United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 9
Number 3
November 1983
earching for
Environmental Safety
-------
i^m^s
js$
How It Used To Be: I his photo taken several years ago in the Denver area illustrates the "out-of-s/ght, oul-of-mind" attitude
(hut helped spawn the pervasive hazardous waste problems in this country.
Hazards and Solutions
In this issue of EPA Journal
we examine the efforts being
made to improve the safety of
our environment by con-
trolling hazardous wastes.
As Lee Thomas, EPA Assis-
tant Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse, points out in an inter-
view the problem of
hazardous waste emerged
with the phenomenal growth
of the chemical industry after
World War II.
Gradually in the 1960's a
growing awareness developed
that hazardous waste disposal
practices used then were in-
adequate.
But not until 1976 with
enactment by Congress of the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act was there au-
thority for Federal regulation
of current and future waste
practices.
This law and the 1980 Su-
perfund law, designed to
clean up old waste sites, have
triggered a massive drive to
correct the threats from im-
proper waste disposal.
The success of these efforts
is vital if we are to emerge
from what EPA Administrator
William D. Ruckelshaus has
described as "a troubled and
emotional period for pollution
control."
In this issue of the Journal
we also carry the views on
waste problems of two dis-
tinguished Congressional
leaders—U. S. Senator Jen-
nings Randolph, D-W. Va., and
U. S. Representative James T.
Broyhill, R-N.C.
A review of EPA's enforce-
ment program in this issue is
followed by a report on the
first five sites cleaned up
under the Superfund program.
An overview of our know-
ledge and capability in dealing
with dioxin, one of the most
toxic man-made substances,
is then presented.
A photo essay illustrates the
forced air stripping towers
built in Tacoma, Wash., with
the aid of Superfund money
to remove contaminants in
drinking water wells.
Also in this issue we re-
sume publication of a de-
partment called Update, brief
news items about recent ma-
jor EPA pollution control ac-
tivities and developments.
This department helps fill the
gap left by the recent dis-
continuance of a separate EPA
newsletter titled Update.
The magazine also includes
a statement by EPA's new
Assistant Administrator for
External Affairs Josephine S.
Cooper on "EPA's Opportunity
to Communicate."
Recent appointments to key
EPA posts are also reviewed.
Finally the magazine takes a
look at one of the many rivers
around the country en-
dangered by pollution from
mounting metropolitan area
populations. In this case, it is
the Cacapon, a tributary of the
Potomac River with an Indian
name meaning "Medicine Wa-
ters," which is at risk because
of rapid second home de-
velopment and several non-
point pollution sources. LJ
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington, DC 20460
Volume 9
Number 3
November 1983
vvEPA JOURNAL
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator
Josephine S. Cooper, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Jean Statler, Director, Office of Public Affairs
Charles D. Pierce, Editor
John M. Heritage, Managing Editor
Articles
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the Nation's land, air and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published
quarterly 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 print-
ing this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget through
4/1/84. Views expressed by authors
do not necessarily reflect EPA policy.
Contributions and inquiries should be
addressed to the Editor (A-107)
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce contents
except copyrighted photos and other
materials.
Controlling Hazardous
Waste 2
An Interview with Assistant
Administrator Lee Thomas
The View from Capitol
Hill 4
The State of Hazardous and
Municipal Waste Control
by U.S. Senator
Jennings Randolph, D.-W. Va.
The Effective Regulation of
Hazardous Waste
by U.S. Representative
James T. Broyhill, R.-N.C.
Front Cover: This serene view of
Puget Sound at sunset with clucks
in the foreground and a cloud-
streaked sky above was taken by
C. Biede/of Photri.
Enforcement Drive
Mounts 7
By Tom Kelley
The Rrst Five
Cleanups 9
By Carl Gagliardi
Making the Superfund
List 14
By David Cohen
An Overview
on Dioxin 16
By Donald Barnes
The Towers of
Tacoma 20
A Photo Essay
New EPA
Appointments
22
Update 24
Recent major EPA activities
EPA's Opportunity to
Communicate 27
By Assistant Administrator
Josephine S. Cooper
River At Risk 28
Photo Credits: Photri. Steve De-
laney, Eric Meyerson and Christ-
opher Moffett of EPA Region 10;
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan.
Ron Farrah.
EPA JOURNAL Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in the
U.S. for the quarterly EPA Journal is
$7.50. The charge to subscribers in
foreign countries is $9.40 a year. The
price of a single copy of the Journal
is $2.50 in this country and $3.15 if
sent to a foreign country. Prices
include mailing costs. 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 at right and enclose a
check or money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
request should be mailed to: Super-
intendent of Documents, GPO,
Washington, D.C. 20402.
Name-First. Last Please Print
I
1
I
I
Company Name or Additional Address Line
I
1
1 1
1 1
Street Address
i
i 1
i
1
City
|
1
i I
I
1 i
State
I
1
Zip Code
i
p
!
I I Payment enclosed
(Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents)
I—ICharge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Controlling Hazardous Wastes
An interview with Lee Thomas
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Aerial photo
showing progress that had
been made in 1979 in
collecting barrels for removal
at huge "Valley of the Drums"
hazardous waste dump
near Louisville, Ky.
The cleanup is now
nearing completion.
Lee Thomas
Q
Is EPA making good progress in
controlling hazardous waste in this country?
A We certainly are. In July 1982, EPA
promulgated stringent standards for issuance
of permits for land disposal facilities, essen-
tially completing the core of the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Standards are
now in place for generators, transporters and
most types of treatment, storage, and dis-
posal facilities. Just three years ago, none of
these standards were in place. We now have
a cradle-to-grave manifest system in full use
that allows tracking of each waste shipment
from point of generation to final disposition.
With these standards in place the Agency
has been able to shift its focus to issuing
facility permits, enforcing the regulatory
program, continuing the process of granting
States authorization to run their own
hazardous waste program in lieu of the
Federal program, and filling in missing pieces
of the regulatory program.
Together with the States, who are our
partners in implementation, EPA's Regions
have begun processing more than 1,400
treatment and storage permit applications. In
addition, since January of this year, work
has started on issuance of over 150 land dis-
posal and 108 incinerator permit applications.
EPA and the States conducted more than
14,000 inspections during Fiscal Year 1982,
and issued 989 warning letters and 227
compliance orders. EPA and the States
expect to increase the number of inspections
during the current year to almost 17,000, a
13% increase.
EPA has also stepped up its investigation
and referral to the Justice Department of
criminal violations of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act. In addition, 39
States have received interim or final
authorization to operate their own hazardous
waste programs, bringing much needed
State resources and expertise to bear on the
hazardous waste problem. At the same time,
EPA is working to correct a number of other
problem areas, including the special
problems posed by dioxins, burning and
blending of hazardous wastes in boilers,
controlling generators of small quantities of
hazardous wastes, and evaluating whether
land disposal of certain hazardous wastes
should be restricted.
Q
How and why did we get into our
present plight on hazardous waste? Couldn't
these problems have been anticipated long
ago?
A
The problems of hazardous wastes are a
relatively new problem that emerged with the
phenomenal growth of the chemical industry
after World War II. In the 40's, and 50's,
wastes were disposed in, what was consid-
ered at the time, secure storage facilities.
During the 60's it became more obvious that
what was considered state-of-the-art storage
technology for hazardous wastes was not an
effective solution. EPA pointed out in its
1973 Report to Congress on Disposal of
Hazardous Waste that Federal, State, and
local legislation and regulations dealing with
the treatment and disposal of nonradioactive
hazardous waste were generally spotty or
nonexistent. Not until enactment of RCRA in
1976 was there authority for Federal
regulation of hazardous waste practices.
Given the permissive legislative climate,
generators were under little or no pressure to
expend resources for more sophisticated
management of their hazardous wastes.
There was little economic incentive for
generators to dispose of wastes in adequate
ways because the costs of adequate
management were higher than the costs of
widespread and accepted practices. While
scattered cases of public health problems
from hazardous waste were known at the
time, no one, I believe, anticipated the
enormous number of problem sites later
identified under the Superfund program.
Q
How long will land disposal of hazardous
wastes continue?
r\ Land disposal will be needed into the
foreseeable future. First, some wastes, such
as sludges containing heavy metals, cannot
be destroyed but can be safely treated and
then disposed of either on or in the land.
Other wastes should be treated or recycled.
Treatment processes such as neutralization,
incineration, or concentrating and separating
wastes for recycling all result in residues that
must be disposed of on the land. Therefore,
it is difficult to envision a time when land
disposal of hazardous wastes will not be
needed. However, most, if not all, wastes
can be detoxified and stabilized and rendered
virtually nonhazardous before they are
disposed of on the land.
Q
Should some contaminants be banned
completely from any sort of land disposal?
f\ Our regulations already prohibit or
restrict the land disposal of reactive wastes,
ignitable wastes, incompatible wastes, such
as strong acids or caustics, and containerized
liquid wastes. In addition, we are examining
a number of rule changes, including a
restriction on the disposal of bulk liquids in
landfills, and standards for air emissions from
land disposal facilities.
Along with these controls we are identify-
ing wastes that are highly mobile, toxic, and
persistent and have a high tendency to bio-
accumulate. We will explore the availability
of alternate management technology for
these wastes, as well as the costs and
environmental impacts of these alternate
technologies. Based on these considerations,
we intend to prohibit additional wastes of
this type from disposal in or onto the land.
Q
How many hazardous waste facilities
have now been granted permits?
A Eighty.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
.<••;.•*.*•?»,•--
1
Q
What is the box score on the
number of permit applications pending and
expected?
r\ There are approximately 1,500 permit
applications pending at EPA and in authorized
States. We expect to process an additional
1,100 applications in FY '84.
Q
GAO in a recent report criticized the
widespread lack of compliance with ground-
water monitoring requirements at hazardous
waste dumps. What is your reaction and
what steps are you taking to deal with this
problem?
f\ The Agency is taking a number of steps
to improve compliance with the ground-
water monitoring requirements.
We are developing a comprehensive
inspector's manual for ground-water moni-
toring system evaluations. In addition, we
plan to conduct training sessions for State
and Regional inspectors to make sure that
inspections detect violations. This program
should be operational soon. The Agency
also intends to hire additional personnel in
key skill areas.
EPA is taking a number of steps to
increase the level of compliance in the
authorized States.
First, as a condition for receipt of fiscal
year 1984 grant monies, States are to provide
comprehensive reporting regarding compli-
ance at individual facilities. The Agency is
now developing data management capabili-
ties to provide an up-to-date picture of
compliance with the ground-water monitoring
regulations, track enforcement actions, and
identify situations requiring Regional Office
attention. This data management system is
expected to be operational by January of
1984.
Second, at least one Region has instituted
monthly meetings between the responsible
State agencies and EPA that have worked
well in improving communication and solving
problems in coordination. Based on this
pilot, we will develop national guidance to
assist the other Regional Offices in develop-
ing similar programs.
Finally, some of the Regions have begun
to bring enforcement actions in States that
are reluctant, or lack authority, to do so. For
example, some States may not impose
administrative penalties for violations but
must go through their judicial systems. The
Agency may impose administrative penalties
in authorized States under Section 3008 and
is expanding its use of this authority.
Q
How aggressive will EPA be in recover-
ing money spent from Superfund? How
much has been recovered so far?
A
EPA has collected $3.9 million in cost
recovery actions thus far in the Superfund
program.
The Agency also has referred a total of 17
cost recovery actions to the Department of
Justice in FY-82 and 22 actions in FY-83 to
date.
In addition, EPA has established a work
group to organize the complex process of
identification, collection, and maintenance of
cost documentation and decision documenta-
tion to support an effective cost recovery
program. Guidance to EPA's regional offices
has been prepared and issued; cost recovery
training workshops in regional offices are
under way. In addition, EPA is examining
procedures for distribution of unallocated
Superfund expenditures on a site specific
basis for cost recovery purposes. The cost
recovery program is expected to increase in
intensity as more Superfund remedial actions
are completed in FY-84 and FY-85. D
NOVEMBER 1983
-------
The View from Capitol Hill
U.S. Sen. Jennings Randolph, D.-W. Va., and
U.S. Representative James T. Broyhill, R.-N. C.,
were invited to present their observations
because of their special know/edge and
interest in hazardous waste and environmental
problems generally. However, their views do
not necessarily represent the positions and
policies of EPA.
The State of
Hazardous and Municipal
Waste Control
By U.S. Senator Jennings Randolph, D.-W.Va.
Senator Randolph is the ranking minority
member of the U. S. Senate Committee on
the Environment and Public Works and a
former long- time chairman of this committee.
I he invitation to submit this article on the
state of hazardous and municipal waste
control gave me an opportunity to reflect on
the progress that has been achieved in my
twenty years of involvement with this issue.
