, EPA was to identify individual
toxic substances and develop standards
for those, chemical by chemical by
chemical.
D.
"eveiopment of the guidelines lagged
from the start. By the October 1973
deadline, parts of only 10 guidelines had
been proposed, and none had been put
into effect. The process of identifying
specific toxic chemicals was even slower.
There were many pollutants suspected of
being toxic (literally, thousands of them)
but little reliable biological and tox-
icological data that could provide a basis
for regulation. In five years, standards
were issued for only six chemicals.
In 1974, the National Resources De-
fense Council and other environmental
groups took EPA to court in an effort to
force faster progress in implementing the
1972 legislation. A settlement agreement
was reached in June 1976. Under this
agreement, EPA was to develop BAT
guidelines for 21 categories of industry,
focusing on control of 129 priority
pollutants. This work was to be complet-
ed by December 31, 1979.
Congress thought well enough of the
settlement agreement to incorporate the
substance of it into the Clean Water Act
through amendments enacted in 1977.
Because of the past delays in implement-
ing the guidelines. Congress also allowed
EPA JOURNAL
-------
an additional year for compliance with
BAT requirements, extending the dead-
line to July 1, 1984.
By 1978, however, it was already ap-
parent that EPA would not meet the
court-ordered target dates for issuing the
effluent limitations. The settlement agree-
ment was modified and a new schedule
was approved calling for promulgation of
the last of the guidelines no later than
June 30, 1981. At the same time, the
original list of 21 primary industries was
subdivided into 37 categories and more
than 500 subcategories.
EPA's slow progress in developing
regulations stemmed from a combination
of factors. The guidelines process obliged
the agency to amass data on manufactur-
ing processes, the age of industrial facili-
ties, the cost of pollution control, and
non-water quality impacts. There were
engineering analyses to be carried out, in-
cluding estimates of the investment re-
quirement for treatment technology,
costs of operation and maintenance, and
energy consumption. During a six-year
period starting in 1976, EPA spent $123.5
million on contracts to help develop this
data base.
The work also bogged down because
of a cumbersome review process that ate
up 15 months on the average just within
the Office of Water. (Two to three and a
half months are allowed for review now.)
Deficiencies in the technical base data
and inaccuracies in economic impact
models also caused delays.
In January 1981, when the Reagan Ad-
ministration took office, only one set of
guidelines — for timber products pro-
cessing — was ready for publication in
final form. It was obvious that the work
would not be completed by June 1981
as the court had directed.
The Administration twice went back in-
to court (most recently in June 1982)
seeking approval of revised schedules
that would allow more time for comple-
tion of the rule-making. Ultimately, in
August 1982, the court approved a revis-
ed schedule that extended deadline
dates, though denying as much time as
EPA had requested.
November-December
23
-------
Mrs. Gorsuch directed that the highest
priority be given to promulgation of the
effluent limitations. Review periods were
cut back drastically. A special tracking
system was put in place to assure that
the Administrator would be notified per-
sonally of any delays in meeting the new
schedules.
Personnel were reassigned within the
agency to meet staffing needs. An addi-
tional $1.5 million was made available to
fund the program. Mrs. Gorsuch also ap-
proved the re-allocation of more than $3
million to fund technical and economic
studies needed to complete the guide-
fines development.
The increased investment of staff,
money and managerial attention paid off.
In May, Mrs. Gorsuch approved the final
effluent limitation guidelines, new source
performance standards and pretreatment
standards for the iron and steel industry.
This was the first major industrial cate-
gory covered by effluent regulations. Ap-
plicable to 680 steel plants, the regula-
tions will reduce the volume of toxic
pollutants from an estimated 2,400 tons
in 1981 to about 720 tons.
From May through September, final
regulations were approved covering the
bulk of the inorganic chemical industry,
textile mills, coal mining and oil refiner-
ies. During the same period, regulations
were proposed for ore mining, certain
electronic components, and metal
finishing.
That accelerated effort was capped in
late October and early November when
final regulations were issued for six more
industrial categories — coil coating
(phase I), leather tanning and finishing,
ore mining, porcelain enameling, pulp
and paper manufacturing and steam elec-
tric plants. A half dozen new proposals
also were approved covering aluminum
forming, battery manufacturing, copper
forming, foundries, pesticides and phar-
maceutical products.
The court had set a November 7 dead-
line for the promulgation of all effluent
limits and standards that were in the pro-
posal stage last May — and EPA met that
deadline.