During this period the Congress has been
increasingly responsive to the problems of
hazardous waste, but much remains to be
accomplished, both by all levels of
government and by those who generate
and dispose of hazardous and solid wastes.
There is more to be done before we can
guarantee that public health and natural
resources are truly protected from the
hazardous constituents of solid waste.
I began my work on this issue with enact-
ment of the first Solid Waste Disposal Act in
1965. In that year it was only a second title
added to the bill amending the Clean Air Act.
The 1965 Act represented a cautious effort
to advance our understanding of the
dimensions and scope of the burgeoning
problem of solid waste disposal. We set the
stage for fostering development of new
technology to manage municipal refuse and
encourage recycling activities. With revisions
to the law in the Resource Recovery Act of
1970, a bold step was taken toward
addressing the seriousness of the waste
disposal problem. In addition to guidelines
for regulating unsightly open dumps and
incinerators, we began to study the serious
problems associated with land disposal of
toxic and radioactive materials. My interest
was spurred by the fact that West Virginia
has consistently ranked in the top ten States
in production of hazardous wastes.
The amendments that were ordered
reported by the Environment and Public
Works Committee this summer are to some
extent a reflection of the problems we
uncovered in the development and implemen-
tation of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (or "Superfund"). For the 546 sites
listed on the updated National Priorities List,
the Environmental Protection Agency esti-
mates landfilling and surface impoundments
of hazardous wastes are the two primary
sources of contamination problems. Seventy-
five percent of the sites listed involve some
degree of groundwater contamination.
To prevent the development of future
"Superfund" sites, it is necessary to institute
controls that will discourage land disposal of
hazardous substances when alternatives to
that disposal can be used, and to assure that
land disposal facilities meet certain techno-
logical standards to prevent migration of
contaminants. These requirements must be
met as expeditiously as possible. A recently
released draft of an EPA survey indicates
that nearly four times as much hazardous
waste is generated in the U.S. every year as
suggested by previous estimates. The prelim-
inary data suggest that 150 metric tons of
hazardous waste were generated in 1981
compared to an estimate of 40 million metric
tons. The survey also indicates that 41
percent of this quantity is either disposed of
in surface impoundments or landfills. These
startling figures underscore the importance
of seeking alternatives to managing the
problem.
Provisions in the pending amendments
would both encourage minimization of the
amount of hazardous waste generated and
prohibit land disposal of some hazardous
wastes. This in turn would spur the
development of innovative technology to
mitigate hazards and provide safe treatment
and disposal methods. Enactment of the
amendments will fulfill the public policy
mandates anticipated when this issue was
first debated in 1965.
I remain concerned that in light of the
attention that has been directed to hazardous
waste management and disposal, attention
to municipal waste disposal has languished.
States which were actively pursuing imple-
mentation of solid waste management plans
have been forced to curtail their efforts in
the absence of Federal grant money. The
importance of prudent handling and manage-
ment of municipal wastes far exceeds
cosmetic considerations. Municipal facilities
will continue to receive a measure of
hazardous materials present in domestic
materials and the wastes of "small
generators," and through illicit disposal
practices. In the absence of comprehensive
State management plans, implementing the
sanitary landfill criteria and the ban on open
dumping, community and municipal disposal
Continued to page 6
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Effective
Regulation of
Hazardous Waste
By U.S. Representative James T. Broyhill, R.-N.C.
The
James T. Broyhill (R.-N.C.) is the ranking
minority member of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce which has jurisdiction
over most environmental laws, including
RCRA and Superfund.
he 1960s will always be known as an activist
decade. In no context is this more apparent
than in the rise of the environmental
movement. Reacting to several legitimate
concerns about the degradation of our
environment. Congress passed numerous
laws to address these problems. The earliest
national environmental laws, such as the
Clean Air Act of 1970, were relatively simple,
deferring in a large degree to the expertise of
the implementing agency. Congress adopted
a broad brush approach for clean-up,
directing EPA to fill in the gaps and carry out
the mandate.
The 1980s are spawning a new approach
to environmental legislation. The environ-
mental laws of the '80s are being drafted as
regulatory, rather than legislative documents.
They contain long lists of activities which
EPA must carry out, and each specific
activity has a deadline by which it must be
performed. Many of these deadlines are
enforced by so-called "hammers," where
some penalty (usually to the regulated
community) is imposed if the arbitrary
deadline is missed. Under this new form of
legislation every possible area of regulation is
covered, and a solution to every potential
environmental problem is demanded. The
result will be a crushing regulatory burden on
EPA which will prevent the Agency from
effectively prioritizing its activities to best
address our nation's health and environ-
mental problems. The bottom line is less
protection for the American people. In no
area is this trend more apparent than in the
regulation of hazardous waste.
The American people are justifiably
concerned about the generation, handling
and disposal of hazardous waste. EPA's slow
implementation of the Superfund law,
passed in 1980, has added to this concern,
along with the recent realization that we are
faced with many more Superfund sites than
we originally believed. The American people
want these sites to be cleaned up through
the Superfund law, and want to see vigorous
implementation of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ensure that no
new sites are created. I believe that these
efforts will be hindered by the additional
regulatory burdens being placed on the
Agency.
One hundred thirty-three new sites have
been recently added to the Superfund
priority lists. Clearly, the Superfund law will
need to be extended when it expires in 1985,
and the fund must be expanded. But EPA
needs the freedom and flexibility to initiate
cleanup activities promptly. I fear that any
Superfund reauthorization may contain so
many additional burdens and have so many
strings attached that this prompt cleanup will
be impossible.
Many such burdens have surfaced during
the reauthorization of RCRA. As currently
reported, the House reauthorization bill
contains an unbelievable twenty-two legisla-
tive deadlines, the Senate bill twenty-three!
The bills delve into every detail of hazardous
waste regulation. Some examples of specific
regulatory requirements include the following:
• certain wastes are specifically listed for a
possible land disposal ban;
• decisions are required within a certain
time frame on other wastes;
• notification is required concerning handling
of waste —derived fuels;
• recordkeeping and storage standards are
required for these fuels;
• decisions are required on the listing of 17
categories of wastes;
• a decision to list used oils is needed; and
• standards are required for recycled paper
just to name a few.
The hazardous waste program is designed
to regulate wastes from cradle-to-grave by
establishing a paper trail tracing the
movement of the waste, and by ensuring
that the wastes are handled properly all
along the way. Congress should establish a
framework through which EPA can accom-
plish these goals, but must not attempt to
dictate every detail of the program. Congress
does not have the scientific and technical
expertise to make such decisions.
Some would say that EPA can carry out
any statutory mandate if (1) the desire is
there, and (2) there are adequate funds. I
strongly disagree, and my reasons for doing
so can best be illustrated in an example. EPA
has been very slow in implementing Section
Continued to next page
NOVEMBER 1983
-------
The State of Hazardous and Municipal Waste Control Continued
facilities will persist as a public health threat.
In addition to seeing the 1983 Solid Waste
Disposal Act amendments enacted, there are
a number of areas I would like to address in
the present Congress. At the head of the list
is action on a measure to provide compensa-
tion to those who have suffered illness or
injury from inadvertent exposure to
hazardous substances. The fact that there
currently is no measure for redress to victims
represents a major inequity in present
statutes. I strongly supported including a
provision to accomplish this purpose in the
1980 Superfund debate. In the interest of
quickly enacting the urgent needed clean-up
mechanism, it became necessary to hammer
out a compromise that would be more
broadly accepted than the one initially
proposed. The provisions dealing with
compensation for out-of-pocket medical
expenses were dropped in that compromise.
The public deserves to have recourse in
obtaining needed medical care and compen-
sation for losses associated with involuntary
exposure to hazardous substances. I am
optimistic that this situation can be corrected
before the end of this Congress.
A second legislative challenge is posed by
the absence of a clear-cut groundwater
protection plan. Many existing laws address
limited aspects of groundwater contamina-
tion and protection issues, but a coherent
national policy to foster this vital resource
does not exist. Over half the population relies
on groundwater as a drinking water source.
Contaminated aquifers are extremely difficult
to remedy. It is far preferable to adopt a plan
to assure that States, municipalities and
communities are taking necessary steps to
maintain and protect potable groundwater
supplies.
The major components to complete the
foundation of a sound public health and
environmental protection program for solid
and hazardous waste management are falling
into place. Much work remains if the "cradle
to grave" system for tracking and managing
hazardous wastes envisioned by the 1976
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments is to
be achieved. Until such time as the
mandates of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
are met to the letter, there will remain a
continued need for remedial efforts such as
Superfund.
One of the most gratifying aspects of my
affiliation with the waste disposal issue has
been the broad based public support for
aggressive action. The public is aware and
increasingly well educated as to the
consequences of improperly handling
hazardous and solid wastes. The issue is
highly visible owing to a number of dramatic
contamination incidents. No one wants to
discover that his neighborhood or community
is afflicted with problems similar to Times
Beach or Love Canal. The public will
continue to demand strong laws and vigilant
enforcement to assure them of a safe and
healthy environment.
Congress, EPA, and the States share equal
responsibility for providing a legal and
regulatory format to assure proper
management and disposal of hazardous and
municipal wastes. Through the cooperation
of regulated industries and concerned
citizens this problem can be brought under
control. D
The Effective Regulation of Hazardous Waste Continued
112 of the Clean Air Act, regulation of
hazardous air pollutants. The problems with
implementing this section were just as
pervasive under the Carter Administration as
they are under the Reagan Administration.
The EPA Air Office under the Carter Admin-
istration did not complain of a lack of funds,
and no one would question the desire of the
Agency to control hazardous air pollutants,
and yet very little has happened.
In my opinion, the problem exists in the
law itself. The definition of hazardous air
pollutant contained in Section 112(a)(1) is
long, convoluted and hinders decision-
making. Once the Administrator establishes
that a pollutant is "hazardous," it must be
"listed." Once listed, an emission standard
must be established.
The emission standard must be set at a
level that provides an "ample margin of
safety." This has been interpreted by many
commentators, including the General
Accounting Office, to mean a zero emissions
level. It would be impossible to economically
control stationary sources, especially existing
sources, to this level. Companies would go
out of business.
The complexity and rigidity of this section
has led EPA to the conclusion that it will be
very difficult to justify Section 112 standards
to the regulated community. The result is
that the Agency requires exhaustive health
effects data in support of a standard, and
this takes a great deal of time to compile.
While EPA moves to build a case that can
stand up in court, the health of the American
people may be adversely affected. The law,
therefore, hamstrings EPA, does not allow
any balancing of risks versus costs, costs
versus benefits, and the result is inaction.
Instead of giving EPA the flexibility to
regulate these pollutants appropriately based
on risk to health and cost of control,
Congress has placed an unreasonable burden
on the Agency.
Congress could greatly increase EPA's
budget for the regulation of hazardous
waste, and it would still be impossible for
the Agency to develop regulatory programs
to cover every detail specified in the pending
RCRA bills, within time frames allowed. It is
not easy to find new people with the
necessary scientific or technical background,
bring them on board and train them. All
budgets are by necessity limited, and any
organization must prioritize its activities. EPA
may soon be unable to do this efficiently.
This problem is magnified by the cumula-
tive effect of these numerous regulatory
requirements being mandated by Congress. I
am not opposed to the intent of most of the
various provisions of the pending RCRA bills,
but taken together these provisions result in
an overwhelming burden that will seriously
damage the Agency's ability to function.
And this is only one of the laws that the
Agency administers. If this trend continues in
other laws, EPA's top management will have
the same difficulty prioritizing activities
within the Agency as the Solid Waste Office
will have within its program area. EPA will be
pulled in different directions by different
interests, different Congressional
Committees, and Subcommittees. The ability
to address our most serious environmental
problems will be lost.
Unfortunately, recent controversies
surrounding EPA have put the Agency in the
limelight and caused many Members of
Congress to try to take more control over the..
regulatory functions delegated to it. The
American people want to see our hazardous '
waste problems resolved, but I strongly
believe that the cumulative effect of piling
one regulatory burden after another on EPA
guarantees failure. The health of our country's
citizens and the purity of our environment
will suffer needlessly as a result. D
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Enforcement
Drive
Mounts
By Tom Kelley
Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes into
the Nation's rivers and streams causes
severe problems
I llegal dumpers of hazardous wastes are
being investigated, charged and prosecuted
at a steadily increasing rate by both state
and federal enforcement departments. The
federal drive took on new emphasis with the
establishment of an investigation branch in
EPA's Criminal Enforcement Division in
October 1982.
In the fiscal year since then, 28
corporations and individuals have been
convicted in federal courts of environmental
c/imes, a dramatic increase from 11 in
FY 1980, nine in FY 1981 and 11 in FY
1982. Twenty-four other cases, including
fifteen involving illegal dumping of waste,
have been referred to the Justice Depart-
ment for prosecution and some 160 cases are
currently under investigation.
Courtney M. Price, EPA Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement, says the
rising enforcement rate reflects the recruit-
ment and assignment of 22 criminal inves-
tigators to EPA field offices. She says
indictments, grand jury investigations, and
convictions are at "historic highs" and as the
Agency gains experience the impact of the
program "can only increase."
Enforcement officials emphasize that most
hazardous and toxic materials are generated
by a relatively small number of manufacturers
and most of it—some 300 million tons a
year —remains under their control. The
remaining 150 million tons is disposed of as
waste but not all is of high toxicity. Du Pont
Company's Chambers Works Plant in Deep-
water, N.J., near Wilmington, Del., for
example, technically produced 40 million tons
of waste in 1981 (more than a quarter of all
industrial waste produced) but 99 percent of
it was water of low toxicity which had been
used in treating the material produced by the
manufacturing process to render it safe. The
remaining one percent included not only
basic toxins but also biological material,
carbon that was used to neutralize the toxins
and silt from the Delaware river.
Most hazardous wastes are generally and
legally disposed of either by injecting them
underground (some 57 percent) or in surface
pits, ponds or lagoons. Some are incinerated.
Recent experience has. shown that most
Tom Kelley is a well-known Washington area
free lance writer.
NOVEMBER 1983
-------
violators plead guilty when the cases against
them are properly prepared. The vast
majority of the toxic waste cases involve
polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly called
PCBs. Many of the violators now being
prosecuted in Federal courts are charged with
felonies, under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, (RCRA) rather than with
misdemeanors, the maximum permitted by
the Clean Water Act and the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
The longest jail term yet secured in a
Federal environmental prosecution resulted
from the conviction of Robert Earl "Buck"
Ward, of the Ward Transformer Company, in
the U.S. Court for the District of North
Carolina. Ward was sentenced to two-and-a-
half years in prison and a $200,000 fine.
Wa
I ard, who had contracted to dispose
of 7,500 gallons of oil containing PCBs in a
safe manner, disposed of it instead by
spraying it along 211 miles of highway in
fourteen rural North Carolina counties.
Three other precedent-making cases were
concluded in recent months. On May 10,
Vemon L. Baseman, President of Nuclear
Engineering Services, of Antigo, Wisconsin,
and David R. Faulkner, a company truck
driver, were indicted in United States Court
for the District of New Mexico for illegally
distributing PCB-contaminated oils. In 1981,
Nuclear Services had been awarded a
Department of Defense contract for the
removal and proper disposal of drums
containing waste oils contaminated with
PCBs from McClellan Air Force Base in
California. Under the contract the company
was required to incinerate the oil but instead
sold the waste to a dealer in Albuquerque.
Baseman pleaded guilty to two counts of
illegal distribution and on Sept. 16 was
sentenced to fines of $1,000 on each
count. Charges against Faulkner, the truck
driver, were dismissed with the provision that
the indictment could be reinstated should he
violate a one-year probation.
The case against Quality Research Labora-
tories, Inc., of Cornwells Heights, Pennsyl-
vania, followed a similar pattern. The
company, its president and principal owner,
Michael Yaron and his brother, Barak Yaron,
a plant foreman, were indicted on May 2 on
five counts of making false statements,
unpermitted storing and disposing of
hazardous substances, and failure to notify
of the release of a hazardous substance. The
wastes included 1-1-1 trichlorethane, toluene,
phenol, cresol, corrosive acids, benzene,
xylene and methylene chloride.
The company and the Yaron brothers
pleaded guilty to a variety of charges on
Aug. 17. The company and Michael Yaron
both admitted to disposing of hazardous
wastes without a permit under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Michael
Yaron also pleaded guilty to two mis-
demeanors, submitting false information under
RCRA and failing to report the release of
hazardous substances.
Barak Yaron pleaded guilty to one
misdemeanor for failure to notify of a release
of a hazardous substance. The company and
Michael Yaron also agreed to pay a private
company to clean up the site in a manner
approved by EPA. On Sept. 26 the company
was fined $10,000 and Michael Yaron was
fined $15,000 and given six months in jail.
Barak Yaron was fined $5,000 and placed on
probation for two years.
The case against the A. C. Lawrence
Leather Company of Danvers, Mass, involved
the direct defrauding of the EPA as well as
the illegal dumping of hazardous wastes.
This case was cited by Judson W. Starr,
director of the Justice Department's new
environmental crimes unit, as particularly
deserving of criminal sanctions. It resulted in
two separate indictments under the Clean Air
Act, Superfund, RCRA and related legisla-
tion. The company and five executives were
fined a total of $475,920 after a jury
conviction and several pleas of guilty.
The company had received nearly $250,000
in grants from the Environmental Protection
Agency between 1977 and 1981 to conduct a
study to help establish "reasonable" methods
for disposing of the toxic wastes produced in
treating leather. Following a six-week trial, a
jury convicted the company of defrauding the
government by filing false reports with the
government while they were, in fact,
dumping the waste from their tannery at
Winchester, N.H., directly into an adjacent
river. EPA found the study was worthless.
I hree of the defendants, Weymouth E.
Marshall, the company president; Robert F.
Goodspeed, the vice president; and Francis
E. Stone, manager of the tannery, also
pleaded guilty to a second indictment
charging them with burying more than 1,000
leaking barrels of perchloroethylene on the
grounds of the Winchester plant. The
chemical, a degreasing solvent used in
preparing sheepskin hides, is suspected of
being a cancer-causing agent.
During sentencing proceedings, Starr, the
chief prosecutor, told the court that Marshall
and Goodspeed were the persons "most
responsible" for the crimes and asked that
they be sent to prison.
The company was fined $388,420 by
Federal District Judge Martin F. Loughlin,
more than half of which was for the repay-
ment of the study grants. Marshall, of
Glouster, Mass., was fined $15,000 and
given a one-year suspended sentence on
condition that he perform "community
service" while under two years probation.
Goodspeed, of Northhampton, N.H., was
fined $22,500, given a suspended sentence
of one-year, and placed on two-years
probation.
Francis E. Stone, of Swanzey, N.H.,
manager of the tannery, was fined $27,500,
given a one-year suspended sentence and
required to perform "community service" for
two years while on probation.
Richard S. Johnson, also of Swanzey, the
plant superintendent, was fined $25,000, and
was also given a suspended one-year
sentence and put on probation for two years.
Lawrence K. Barber, of Waynesville, N.C.,
the tannery's former engineering director,
was fined $17,500 and given a suspended
five-year sentence and put on probation for
two years.
Federal enforcement efforts are coordi-
nated with increased enforcement by the
states. Eleven states in the northeast
exchange information on violations through a
Hazardous Waste Coordinating Committee
and most of the eleven are developing their
own investigating apparatuses.
In Massachusetts, prosecutors have estab-
lished a link between some of the men
convicted and organized crime. The
Massachusetts Attorney General's office
recently prosecuted its first case involving
organized crime figures.
A
Plymouth Superior Court Judge sen-
tenced eight defendants in a case involving
the transporting of 850 drums of poisonous
waste in 1980. The Samson Tank Cleaning
Co., of Bayonne, N.J., had contracts with
several New Jersey chemcial companies.
Edward F. McLaughlin, Massachusetts
Assistant Attorney General, said officials had
assumed that illegal dumping was being
conducted locally by relatively small
operators but have found evidence that
organized crime is now frequently involved.
McLaughiin told the Boston Globe that
illegal dumping can be "extremely rewarding.
. . . You can make $5,000 to $10,000 a day
and that's what makes it attractive to
organized crime."
The New Jersey case developed after
State investigators found a prescription
medicine bottle in a pile of hazardous waste.
The bottle was traced to a woman who lived
in a housing project in Plymouth. The
project's trash was picked up by the John
Albert Company, a local firm.
The leaking barrels of highly flammable
chemicals were traced to a New Jersey
manufacturer who had paid the Samson
Tank company to dispose of it. The investi-
gators arranged for a federal wiretap on
Samson and found that John Albert, the
firm's head, was the "kingpin" of an
interstate dumping operation. Samson
brought the waste to Plymouth, Kingston,
Middleborough and Halifax, all in Massa-
chusetts. The John Albert Company then
dumped it in remote places. Albert was
indicted and pleaded guilty to conspiring to
dispose of hazardous waste illegally. He was
fined $5,000 and given a three-year sus-
pended sentence. McLaughlin said his office
agreed to the suspension because Albert is
already under a five-year sentence in New
York for truck hijacking and will begin a two-
year sentence for dealing in drugs.
Richard French, of Lewiston, Me., who
was described as the go-between for the
New Jersey operator and the John Albert
Company, also pleaded guilty and was given
a suspended sentence of two years. He had
already been convicted and jailed on a
separate charge of illegal dumping. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The
Rrst Five
Cleanups
By Carl Gagliardi
w
(Carl Gagliardi is an EPA Headquarters Press
Officer)
hen EPA formally removed the first five
waste sites from the Superfund's National
Priority List on December 20, 1982, it put
behind it the first lessons in how to use the
program.
The variety of EPA's approaches to clean-
ing up these sites illustrates some patterns
public officials will see again as the Agency
tackles the problem of cleaning up the 546
sites now on the National Priority List.
A report on the corrective actions taken at
the first five Superfund remedial sites
removed from the list follows:
A State Takes the Lead:
Luminous Processes, Georgia
One of the first hazardous waste sites
cleaned up under the Superfund program
was an abandoned watchmaking factory
labeled the "most radioactive waste site in
Georgia." At one point, the EPA said the
radioactive waste at this site was "relatively
uncontrolled," and Georgia officials were
saying the contamination had spread off the
site.
Luminous Processes, a defunct manufac-
turing facility four miles west of Athens,
Georgia, employed about a dozen people
until it ceased manufacturing around July
1978. The company painted glow-in-the-dark
watch and clock dials with the radioactive
isotopes radium 226 and tritium.
Luminous Processes started operating in
1952 and was originally licensed by the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). When
Georgia received authority from the AEC to
issue licenses for the uses of certain radio-
active material in 1969 (then one of 25 states
authorized by the AEC to do so), responsi-
bility for regulation of the company was
delegated to the state's Department of
Health Resources (DHR).
In August 1977, Luminous Processes
applied to the department to renew its license
to use radioactive material at its facility. Three
months later, the state sent officials of the
department and the state's Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to visit the facility.
The division inspectors, wearing protective
clothing, conducted a detailed survey. They
found traces of radioactive contamination
both inside and outside the facility. In March
1978, Department of Health Resources
officials and officials of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission inspected the site and
found 20 violations of the state's health
rules and regulations.
Later that year. Luminous Processes told
the health officials that it was going to stop
all its activities at the Athens plant. State
officials told the company that it would have
to amend its permit before it could decon-
taminate the plant property and that the
company should submit a plan to do so.
In April 1979, the Department of Health
Resources issued the amended permit.
Luminous Processes hired contractors to
decontaminate the property by removing
radioactive dirt, along with the buildings and
other structures. But the cleanup was stalled
when Luminous Processes defaulted on its
payments to the contractor. The company
hired another contractor but again defaulted,
leaving the job unfinished. Luminous
Processes later went bankrupt, leaving the
public with the cost of clean up.
Left on the site when Luminous Processes
went out of business were a septic tank and
barrels of radioactive earth dug up from the
field where the tank had drained. They were
left above ground and unguarded. A few
nuclear warning symbols on the barrels and a
cordon of rope were all that stood between
the radioactive waste and potential
trespassers.
Georgia Governor George Busbee formed
a task force of state agencies to seek EPA's
help and to begin legal proceedings against
two companies—Luminous Processes and
Radium Chemical Co. of Woodside, N.Y.—
and seven individuals for violating Georgia's
Radiation Control Act. The suit called for
$750,000 in actual damages and $5 million in
punitive damages. Governor Busbee then
asked EPA to provide financial assistance
under the Superfund program. The Luminous
site was nominated as Georgia's number one
priority, and the state requested funding for
a planned removal.
EPA identified the site on the Interim
National Priority list of 115 sites published in
October 1981. It was the only Georgia site on
that list.
NOVEMBER 1983
-------
While waiting for financial assistance from
EPA, the state task force completed detailed
studies of the site and prepared a decontami-
nation plan. Based on this plan, the state
attorney general's staff asked contractors to
submit estimates for removing radioactive
material on the site and transporting it to a
buna! facility outside of Georgia. For the time
being, the Department of Health Resources
erected a fence around the closed watch
factory to keep people from wandering onto
the site.
In January 1982, EPA completed its review
of all the information on Luminous Processes
submitted by the state, and the agency
allocated the necessary fiscal year 1982
federal funds ($700,000) for remedial plan-
ning and cleanup of the site. Georgia agreed
to take the lead in the project. Under a
cooperative agreement between the state
and EPA, Georgia committed money for its
10 percent share of the project.