Effluent Limitations and Standards
Industry Proposal Promulgation
Adhesives and Sealants
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Coal Mining
Coil Coating (Phase 1)
Coil Coating (Canmaking)
Copper Forming
Electric and aecttonic
Components (Phase 1)
Electric and Electronic
Components (Phase II)
Foundries
inorganic Chemicals (Phase 1)
(norganic Chemicals (Pnase III
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Leather Tanning and Finishing
Metal Finishing
Nonfeirous Metals (Phase II
Nonferrous Metals (Phase II)
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Ore Mining
Organic Chemicals, Plastics
and Synthetic Materials
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper
Steam Electric
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
'Completed
2/83
11/82-
10/82-
12/80-
12/80-
1/83
10/82-
8/82-
2/83
10/82-
7/80-
9/83
1/81*
6/79-
8/82-
1/83
9/83
9/83
5/82"
2/83
11/82-
11/79-
11/82-
10/83
1/81*
12>80-
10/80*
10/79-
10/79-
11/83
7/83
6/83
9/82'
11/82'
10/83
7/83
3/83
11/83
8/83
6/82-
6/84
5/82"
11/82'
6/83
1/84
6/84
6/84
11/82-
3/84
12/83
9/82-
9/83
6/84
11/82-
10/82"
11/82*
8/82*
1/81*
The agency intends to keep meeting
those deadlines until the last of the in-
dustrial regulations is issued in mid-1984.
In developing the regulations, EPA has
learned that the economic impact upon
industry of meeting effluent limitations
will be lighter than expected when the
rule-making process began in the 1970's.
Data compiled on wastewater treatment
shows that BPT systems, which were
designed primarily to handle conventional
pollutants, do a surprisingly effective job
of removing toxic chemicals as well. In
the case of oil refineries, for example,
BPT systems remove about 96 percent of
toxic pollutants. !n such cases, BAT re-
quirements can be established that are
equivalent to BPT standards, and the in-
dustry involved is spared capital outlays
for additional treatment processes.
Similarly, it has been found that mod-
ern, well-maintained secondary treatment
systems now required in community-
owned sewage disposal plants are effec-
tive in removing many toxic chemicals.
That can eliminate the need for industries
to set up treatment systems to treat
wastes that are discharged into municipal
sewer systems.
When toxic industrial pollutants are not
adequate// controlled by treatment sys-
tems already in place, however, the ef-
fluent limitations will require manufac-
turers to install the technology that is
necessary to protect the nation's water-
ways.
Even though full implementation of
the pollution controls envisioned by Con-
gress in 1972 is still a goal, not an
achievement, EPA is closing in on that
objective now, not merely marking time.
And there's cleaner water at the end of
that road.D
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
If you want to keep
up-to-date on EPA
Read EPA UPDATE
v=/EPA UPDATE
Contempt QlatiunVoled Aft erGuraich
Refuses 10 Dolose Sensitive File*
It's new. A newsletter that will
report concisely and accurately every other week
on the Agency's activities.
Regulation changes. Enforcement actions.
Settlements. Policy shifts. Meetings. Hearings.
They'll all be part of EPA UPDATE. And there's
more.
You'll know where to call or write for specific
information. And who to ask for.
EPA UPDATE. A new way for you to learn more
about EPA.
Journal readers can expect a sample copy of
EPA UPDATE soon. But there's just one way to
keep those copies coming regularly. . . subscribe.
Subscribe now. Use the form below.
And you'// be up-to-date with EPA all year long.
EPA UPDATE is published every other week by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Public Affairs (A-107), Washington, D.C. 20460.
Available by subscription from the U.S. Government Printing Office at an
annual cost of $32.00 in the U.S., $40.00 in other countries. To subscribe, fill
in the form below and mail to: Superintendent of Documents, GPO,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Check or money order should be made payable to
Superintendent of Documents.
Name-First Last Plaas* Print
I I I I I I I I I
"Company Name or Additional Line
I I I ! I i I II I I
11
Street Address
City
11
Zip Code
D Payment enclosed
D Charge to my Deposit Account No.
-------
"Mind your
own business, EPA
We try to.
But our business tends to be
everybody's business. Environmentalists
and their organizations. Corporations
large and small. John d Public . . . and
Mrs. . . . and Miss . . . and Ms. Public.
If it's your business to mind EPA's
business, there's a new way to keep
up-to-date.
For details, look inside this cover.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington 0 C 20460
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Third Class
Bulk
------- |