In April 1982, EPA and the state signed a
cooperative agreement, under which EPA
provided $731,629 and the state paid
$81,292, 10 percent of the total cost. Later
that month, the governor signed it.
After advertising for bids, Georgia signed a
contract with O.H. Materials Co. of Findlay,
Ohio, to remove and dispose of the radio-
active material. Work began in June 1982.
Later, the state amended the contract to
include disposal of additional soil and of
contaminated materials inside the building.
Excavated areas were filled with dirt, and the
topsoil was revegetated. Over 18,000 cubic
feet of radioactive material in 2,400 drums
were removed and shipped to a licensed
radioactive waste disposal site in Richland,
Washington. O.H. Materials completed its
job in a little more than a month at a cost of
$754,394—$58,527 below the estimated
$812,921.
For the EPA, the cleanup of the Luminous
Processes site represented a number of firsts
in the development of the complex Superfund
program: it was one of the first sites in the
nation where remedial activities were com-
pleted, and it was the first involving cleanup
of low-level radioactive materials under the
Superfund. More important, the site had
been rendered harmless. Gov. Busbee
thanked EPA for "excellent financial and
technical assistance." And the Athens
Banner-Herald called the Luminous Processes
site cleanup a "testimony to the value of the
Federal Superfund."
EPA Takes Over:
Chemical Minerals
Reclamation Co., Ohio
In one of the worst hazardous waste sites in
Ohio, more than 2,000 drums of organic
solvents, paints, resins and pesticides were
stored haphazardly in and around a ware-
house building which was in danger of
collapsing. Much of this material was highly
flammable, creating a fire and explosion
threat, as well as a threat to anyone who
came in direct contact with the release of
vapors or runoff.
Chemical Minerals, an inactive reclamation,
recycling and warehousing facility, is situated
along the banks of the Cuyahoga River in
Cleveland, Ohio. Rodney Cronin, who
operated the company, leased the property
from the Plain Dealer Publishing Company.
The first drums of hazardous waste were
brought to the site in 1979, when the Plain
Dealer Publishing Co. was ordered by the
federal district court to clean up another one
of its sites in the Cleveland area. A U.S.
marshall looked on as the drums were moved
to the Chemical Minerals site.
Later that year, EPA sued the owners, and
a court issued a temporary restraining order
and a final court order that gave the agency
the authority to remove the hazardous
wastes and charge the costs to the owners.
In July 1979, the owners began cleaning
up the site, but on July 2 the following year,
a fire swept through a four-story warehouse
on the site, sending thick black smoke over
the West Side Cleveland neighborhood.
Eight people were treated after inhaling the
smoke, and Cronin was forced to shut down
the site.
Six 3,500-gallon vats and 2,000 drums
remained on the site. On February 27, the
U.S. Coast Guard, working under authority
of the Clean Water Act, was called in to
remove several hundred of the leaky drums
to prevent the hazardous waste within from
running off into the Cuyahoga River. Then,
the site was turned over to EPA for Super-
fund action, and it was one of those listed
when the agency's Interim Priority List was
published in 1981.
In November 1981, Cleveland's air pollution
commissioner discovered that vandals had
broken into the warehouse and tipped over
several drums. Worse still, he found that
teenagers were breaking through the con-
crete caps on drums containing toluene and
benzene and were inhaling the fumes. In the
wake of these discoveries, authorities began
calling for a quicker cleanup.
On November 20, 1981, EPA approved the
use of $455,000 from Superfund—in addition
to $10,000 in Coast Guard money already
spent—to remove and dispose of all the
drums and the sludges in the vats. EPA
sampling revealed that six of the drums
contained oil contaminated with polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs).
The first step in the cleanup process was
to separate all the drums into compatible
groups and to bulk them together to make
disposal easier. All the liquid wastes were
incinerated at the Rollins Environmental
Services facility in Bridgeport, N.J. All solid
wastes and sludges were solidified and land-
filled. All told, more than 25,000 gallons of
organic liquids and 4,000 gallons of inorganic
liquids from vats and drums were removed
from the site. A total of 1,600 drums were
disposed of as weli.
By May 25, 1982, EPA's removal action
was completed. The city of Cleveland
demolished the warehouse and removed its
remains. Since the site was free of contami-
nants, it was taken off the National Priorities
List.
Voluntary Cleanup:
Walcott Chemical Warehouses,
Mississippi
Until the early 1960s, the Walcott Chemical
Company operated a fertilizer mixing plant in
two warehouses in Greenville, Mississippi.
The owner closed and abandoned the prop-
erty, and because the owner was delinquent
in paying taxes, the site became the property
of the state. In one warehouse, drums, bins
and bags containing mineral spirits, formic
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Abandoned radioactive watchmaking factor/ near Athens, GA.
NOVEMBER 1983
11
-------
acid, nitrates and caustics were found in
various stages of deterioration. Several large
tanks outside the facility were filled with
unknown materials.
The site, which is in a residential area and
is close to several businesses, showed no
evidence of either ground or surface water
contamination caused by materials that had
been spilled on warehouse floors or soil
surrounding the warehouses.
However, in April 1981 the Greenville Fire
Department filed a complaint against the ware-
houses with the Mississippi Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR). After investi-
gating the site, the department found 168
drums of chemicals in the warehouses.
In July 1981, the Mississippi Department
asked EPA's Region 4 office to inspect the ware-
houses. EPA's Field Investigation Team started
collecting samples of the materials on the site
on July 12, and the agency turned them over
to the state for analysis.
That same month, the state designated
Walcott Warehouses as its top priority
hazardous waste site under the Superfund
program. Because of the potential for fire or
explosion near a residential area, the site was
included on EPA's first list of 115 top priority
Superfund sites.
From the beginning, state officials took the
lead in cleaning up the site. After looking at
the site's field investigation reports, they
decided that the best way to clean it up
would be to remove the materials.
The state determined that Illinois Central
Gulf Railroad owned the land on which the
warehouses were built and had leased the
land to Walcott Chemical, which had since
gone out of business. After lengthy negotia-
tions, the railroad agreed to clean up the
site.
On May 3, 1981, the company's contractor,
Modern Petroleum Technology, a Laurel,
Mississippi firm, began removing drums from
the warehouse, storing the chemicals in new
drums and removing the material from the
site. The railroad arranged to transport some
of the materials to companies that could use
them. Some of the chemicals were not con-
taminated with hazardous waste, and these
were stored at local landfills.
A State's Call for Help:
Chemical Metals,
Maryland
The Chemical Metals Industries site in
Maryland is actually two sites in a neighbor-
hood in South Baltimore separated by a
series of row houses. Chemicals, including
cyanide, ammonia compounds, acids,
caustics and heavy metal salts, were leaking
onto the ground from more than 1,500
plastic and metal 55-gallon drums in various
stages of deterioration. One large pile of
drums was actually stacked up against the
outside of one of the row houses. Maryland
state inspectors found nine above ground
tanks, seven of which were filled with
unknown wastes.
On one site stood a processing plant; on
the other was a storage facility. In between
were the residents of the block of row
houses—mostly elderly—who complained
that chemical spills burned children and
released fumes so intense they could not
open their windows. Some residents com-
plained to EPA officials that the sneakers of
children who played in the neighborhood
were slowly being eaten away by the pooled
chemicals.
The chemicals were leaking into the
ground with each rainfall. Agency officials
warned that the chemicals, if mixed, could
cause an explosion and fire or could be
washed into nearby Gwynn Falls, which
drain into Baltimore Harbor. And, when the
air around the site was monitored, it was
found that low concentrations of hydrogen
cyanide and other organic vapors toxic to
humans were drifting away from the site.
Despite these complaints, Chemical Metals
continued to operate its facility without the
necessary permits. After one of Chemical
Metal's creditors filed a $10,000 suit against
the company in April 1981, it was placed in
receivership. In a routine inspection of the
site in August 1981, a state inspector dis-
covered that the facility had been abandoned.
State officials, concerned with the safety
of the residents in the nearby row houses
and fearful that more contaminants were
stored underground, called for federal help,
citing their lack of resources to handle these
hazardous wastes.
In September 1981, the Coast Guard
installed fences, removed flammable trash
and installed sorbent barriers (barriers
designed to restrict the spread of wastes
while absorbing some portion of them). On
October 9, 1981, responsibility for the
cleanup of the site shifted to EPA, clearing
the way for the agency to use Superfund
money for the rest of the cleanup. Maryland
designated Chemical Metals its number one
priority for cleanup, and EPA placed the site
on the Interim National Priority List as one of
the top 100. Chemical Metals would be the
first site in Maryland cleaned up under the
Superfund program.
EPA's on-scene coordinator determined
that the threat to nearby residents could be
removed within a week by sampling, analyz-
ing, categorizing and finally disposing of all
the wastes at the worst of the two proper-
ties, the processing plant. And the storage
facility could be rendered harmless by
securing the drums and assuring the integrity
of the storage and process tanks, including
removing the liquids leaking from deteriorated
tanks. In all, these measures would cost
$58,000.
After EPA issued a demand that the
owners—who were assigned as receivers of
Chemical Metals Industries—pay for the
cleanup, the agency signed a contract with
J&L Industries to serve as the prime cleanup
contractor. Maryland contributions covered
laboratory work, technical support and
oversight.
The contractor began removing the drums
on October 21, 1981, and the removal
proceeded normally for two days, when
potentially explosive zirconium was dis-
covered at one location. EPA set aside more
cleanup funds' to remove the explosive
materials, pump hazardous waste from the
underground storage tanks, remove contami-
nated soil and debris and install and sample
monitoring wells to check for groundwater
contamination. Parts of the site were also
capped and seeded.
By the time the work was finished on
November 25, over 19,500 gallons of bulk
liquids were removed from underground
storage tanks, and 30,000 pounds of salvage-
able scrap metal and 1,561 drums were
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
removed. EPA spent a total of $205,000 in
Superfund money, with the remainder of the
$346,000 cost for the cleanup coming from
Baltimore and the state of Maryland. The
receivers for Chemical Metals reported to
EPA that no funds were available to help pay
for the cleanup from the insolvent company.
Federal and State Agencies
Join Forces:
Butler Mine Tunnel, Pennsylvania
Wheo, on July 29, 1979, an oil spill into the
Susquehanna River at Pittston, Pennsylvania,
was reported to the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources (PADER),
state officials began looking for the source of
the spill. They traced it to an alleged illegal
dumping of millions of gallons of toxic waste
and oil into an abandoned coal mine through
a borehole three and a half miles inland from
the river. The wastes had worked their way
through the abandoned mine and out the
Butler tunnel into the river, which was a
source of drinking water for Danville and a
popular river for recreation. Toxic waste was
being discharged from the tunnel at a rate of
1,000 gallons a day.. Department of Environ-
mental Resources officials found several
cancer-causing substances in the waste oil,
including dichlorobenzene. Later, cyanide
compounds were also found in the spilled
waste.
Pennsylvania asked EPA to help stop the
discharge. The agency's on-scene coordina-
tor investigated Butler Tunnel on July 31,
1979, using funds under the Clean Water
Act. EPA concluded that sorbent booms and
filter fences should be installed at the site
immediately, that the oil should be sampled
to identify the chemicals in the spill and that
the oil should be recovered and temporarily
stored on the site until they chose the best
way to dispose of or treat it.
The samples showed the oil contained
sludge, aromatics, phenols, alkyl resins,
hydrocarbons and other chemical com-
pounds. EPA closed the affected area of the
river to the public and began looking for the
source of the discharge. It was critical that
the source be found as soon as possible,
since the flow of waste into the river was
continuing.
On July 31, the on-scene coordinator sent
a cleanup contractor to the site, and EPA's
Environmental Response Team was sent to the
area the next day. By the time the discharge
was controlled, 18 federal, state and local
agencies and 27 contractors had been
involved.
Beside using sorbent booms and filter
fences to control the discharge, the agency
erected security fences at the Butler Mine
Tunnel and tested the air when it was dis-
covered that potentially explosive and
flammable vapors were coming from the
waste. Booms were placed downstream from
the point where the oil was discharged to
. divert the floating oil, which had flowed 35
miles downstream, back to the river bank,
. where it could be removed from the river.
By August 10, the flow of oil was
restricted to an area just a half a mile down-
stream from the tunnel.
In mid-October, the on-site coordinator,
who was continuing the Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources investigation into the
dumping of toxic waste into the Butler Mine,
turned up evidence that several thousand
gallons of cyanide waste had been injected
into the mine through the boreholes. EPA
officials were afraid the chemical would mix
with acidic mine water to form hydrogen
cyanide gas, which could seep through the
boreholes. This discovery led federal and
state officials to shift their priorities and open
up a second phase of the cleanup effort: to
make sure the public's health was not
affected by cyanide gas.
For the next few weeks, a team of EPA
contractors, dressed in special suits,
uncapped each borehole and tested for
traces of the gas. After they sampled and
monitored hundreds of such boreholes, they
found evidence of the gas in only six of
them, and those samples showed only low
levels of the gas. This led them to the
conclusion that most of the cyanide had
left the mine already.
Once the agency was certain that no
cyanide gas was trapped in the Butler Mine
Tunnel, the only major problem left was to
find a way to stop the globs or large single
discharges of oil waste from escaping the
tunnel into the river. Two such discharges
had taken place in September 1979 and
March 1980, making it clear to EPA officials
that something long-term would have to be
done to control these chronic discharges.
After studying the problem, EPA in Decem-
ber 1980 had an automated containment
device and monitoring system installed in the
mine tunnel at its discharge point in the
Susquehanna. Although there have been no
other discharges, the state has maintained
this equipment ever since.
The cleanup of.the ButleHVIine'Tunnel and
the Susquehanna.recovered 61,000 gallons
of oily was^e and tested 247 boreholes. The
Department of Environmental Resources
turned up evidence that the waste was
disposed of by a ring of illegal dumpers from
several states. They suspected this ring of
dumping up to two million gallons of oil and
chemicals a month by injecting.them into the
old coal shafts through one of the boreholes
above the mine.
Those suspected of the illegal dumping
were put under surveillance by the depart-
ment, and they were the subject of a grand
jury investigation. Pennsylvania issued an
administrative order to a suspected polluter
in August 1979. Several polluters later were
convicted in state courts. They received
sentences ranging from stiff fines to up to 20
years in jail.
The federal share of the cleanup—$2.2
million-- was paid for entirely by Clean
Water Act funds before the Superfund Act
became law. But the site was included on
the list of 115 Interim National Priority sites,
because it was uncertain whether the
Butler Tunnel was still a danger to the
environment. When it was clear that the site
was cleaned up, it was removed from the
list. D
NOVEMBER 1983
13
-------
Making the Superfund List
By David Cohen
J ust before the Labor Day weekend, EPA
Assistant Administrator Lee M. Thomas,
speaking before a packed press conference
at the Agency's Waterside Mall Headquarters,
described a major step forward taken under
the Superfund program to abate problems
posed by abandoned hazardous waste sites
around the country: EPA proposed that an
additional 133 such waste sites be added to
its National Priorities List, bringing the full
complement of sites on that list to 546.
"The sites appearing on the list become
immediate candidates for fund-financed long-
term cleanup efforts," Thomas said. "They
also become priority targets for private-party
cleanup efforts through enforcement actions
by states and EPA. We can now begin to
take the steps at these new sites which
ultimately will abate the dangers they pose."
Once site selection for the priorities list has
been made, the necessary investigations and
engineering studies for cleanups at the
nation's worst sites which demand long range
—or remedial—action can be worked out in
conjunction with state governments. Action
can occur through direct federal contracts,
cooperative agreements under which states
take the lead, and private-party cleanups
based on voluntary or court-ordered actions.
Thomas warned that the expansion of
the list "does not mean that bulldozers will
be pulling up at the new sites tomorrow to
complete cleanup. There is no quick fix to
problems of this magnitude and complexity."
He noted that one of the lessons EPA has
learned in its efforts to clean up abandoned
sites under Superfund was that problems
must be properly assessed. "Development of
field and feasibility studies, monitoring and
sampling, geologic and hydrologic determina-
tions, and construction and disposal plans
are all part of a time-consuming process," he
said, "but they are essential for assuring that
legal requirements are fulfilled and that
construction and other actions are successful
in abating hazards. We continue to expand
the state of the art in a field of engineering
that's in its infancy."
(Cohen is an EPA Headquarters Public
Affairs Officer)
EPA is not limited to long-term actions
under Superfund, Thomas added. The
Agency is authorized to take immediate
actions—called removal or emergency actions
— to prevent site conditions from deteriorat-
ing or to prevent direct public contact with
hazardous substances at the priority sites.
EPA has initiated 189 of these removals
which can be authorized at both priority list
sites and sites not listed on the National
Priorities List. Some 59 sites on the priority
list have required emergency removal actions.
Under the new expansion, Nebraska and
Nevada are the only states which do not
have a site on the priority list. New Jersey
has the most sites with a total of 85.
Michigan is next with 48 sites, then
Pennsylvania with 39, and New York and
Florida with 29 each. The heaviest
concentration of abandoned waste problems,
according to the list, occurs in a belt of
states stretching from Minnesota to New
York across the northeastern part of the
country. Across the southern border, Florida
(29 sites), Texas (11), and California (19)
contributed the greatest numbers to the list.
The National Priorities List is compiled
primarily from a scoring system called the
Hazardous Ranking System, designed to help
evaluate the relative risk to public health
and the environment posed by inactive or
abandoned hazardous waste sites. Candi-
dates for the list are proposed by the states
and EPA regional offices and selected strictly
on the basis of scores, with the exception
that each state is allowed to designate one
top priority site.
The ranking system considers pollution
from abandoned sites via three pathways—
air, groundwater, and surface water—which
are measured for potential impacts. Fire,
explosion hazards, and the possibility of
people coming into direct contact with
contaminants receive separate evaluations for
possible emergency-response actions.
Of great interest at the press conference
was an answer given by Thomas which
seemed to re-open a subject that former EPA
Administrator Anne Burford tried to close
last December when the first 419 sites on the
list were proposed. Burford said then that
she felt that reauthorization of Superfund
after 1985 would not be necessary. When
asked about reauthorizing the fund, Thomas
replied, "The issue of reauthorizing Superfund
is one that the current Administrator and I,
along with others in the Agency, are now
reviewing. We have a task group that is
looking at where we've come with the Super-
fund Program and projections for the future.
I think we will be in a position to draw
conclusions and make recommendations by
the first of the year."
Thomas was also asked if the "political
and administrative turmoil" in the Superfund
program before he took over has had any
great effect. His answer: "I think it has had
some fairly significant impacts. It's had an
impact in that we probably have more
funding than we thought we were going to
have for the upcoming year. It's had an
impact in that I spend a lot of my time
testifying before congressional committees.
It's had an impact in that I spend a lot of
time talking with the press. It's had an
impact in that I think we took a really
thorough look at the Superfund program as
far as our regulations and the progress we
were making under the fund. And it's had an
impact on a lot of the people who work in
the program. These people work very, very
hard and, I think, many of them got painted
by a broad brush. These people are making
good headway in a very difficult and
complex program, and I think that has not
come out clearly."
Two proposed modifications to the priority
list process also were announced during the
press conference. First, states will be able to
flag sites where direct contact with hazardous
materials poses a special threat. A toxic
waste found in the soil could present such a
case, for example.
Second, federal facilities with hazardous
waste problems will be added to the priority
list at the next updating in order to focus
attention on the worst sites, although such
facilities are ineligible for fund-financed
action.
Both of these actions will require an
14
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Location by EPA regional boundaries of the
14,100 hazardous waste generators known
to be operating in 1981 the latest year for
which complete national data are available.
Region 5, with headquarters in Chicago, had
the largest number of generators—3,240.
330
240
13240
1660
1990
I
1430
3-
1830
1240
1400
4
amendment to the National Contingency
Plan, which prescribes general methods for
addressing abandoned site problems under
Superfund.
Superfund itself was authorized by
Congress in December 1980 with passage of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. The statute
authorizes a trust fund which is to accrue to
$1.6 billion by 1985, with roughly 86 percent
of that amount coming from taxes on
hazardous waste generators and handlers
and 14 percent coming from federal
revenues. Besides making funds available for
direct federal cleanup, the statute also
empowers the government to compel private
parties responsible for the site to take
cleanup action. This authority also may be
used to require cleanup at sites not on the
priority list. Under the law, EPA must update
the priority list at least one time each year.
Thus far, five site restorations have been
completed under the lengthy, complex and
expensive procedures required for long-term,
remedial cleanups.
According to Thomas, "The update we've
announced should add to the growing
momentum in the Superfund program. Such
measures are aimed at hastening the time
when the numbers of sites cleaned up is
greater than new site additions." D
NOVEMBER 1983
15
-------
An Overview on Dioxin
By Donald Barnes
(Excerpts from testimony before th«
Subcommittee on Natural Resources,
Agricultural Research and Environment of
the House Committee on Science and
Technology, June 30, 1983)
IVly testimony this morning focuses on
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-
TCDD), what is generally considered to be
the most toxic of the 75 chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins (CDDs). Although other CDDs are
present in the environment and are being
addressed, most public attention is being
focused on this particular dioxin. My remarks
are divided into three sections. In the first, I
will briefly describe some of the situations in
which EPA has been involved with 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in the environment. Next, I will
discuss the data and the methods we have
used to assess the potential for human
health effects in these cases. Finally, I will
describe some of the gaps in our knowledge
about 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the research that
would help fill those gaps.
EPA first became aware of the hazards
associated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD through
laboratory animal studies conducted in the
1960s and early 1970s. At that time, the
scope of the Agency's "dioxin problem" was
defined by the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD as
an unavoidable contaminant in certain
pesticide products. During the 1970s, the
Agency took action to restrict the use of
certain of these pesticide products and to
obtain more information about the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and analytical methods for
detecting its presence in the environment.
Some of these efforts involved extensive
cooperation between EPA, various academic
institutions and environmental groups, other
Federal agencies, and industry. By the end
of the decade, this cooperative venture had
succeeded in developing a reliable method to
detect TCDD in some media in the low parts
per trillion range. (One part per trillion is
roughly equivalent to the thickness of a
human hair compared to the distance across
the United States.)
Donald Barnes is Science Advisor to the
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and
Toxic Substances. He has been chairman
since 1980 of EPA's Chlorinated Dioxins
Work Group, which has been assisting in
the coordination of EPA's involvement in
dioxin-related matters. Barnes has also
been EPA's representative on the Cabinet
Council's Agent Orange Work Group.
In 1979, based on extensive animal data
and epidemiologic information, the Agency
took emergency action to suspend certain
uses of 2,4,5-T and Silvex, two pesticide
products which contain 2,3,7,8-TCDD. That
ban remains in effect at this time.
Also in the late 1970s, the Agency took
action in connection with a series of
dumpsites along the Niagara River in New
York, some of which were found to contain
2,3,7,8-TCDD wastes. These wastes were
found along with a range of other hazardous
substances which had resulted from previous
manufacturing operations in the area. During
the same time period, the Agency provided
technical assistance in the successful cleanup
of a smaller dioxin-contaminated dumpsite in
Missouri.
By 1979, the possibility of a range of
dioxin emissions from combustion processes
had become an issue. During this period, the
Agency carefully investigated the question of
the emission of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, other TCDD
isomers, and tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans
(TCDFs) during the combustion of polychlori-
nated biphenyls (PCBs) at two hazardous
waste incinerators in the midwest.
In 1980 and 1981, the Agency participated
on a United States team, headed by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which
met with Canadian officials to determine the
presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish in the Great
Lakes, assess the significance of these
findings, and discuss ways to reduce or
remove any sources of contamination.
In 1980, the Agency issued a rule that
requires 60-day notification to EPA prior to
the disposal of most 2,3,7,8-TCDD contami-
nated manufacturing wastes. This 60-day
period gives the Agency the opportunity to
assess the risks associated with the proposed
disposal and to take action if those risks are
judged too unreasonable.
In 1981, furthering its assessment of the
emissions from combustion processes, EPA
completed a series of studies of TCDD
emissions during the combustion of
municipal wastes. TCDDs, including small
amounts of 2,3,7/8-TCDD, were detected at
four of five facilities sampled. An interim
evaluation of the significance of these TCDD
emissions for human health was issued in
November 1981, and it was concluded that
the emissions "do not present a public health
hazard for residents living in the immediate
vicinity" of the facilities tested.
More recently, the Agency has been active
in identifying sites in several states,
predominantly in Missouri, which have been
contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a
consequence of manufacturing activities or
the injudicious disposition of wastes.
Finally, 1 would like to mention that an
EPA Task Force on Dioxins, with representa-
tives from several program offices, is
currently developing an overall strategy
which will recommend specific actions and
coordination mechanisms to address the
wide range of dioxin questions. The top
management at EPA now has this strategy
under review.
I have included this chronology neither to
seek commendation nor to evoke sympathy,
but rather to illustrate that the Agency is no
stranger to 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the challenge
it presents to those required to make
decisions regarding unreasonable risks to
human health and the environment.
The data base on 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity is
extensive, but certainly not exhaustive. Much
of what we know has been obtained from
animal studies. For example, we know that
the material is lethai to a variety of animal
species when administered in single, small
doses (less than a millionth of a gram in
some species). We know that there is a
1000-fold range of toxic response among
various species in these lethality studies. We
know that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is carcinogenic in
rats and mice at very low doses (via both
ingestion and dermal absorption), resulting in
a variety of tumors in these animals. We
know that, as a carcinogen, it can at least
behave as a promoter, a compound capable
of eliciting frank carcinogenesis in animals
which have been previously exposed to other
carcinogens, and as a cocarcinogen. We
know that the compound can interfere with
reproductive success in females, especially
pregnant ones, of several species (including
rats, mice, rabbits, and monkeys), often at
very low doses. We know that the material
can affect elements of the immune system
in test animals. In addition, there are a
16
EPAJOURNAL
-------
number of other effects which have been
observed, including organ damage (for
example, to the liver and thymus), metabolic
disruptions, and significant enzymatic
changes.
In the area of human health effects, our
folder of known information is somewhat
slimmer. This is partially due to the fact that
most human data are obtained from occupa-
tional exposure and industrial accidents. In
these cases, it has been difficult to estimate
the level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure in
individual cases or to distinguish the effect of
concommitant exposure to other chemicals.
In any event, there is general agreement in
the scientific community that chloracne, a
persistent, acne-like condition which can be
disfiguring but which is not life-threatening,
is associated with persons acutely exposed
to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Chloracne can also be
evoked by a number of chlorinated hydro-
carbon chemicals in addition to 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. Other effects which have been
associated with these exposure incidents,
and which are generally considered to be
short-term, include liver dysfunction, effects
on the immune system, and various
neurological complaints.
A series of reports has associated human
exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD-containing
chemicals and a rare form of cancer, soft
tissue sarcoma. This possible link was first
reported in a pair of studies of Swedish
workers, and additional, but not definitive,
support for the association was found by
re-assessing studies completed here in the
United States, in which isolated cases of soft
tissue sarcomas have been found in 2,3,7,8-
TCDD exposed populations. However, other
studies both here and abroad have failed to
confirm this association. This possible
association is being explored in a number of
current or planned studies by various
government agencies.
In considering risk, one must remember
that it is a function of two variables:
hazard and exposure. A reduction in the size
of either variable will result in a comparable
reduction in risk. For example, even the most
hazardous substance will be of no risk, if its
exposure to people and the environment can
be reduced to zero. In evaluating risk, the
Agency combines hazard information (data
on inherent toxicity) and exposure data to
arrive at quantitative estimates of risk. To
illustrate, I will briefly discuss how the
Agency assesses carcinogenic and repro-
ductive effects.
The Agency assesses the excess risk of
cancer using the methods of the Cancer
Assessment Group (CAG), whose guidelines
were published in 1976. Briefly, the Agency
first examines the data base to make a
determination as to whether the chemical
substance is a carcinogen. In addition to the
qualitative question, a quantitative extrapola-
tion to low environmental doses is performed
in order to estimate a rough upper bound for
the risk, using a linear, non-threshold
procedure. This presumes that the initiation
of cancer is a non-threshold phenomenon;
that is, there is some risk, perhaps very
small, at any exposure above zero. In the
case of 2,3,7,8-TCDD the Agency has based
its quantitative analysis primarily on the
linerarized, multi-stage extrapolation model,
although several others have also been used
on occasion. It should be pointed out that
these procedures result not in an absolute
prediction of the risk, but rather a "ballpark"
estimate of the upper limit of risk which we
do not believe will be exceeded. The actual
risk is likely to be some value less than this
upper limit, possibly zero. These extrapola-
tion procedures indicated that 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was quite potent compared to many other
carcinogens evaluated using the same
techniques.
NOVEMBER 1983
17
-------
The magnitude of the risk depends heavily
on the level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to which
people are exposed and the likelihood that
this exposure results in an absorbed,
lexicologically active dose. Usually, we do
not have definitive information on human
exposure. In lieu of such data, the Agency
makes certain assumptions, usually of the
"reasonable worst case" variety, so as to err
on the side of public safety. For example, in
the case of TCDDs emitted from combustion
sources, the Agency assumed that a person
might spend his entire life at the spot of
highest estimated ground level concentra-
tion, that all TCDDs inhaled would be
retained, and that TCDDs attached to
particles would be completely biologically
active. "Reasonable worst case" estimates of
exposure, when combined with the extra-
polation results, lead to an estimate of the
upper limit of risk.
in contrast to cancer, the Agency has
generally regarded reproductive hazard as
one for which there exists a level of exposure
below which it is not expected that an
adverse effect will occur, the so-called
"threshold assumption." In assessing this
type of risk, the scientist uses an adequate
study in which an administered dose level
resulted in no observed adverse effects
(NOAEL) in test animals and compares it to
the generally smaller level of estimated
human exposure. The ratio of the NOAEL to
this estimated human exposure is referred to
as the margin of safety.
In the case of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the Agency
used a study in which rats were followed
over three generations to determine the
effect of 2,3,7,8-TCDD on the reproductive
success of the animals. Although the authors
of the study reported that no consistent
adverse effects were observed at the lowest
dose tested, EPA scientists concluded that
statistically significant effects were observed
at that dose and that the study lacked
sufficient statistical power to conclusively
demonstrate a NOAEL. This issue has been
the source of considerable debate. Therefore,
in comparing the lowest dose tested to the
estimated exposure dose in humans, the
Agency speaks of a "confidence ratio,"
instead of a "margin of safety."
In recent decisions associated with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
"Superfund"), the Agency has also made
use of risk evaluations generated by the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In
general, CDC uses methods which are
comparable to those of the Agency.
In a typical 2,3,7,8-TCDD-related situation.
Agency scientists provide decisionmakers
with the results of a risk assessment; i.e.,
estimated upper limits of cancer risk and
confidence ratios for reproductive effects
associated with various exposure scenarios.
The assumptions and limitations of the
approach should be explicitly stated. At this
point, risk assessment ends and risk
management begins.
The distinction between risk assessment
and risk management has been highlighted in
the recent report of the National Academy of
Sciences (MAS) entitled Risk Assessment in
the Federal Government. Generally, risk
assessment is an objective, scientific
evaluation of the magnitude of the risk,
independent of considerations of what
should be done about that risk. Risk
management is the decisionmaking process,
involving more subjective, societal judgments
which consider certain non-risk factors when
selecting an appropriate response to the risk.
In a speech delivered at the NAS,
EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus emphasized
this difference, stating that the two
processes should remain separated within a
regulatory agency.
In its letter of invitation to these hearings
the Subcommittee has asked EPA specifically,
"What evidence on the effects of dioxin on
human health justifies establishing a dioxin
concentration standard of one part per billion
in soil and how should such a standard be
interpreted and used?" I believe your
question may have been promoted by EPA's
recent relocation action under "Superfund,"
and EPA welcomes the opportunity this
hearing affords to clarify what has been
erroneously characterized by some press
reports as an EPA "safe" level of dioxin.
First of all, there is no simple level which
will give rise to equivalent risks in all cases.
Even if one were to decide on an acceptable
level of risk, the key question of exposure
must be addressed on a site-specific basis
before making any estimate of an acceptable
level of contamination in the soil. For
example, a decisionmaker could conclude
that greater than 1 ppb of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
the soil of one person's front yard might
represent an unreasonable risk, since such a
person might not be expected to easily or
reasonably limit his exposure to this soil.
That same decisionmaker could conclude,
however, that many times that level is
acceptable in an isolated spot at a manufac-
turing site or at the bottom of a reclaimed
dumpsite where people are unlikely to be
exposed. In sum, the determination of an
acceptable level is dependent upon many
factors, and it is an oversimplication to seek
a universally applicable level.
Second, the act of establishing a level is
no longer in the realm of risk assessment;
instead, this is the province of risk manage-
ment. In assessing risks, scientists can, for
example, present the decisionmaker with a
graphical summary illustrating the possible
range of risks associated with various
exposure scenarios and contamination levels
in the soil. In reaching the risk management
decision, the decisionmaker weights all the
elements of the risk assessment; i.e., the
qualitative case, the quantitative case, the
exposure assessment, and the limitations and
uncertainties involved. In addition, the
decisionmaker factors in non-risk considera-
tions, which might include feasibility and
cost of clean-up, possible alternative actions,
consistency with regulation of other risks,
and concerns of the affected community. In
sum, while the scientists may agree that a
certain spe'ctrum of risk is associated with
different levels of contamination and
exposure, precisely where on that spectrum
a decisionmaker determines the appropriate
level to be will vary as factors specific to a
given situation are considered.
Thus, EPA has not adopted a generally
applicable action level for "Superfund"
purposes; rather the Agency continues to
make decisions on a site-by-site basis, taking
into consideration both the CDC health
advisories and any special on-site circum-
18
EPAJOURNAL
-------
stances in determining action at individual
sites.
Finally, I would like to address some of the
gaps in our scientific knowledge about
toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the environment
and what type of research would improve
the scientific data base for decisionmaking.
1. Toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in
complex mixtures
Most of the data generated to date has
been with 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone. In the
environment, however, we usually encounter
the compound in combination with other
materials and associated with particulates;
e.g., soil or fly ash. The effects of dioxins in
the presence of these other materials need to
be investigated to answer questions of
synergism and bioavailability. Promising tech-
niques for assessing "TCDD equivalents" of
such complex mixtures should be developed
further.
2. Exposure issues
We need to know more about the ways
2,3,7,8-TCDD moves in the environment;
e.g., possibility of volatilization, bio-
accumulation from soils into fish, dermal
penetration, and the amount of soil children
might ingest.
3. Disposal/destruction methods
Currently, adequately tested and practical
methods for disposal and/or destruction of
dioxin contaminated materials are limited.
Much work remains to be done to determine
how best to deal with this material once it
has been discovered in the environment.
4. Epidemiological studies
Various Federal agencies are now conduct-
ing epidemiological studies to investigate the
possible effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in humans.
There are additional studies which could be
conducted, involving populations near more
recently discovered contamination sites.
5. Background levels
It would be helpful to know the back-
ground level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in various parts
of the environment, such as land, various
foods, and human tissue. This information
could serve as valuable benchmarks.
6. Related compounds
There are 74 other chlorinated dibezno-p-
dioxins and 135 chlorinated dibenzofurans,
some of which are also of concern and
appear in the environment. Activities need to
be encouraged to deal with these
compounds on a rational, deliberate basis.
7. Mechanism-of-action studies and
pharmacokinetics
Important information is currently being
deduced about the first stages of toxicity
induced by 2,3,7,8-TCDD and related
compounds. As we obtain more fundamental
knowledge about what is happening at the
molecular and cellular level, the possibility of
our being able to understand exactly how
and why 2,3,7,8-TCDD exerts its toxicity
increases. This information may help us
explain the basis of the species variability
and where humans fall in this range of
reactions. Moreover, we may then be able to
assess the toxic potential of literally
hundreds of related toxic chemicals without
devoting to each individual compound the
mass of resources we have had to dedicate
to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
As a final word, I would like to observe
that it is important that we keep the dioxin
problem in a proper perspective. I believe we
need to address the dioxin issue in a rational,
deliberate manner. At the same time, we
should not permit this legitimate concern to
cause us to neglect other legitimate concerns,
such as those embodied in the pools, pits,
and lagoons of abandoned dumpsites, the
emission of toxic pollutants into our air and
water, and the potential for unreasonable
risks associated with chemicals to which we
are exposed daily. As scientists and
regulators, we have an obligation to maintain
a balance among all of these concerns. D
NOVEMBER 1983
19
-------
The Towers
of Tacoma
Fifty-foot tail air stripping towers were
built recently with approximately SI mil-
lion in Superfund money in Tacoma,
Wash., under an EPA contract to correct
a pollution problem affecting some of the
drinking water supply for this city. Ap-
proximately five million gallons a day of
water is pumped through these fiber
glass towers. As the water cascades back
down the towers through a porous mate-
rial, air is forced upward from under-
neath to strip the chemical pollutants
which are discharged into the air in low
concentrations through the tower tops.
The EPA Region 10 office, headquartered
in Seattle, is investigating to determine if
nearby industries are the source of the
pollution contaminating the well water.!.;
This photo shows funnels and fans at bottom of towers.
Stripping tower is lifted into place by a crane.
Workmen
complete pro/ect
at base of the
towers.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Philip Wong, Region 10 environmental engineer,
explains operation of the towers to a visitor.
NOVEMBER 1983
21
-------
New EPA Appointments
Courtney M. Price
John Martin
Jean Staller
Gregg Ward
Six new appointments have been made
recently at EPA and five key officials have
been confirmed in their posts at the
agency by the U.S. Senate.
Courtney M. Price was confirmed as
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring for the EPA.
Price had been serving as Special Coun-
sel for Enforcement at the EPA. Pre-
viously, she was Associate Administrator
for Rulemaking at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration in 1982-
1983 and Deputy Chief Counsel at the
Administration in 1981, staff attorney in
the Office of the General Counsel at the
Department of Energy in 1979-1981 and
prior to that, an associate attorney with
two law firms in Los Angeles.
A native of Jackson, Miss., Price re-
ceived her A.B. degree from the Univer-
sity of Alabama in 1963 and her law de-
gree from the University of Southern
California in 1975.
Jack Ravan has been confirmed as
Assistant Administrator for Water Pro-
grams. Ravan had previously served as
EPA Regional Administrator for the agen-
cy's regional office in Atlanta in 1971-
1977.
A graduate of the U.S. Military
Academy, Ravan had served since 1982
as Director of Project Development, Clean
Water Group, Wheelabrator-Frye in Atlan-
ta. Earlier he had served in several State
and business posts in Georgia.
John C. Martin has been confirmed as
Inspector General of the EPA. Martin has
been serving as Assistant Inspector
Genera! at the Department of Housing
and Urban Development since 1981. Pre-
viously, he was Supervisory Special
Agent for the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation in I976-I981; Special Agent,
FBI, in 1971-1976; Assistant to the City
Manager, City of Rockville, Maryland in
1968-1971; and Deputy City Manager,
City of Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania in
1967-1968.
Confirmed earlier by the Senate were
Josephine S. Cooper as Assistant Ad-
ministrator for External Affairs and A.
James Barnes as General Counsel.
Four of the six recent appointments
made by EPA Administrator William D.
Ruckelsnaus have been in the Office of
External Affairs under Assistant Adminis-
trator Cooper. They are:
—Jean Coultas Statler as Director of Pub-
lic Affairs.
Statler joined the EPA on July 25 as a
special assistant to Cooper. Prior to that
she was Legislative Counsel for energy
and environment for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, directing its lobbying efforts
in Congress.
Before being named Legislative Coun-
sel at the Chamber in December, 1981,
Statler was the environmental reporter
for two years for the Chamber's national
weekly newspaper, Washington Report.
Statler began her government career in
1976 as chief speechwriter for Sen.
Charles Percy (R., III.).
A native of Jacksonville, ill., Statier re-
ceived her bachelor of arts degree in !976
from Southern Methodist University in
Dallas, Texas. She majored in journalism
and was a member of the staff of SMU's
campus newspaper and radio station.
—Gregg Ward as Director of Con-
gressional Liaison.
Ward served as Director of Gov-
ernmental Affairs for the Sheet Metal and
Air Conditioning Contractors' national
association for the last six years, where
he was responsible for the management
of all legislative and regulatory affairs.
Before that he served as the trade asso-
ciation's Assistant Director of Labor Rela-
tions.
From December 1975 to May 1977,
Ward was a Special Assistant to the Re-
gional Administrator in the Philadelphia
office of the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). Prior to
that, he was a legislative aide with the
Department of Justice.
A native of Syracuse, N.Y., Ward re-
ceived his bachelor's degree in business
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Allan Hirsch
Deborah Steelman
Nathaniel Scurry
Dr. Benjamin C. Dysart I/I
administration from the University of
North Carolina in Chapel Hill in 1972.
—Allan Hirsch as Director of Federal Ac-
tivities.
For the past year Hirsch was Deputy
Director of the International Institute for
Applied Systems in Vienna, Austria. Prior
to that he was Deputy Assistant Adminis-
trator for Environmental Processes and
Effects Research in EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development. He began his
governmental career in the U.S. Public
Health Service and later became an
Assistant Commissioner when the Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Administration
was formed in 1966.
After that, Hirsch moved on to key
positions with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in 1972 and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974
and returned to EPA's Office of Research
and Development in 1979. He earned his
bachelor's and master's degrees in zoolo-
gy at Michigan State University and a
PhD in conservation from the University
of Michigan. He was a Fulbright Scholar
at Canterbury University in New Zealand
in 1956-1957.
—Deborah Steelman as Director of Inter-
governmental Liaison.
Steelman was most recently the leg-
islative director for Senator John Heinz
(R-PA). Previously, she was Deputy Direc-
tor of the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources. She also worked on natural
resources and energy issues in the Wash-
ington office of Governor Christopher S.
Bond of Missouri. In 1979 she worked as
an assistant public defender in Kansas
City, Mo.
A native of Missouri, Steelman has a
law degree from the University of Mis-
souri and is a member of the Missouri
Bar. She received a master's degree in
political history from the University of
Missouri in 1979.
Also appointed was Nathaniel Scurry
as Director of the Office of Civil Rights.
Scurry has held four positions in the
Office of Management and Budget, in-
cluding Chief of the Reports Management
Branch from November I98I to the pre-
sent; Assistant OMB Director for Civil
Rights Policy, October 1979 to November
1981; Senior Budget Examiner, August
1971 to June 1979, and Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Officer, June 1978 to
June 1979.
Scurry was also Deputy Director of the
D.C. Budget Office, an operations re-
search analyst/mathematician for the
National Bureau of Standards and a qual-
ity control data analyst for General Elec-
tric. He graduated from Clark College in
Atlanta in 1970 with a degree in mathe-
matics and did graduate work at
George Washington University in
Washington, D.C.
Administrator Ruckelshaus also
appointed Dr. Benjamin C. Dysart III, a
nationally recognized expert in water
quality, to EPA's Science Advisory Board.
Dr. Dysart is a professor of engineering
in the environmental systems engineer-
ing department at Clemson University.
He is being appointed to the Environ-
mental Engineering Committee of the
Advisory Board.
Dr. Dysart has considerable experience
in the environmental concerns of energy
production, non-point source pollution
controls, environmental impact assess-
ment, design of water quality monitoring
programs and national water resources
policy. In addition to his position at
Clemson, Dr. Dysart is President of the
National Wildlife Federation, a member
of the Association of Environmental Engi-
neering Professors, and a member of the
Water Pollution Control Federation.I I
NOVEMBER 1983
23
-------
Update
A review of recent major
EPA activities and de-
velopments in the pollu-
tion control program
areas.
AIR
Truck Standards
EPA has issued standards
that will reduce tailpipe
emissions of hydrocar-
bons and carbon monox-
ide from most heavy
duty gasoline trucks by
90 percent. The 90 per-
cent reduction, which is
required by the Clean Air
Act, uses 1969 truck
emissions as a baseline.
The standards, which
go into effect with the
1987 model year, apply
to trucks weighing up to
14,000 pounds,
representing more than
70 percent of the vehicles
in this class. They will for
the first time require the
application of catalytic
converter technology to
these vehicles. Catalytic
converters have been
used to control emissions
of hydrocarbons and car-
bon monoxide on
passenger cars since the
1975 model year. These
controls will cost an es-
timated $223 per truck.
Equivalent emission
standards for heavy duty
diesel trucks go into
effect beginning with the
1985 model year.
Auto Recall
EPA has ordered General
Motors Corporation to re-
call approximately
112,000 1979 model year
vehicles that are ex-
ceeding the federal emis-
sion standards for carbon
monoxide.
EPA has determined
that these vehicles have
average CO emissions
which exceed the 1979
federal emission stan-
dard of 15 grams per
mile.
The affected vehicles
are 1979 Chevrolet
Chevettes equipped with
the base option (L-17) 1.6
litre engine and automa-
tic transmission. Califor-
nia vehicles are not in-
cluded in the recall.
Under the recall provi-
sion of the Clean Air Act,
GM has 45 days to sub-
mit a plan to remedy the
pollution problem on
these vehicles or to
request a hearing. Once
EPA has approved the
plan, GM will notify own-
ers whose cars are in-
volved. The cars will be
repaired by GM dealers
at no cost to the owners.
GM had indicated that
it would voluntarily recall
these vehicles but that it
would limit free repair to
those which are under
five years old and have
mileage under 50,000
miles when brought to
the dealership. While this
limitation reflects GM's
interpretation of its re-
sponsibility under the
Act, GM and EPA are in
litigation over this issue.
EPA believes the Act re-
quires GM to recall and
repair all of the cars at
no cost to the owner.
This order assures that
all of the vehicles will be
appropriately repaired
pending the outcome of
the litigation.
Fuel Economy
U.S. automobile man-
ufacturers have achieved
nearly a 100 percent im-
provement in fuel econ-
omy over the last dec-
ade, according to I984
model year mileage fig-
ures released recently by
EPA.
The agency said that
when the mileage es-
timates were first pub-
lished in 1974, domestic
cars averaged 13.2 miles
per gallon (MPG). The
projected fleet average
for the 1984 domestic
models is 25.6 mpg, up
94 percent from 10 years
ago. The projected fleet
average for all I984 for-
eign and domestic cars is
26.9 mpg, improvement
of 89 percent from the
1974 level of 14.2 mpg.
The top rated model
for 1984 is the Honda
Civic Coupe at 51 mpg,
the first gasoline-fueled
vehicle to top the ratings
since the 1976 model
year. Other high mileage
vehicles, except for the
Toyota Starlet, are all
diesel-powered, with the
fuel economy estimates
ranging from 50 to 43
miles per gallon.
The top domestic cars
are all diesel-powered
vehicles produced by
Volkswagen of America,
Ford and General Mptors,
with the VW Rabbit rated
highest at 47 mpg, close-
ly followed by the Ford
Escort and Lincoln-
Mercury Lynx at 46 mpg.
Air Policy
EPA has issued its
formal policy on how and
when economic sanc-
tions might be applied to
areas not meeting air
quality standards.
The new policy formal-
izes the announcement
made by EPA Adminis-
trator William D. Ruckel-
shaus last June when he
indicated that the agency
will not impose sanctions
such as construction
bans or funding restric-
tions in areas which had
approved plans but failed
to attain air quality stan-
dards by the Clean Air
Act deadline of Decem-
ber 3, 1982.
Sanctions will not be
imposed, Ruckelshaus
said, solely for failure to
attain air quality stan-
dards when reasonable
efforts have been made
to carry out EPA-
approved implementation
plans.
Basically, EPA wants
the states to correct the
deficiencies in their State
Implementation Plans in
areas where standards
haven't been met, and
then to fully implement
their plans. The policy
sets out in a general
manner the steps neces-
sary to accomplish that
objective, and describes
the legal consequences
of failure to do so.
The recent an-
nouncement does not
impose or lift any sanc-
tions in any area, instead
it provides states with
the opportunity to correct
the deficiences in their
State Implementation
Plans before EPA propo-
ses construction or
funding restrictions.
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
ENFORCEMENT
Cleanup Agreement
EPA recently announced
that 246 companies have
agreed to clean up the
Environmental Conserva-
tion and Chemical
Corporation (Enviro-
Chem) site, a major
hazardous waste site in
Zionsville, Ind., near In-
dianapolis.
This is the largest num-
ber of companies ever to
agree to such a settle-
ment. The cleanup is ex-
pected to cost $2.9 mil-
lion. The settlement was
subject to a 30-day public
comment period.
At the same time, the
Department of Justice, at
EPA's request, filed suit
against the site's owners
and operators and 26
other companies which
sent waste to the site but
who did not participate in
the settlement. The suit,
filed under the federal
Superfund law and the
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, seeks
to recover $300,000 in
funds spent by EPA ear-
lier this year to reduce
potential danger to the
public health and the en-
vironment.
Enviro-Chem began
operations at the site in
1977. By 1982, the 6 1/2-
acre site was packed with
25,000 drums, 56 bulk
tanks with over 300,000
gallons of contaminated
sludges and water, 1.5
million gallons of con-
taminated water in ponds
and on the surface and
5,200 cubic yards of con-
taminated soil, all raising
the concern of possible
explosion and fire, as
well as contamination of
nearby streams and
drinking water supplies.
In July of this year, EPA
began an emergency
cleanup of the site under
Superfund.
PESTICIDES
EDB Action
The EPA has ordered the
immediate emergency
suspension of ethylene
dibrpmide (EDB) as a soil
fumigant for agricultural
crops. At the same time,
the agency announced
the cancellation and
phase-out of all other
major pesticide uses of
EDB.
In taking this emergen-
cy action, EPA cited sig-
nificant new evidence
that EDB is con-
taminating groundwater
supplies in a number of
states. Laboratory test re-
sults have shown EDB to
be a carcinogen and
mutagen that
causes reproductive dis-
orders in test animals.
EDB, a persistent halo-
ginated hydrocarbon, has
been registered as a pes-
ticide since 1948. Over
300 million pounds
(150,000 tons) of EDB are
produced annually in this
country. Over 20 million
pounds of that are used
as a pesticide. The re-
mainder is used as an
additive in leaded gaso-
line. Of the 20 million
pounds of EDB used for
agricultural purposes,
over 90 percent is used
as a soil fumigant. The
use of EDB as a soil
fumigant was suspended.
The remaining EDB is
used to fumigate stored
grain, on grain milling
machinery, as a fumigant
to quarantine citrus and
other tropical fruits and
for a number of minor
uses.
The emergency sus-
pension, the most restric-
tive measure EPA can
take under the law, will
immediately halt the sale
and distribution of EDB
registered for soil
fumigation. It is applied
prior to planting to con-
trol nematodes and other
soil insects. As a soil
fumigant it is used on cit-
rus and fruit trees, soy-
beans, pineapples, cot-
ton, tobacco, peanuts,
and over 30 additional
fruit and vegetable crops.
Pesticide Controls
EPA has taken final reg-
ulatory action on two
pesticides, strychnine and
lindane, following an in-
tensive risk and benefit
review of both products.
The agency is
cancelling the use of
strychnine, a common ro-
dent control bait poison,
for prairie dog control
and a number of other
small rodents and mam-
mals because it has the
potential of destroying
both nontarget and en-
dangered species. These
uses account for approx-
imately 20 to 25 percent
of the outdoor, above
ground uses of strych-
nine which were the
issue of the agency re-
view. Zinc phosphide is
considered a viable
alternative to the cancel-
led pesticide uses for
prairie dog control.
In addition to prairie
dogs, the agency's
cancellation action on
strychnine also includes
uses for the control of
deer mice, meadow
mice, chipmunks and
woodchucks on
rangeland, pastures and
cropland; and all rodents
and small mammals with
the exception of ground
squirrels, woodchucks
(around rock piles and
lava outcrops), jackrab-
bits (around airports),
and porcupines in nonag-
ricultural sites.
EPA's action on lin-
dane, an insecticide used
in homes, farms and for
treating hardwood logs,
includes the cancellation
of indoor uses in smoke
fumigation devices and
the use of dips on dogs
to control pests other
than mites. All other uses
of lindane will be contin-
ued with certain restric-
tions
RADIATION
Standards
EPA Administrator Wil-
liam D. Ruckelshaus re-
cently issued final stan-
dards to reduce the
amount of radiation re-
leased during uranium
milling operations and to
require the safe long-
term disposal of uranium
mill tailings. The stan-
dards are designed to re-
duce significantly public
exposure to radiation
from mill tailings.
"At the same time,"
Ruckelshaus said, "I am
struck by the wide di-
vergence of views as well
as a number of scientific
and technical un-
certainties toward these
standards. We expect
that engineering studies
at inactive sites and our
activities to regulate
radionuclides under the
Clean Air Act will assist
us in updating and
refining information
which may cause us to
review these standards in
the future."
There is substantial un-
certainty in the health
effects estimates because
of uncertainties in the
rate of release from tail-
ings sites, the exposure
people will receive from
its decay products, and
from incomplete know-
ledge of the effects on
people of these ex-
posures.
The new standards,
proposed on April 29,
1983, will require proper
disposal of tailing piles to
be effective, in most
cases, for 1,000 years.
Radon releases from the
piles will be limited to
less than 20 picocuries
per square meter per
second. A picocune is a
trillionth of one curie, the
standard measure of
radiation. Current un-
regulated tailing pile re-
lease rates are typically 10
to 50 times greater than
the new standards.
NOVEMBER 1983
25
-------
TOXICS
Incineration Permits
EPA has made a tentative
determination to issue
special and research per-
mits to transport and dis-
pose of mixed liquid
organic compounds by
incineration ships at a
designated site in the
Gulf of Mexico. The final
decision will not be made
until after the public has
had an opportunity to
comment.
The permits would go
to Chemical Waste Man-
agement, Inc. of Oak
Brook, III. and Ocean
Combustion Service,
8.V., of Rotterdam in the
Netherlands. The vessels
are the M/T Vulcanus I
and M/T Vulcanus II.
The proposed special
permits would authorize
the applicants to use the
vessels over a three-year
period to transport and
incinerate at a designated
site in the Gulf a total of
300,000 metric tons (ap-
proximately 79.7 million
gallons) of mixed liquid
organic compounds in-
cluding PCBs and low
concentrations of dioxin.
DDT will be incinerated
under a separate six
month research permit.
Chemical Review
EPA and the Department
of Labor's Occupational
Safety and Health Ad-
ministration (OSHA) have
announced a joint call for
information to consider
regulating the industrial
chemical 4,4' -
methylenendianiline (4,4'-
MDA).
The effort by the two
agencies follows an ear-
lier decision by EPA to
accelerate study of 4,4'-
MDA. The purpose is to
determine whether 4,4'-
MDA poses significant
risks to human health
and to examine the
appropriate control
measures to limit such
risks.
4,4'-MDA is used pri-
marily as an intermediate
chemical to aid in forma-
tion of other chemicals
and plastics such as
polyurethane foams and
other polyurethane prod-
ucts.
The National Toxicolo-
gy Program (NTP) con-
ducted studies on 4,4'-
MDA and found it to be
carcinogenic in both lab-
oratory rats and mice.
EPA and OSHA scientists
reviewed the NTP studies
and agreed there is evi-
dence that 4,4'-MDA is a
carcinogen in animals
and could pose a risk to
workers manufacturing
and processing the
chemical.
WATER
Protection Programs
In an effort to prevent
contamination of under-
ground sources of
drinking water, the EPA
has announced proposed
regulations that will es-
tablish EPA-run under-
ground injection well
control programs in the
23 states and territories
that have not accepted
the responsibility for run-
ning their own programs.
When these Under-
ground Injection Control
(UIC) programs are es-
tablished, there will be a
UIC program either in op-
eration or nearing
approval in all 57 states
and territories. This will
ensure that all under-
ground sources of
drinking water are pro-
tected nationwide from
underground injection
wells.
The regulations will es-
tablish Underground In-
jection Control programs
in Alaska, Arizona, Arkan-
sas, California, Colorado,
District of Columbia, Ida-
ho, Indiana, Iowa, Ken-
tucky, Michigan, Minne-
sota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New
York, Pennsylvania, Ten-
nessee, Virginia, Amer-
ican Samoa, Northern
Mariana Islands, and the
Trust Territories. All In-
dian lands in these 23
jurisdictions, and in
states which do have pri-
mary enforcement au-
thority for the UIC pro-
gram but do not have
jurisdiction over Indian
lands, are also included.
The agency has made
a comprehensive effort to
grant states primacy. The
23 states and territories
that did not accept the
program, either because
they didn't apply or be-
cause their programs
were not adequate, were
aware that EPA would be
implementing its own
program in the absence
of their own. These
states can apply for
primacy in the future.
AGENCYWIDE
Personnel Efficiency
A task force of the
National Academy of
Public Administration is
conducting interviews of
EPA employees who
work in 14 cities with a
view to improving per-
sonnel efficiency within
the 12,000- employee
agency.
The interviews are part
of a comprehensive six-
month review of budget-
ary and personnel prac-
tices by the National
Academy, under contract
to EPA.
Specific personnel
issues being examined
include communications
between headquarters
and regional offices and
laboratories, staffing, per-
formance appraisals,
merit pay, incentive
awards, salaries, employ-
ee rights, affirmative ac-
tion, executive utilization,
career development and
labor relations.
Small Business
EPA will sponsor a con-
ference with members of
the small business com-
munity early-next spring
to evaluate the problems
small businesses have in
complying with environ-
mental regulations. The
conference is intended to
help the agency develop
a policy for dealing with
those problems.
Agency officials said
that over the next few
years small businesses
will be investing
thousands of dollars to
comply with environmen-
tal regulations. They
often will not have the
necessary resources and
time to handle the exten-
sive amount of paper-
work and red tape that
accompanies the regula-
tions. The major objec-
tive of the conference is
to find ways to help
small businesses comply
with the regulations, yet
remain economically
competitive.
The conference is
scheduled for March 4-6,
1984, at the Capitol Hil-
ton Hotel in Washington,
D.C. Registration forms
with additional informa-
tion will be available in
November. Questions
should be directed to the
Conference Secretary at
382-4538 or 800-368-
5888.D
26
EPAJOURNAL
-------
EPA's
Opportunity
to
Communicate
(Excerpts from testimony by Josephine S.
Cooper, EPA Assistant Administrator for
External Affairs, at her confirmation hearing
before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works)
I am honored ... to appear before you
today in connection with my nomination by
the President to serve as EPA's first
Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
because 1 fully share your interest in seeing
that EPA aptly implements the laws that
Congress has charged it with overseeing.
As one who has worked closely with the
Agency and the issues which concern it —
first as an EPA civil servant for 12Vi years
and [ater as a member of the Environment
Committee's staff —I also am honored by the
expression of confidence placed in me by the
President and Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus.
In executing its mission to protect the
American people from threats posed by
various pollutants to human health and the
environment, EPA is often the final arbiter
among a wide spectrum of interests and
opinions. The Agency's decisions are rarely
non-controversial. Its actions are seidom
uncomplicated. Its policies are never without
far-reaching implications. My experience with
the Agency and with this Committee make
me acutely aware of the sensitivity and
volatility of environmental issues.
Public scrutiny is a necessary component
of any democratic institution, and this fact is
especially pertinent at EPA because the
Agency is responsible for much of what the
American people hold dear to them —
knowing that the air they breathe, the land
on which they live, and the water they drink
are protected. There can be no substitute for
complete dissemination of essential material
by EPA on a timely basis. Anything short of
that breeds distrust by both Congress and
the public, which in turn hampers the
Agency's ability to be effective.
Administrator Ruckelshaus has said that
"EPA is determined to operate in a fish bowl
and will attempt to communicate with
everyone from environmentalists to those we
regulate as openly as possible." I applaud his
statement, and I am prepared to do all that is
necessary to realize its aim.
The establishment of the Office of External
Affairs is recognition of EPA's intent to fulfill
this pledge. Four essential outreach offices
will be coordinated under one roof at the
LI. S. Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr. with Josephine S. Cooper at her
confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as
EPA Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Assistant Administrator level. Those offices
are:
Public Affairs which provides press services,
publications and a new program for
community relations.
Federal Activities which is responsible for
coordinating the efforts of the Federal
agencies to meet our environmental
objectives to keep the Federal community
abreast of EPA actions, and to provide
technical assistance to other Federal
agencies as needed.
Intergovernmental Liaison which develops
a working relationship with State and local
officials to assure that these key
constituency groups are kept apprised of
appropriate Agency activities.
Congressional Affairs which must be
sensitive and responsive to members and
their staffs while representing the Adminis-
tration's position on environmental policy.
These four offices share responsibility for
tracking information within EPA that is often
highly technical in nature, translating that
information into a meaningful form, and
disseminating it to the various audiences.
Together, the External Affairs offices
constitute a goodly part of what accurately
may be described as the voice of the Agency.
It is my firm conviction that such a voice
must speak with candor and honesty, clarity
and simplicity. There must be full
cooperation between EPA and outside
groups achieved within the framework of
applicable rules and procedures. The Agency
must strive to provide information efficiently
and even-handedty to all involved parties.
When William Ruckelshaus returned to
EPA, he readily observed that EPA had experi-
enced some serious problems in effectively
communicating Agency policies and regula-
tions. He immediately moved to restore the
credibility of the Agency through measures
like providing the fullest possible public part
icipation in EPA's decision-making process.
Under my leadership, I am hopeful that the
Office of External Affairs will extend this
effort to make EPA more accessible and
forthright in its public dealings.
Understanding this from your Committee's
perspective —as a former staffer—I see the
next year as being especially critical in light
of the issues pending, such as clean water,
acid rain and clean air, hazardous waste and
toxic substances.
During the time I have observed the four
offices which comprise External Affairs in my
capacity as a Special Assistant to the
Administrator, I have been extremely
impressed by the skilled and competent
professionals who staff them. Many of these
people have had to endure numerous
reorganizations and changes in job roles
which, quite frankly, often seemed counter-
productive. As a former civil servant myself,
I know how disruptive such changes can be.
I also understand that internal communica-
tion can be as important as external
communications. Improving morale at EPA is
a critical investment in environmental
protection. We will do our best to render
useful information services within the
Agency, as well as to outside groups.
Mr. Chairman, my statement underlies
a basic conviction: to operate effectively
and restore public confidence in its efforts,
EPA must be completely open and fair-
minded in the dissemination of accurate and
timely information to all interested parties.
The Office of External Affairs must provide a
competent and well-managed delivery system
which can assure that end. Even the most
technical information and complex issues must
be made intelligible for the general public. D
NOVEMBER 1983
27
-------
River
at Risk
f\ bird on a branch of a white sycamore
tree watched the Cacapon River passing
below it as shifting breezes periodically sent
red and yellow leaves scudding across the
stream surface.
Suddenly the kingfisher splashed into the
river and emerged with a small silver fish in
its heavy beak. The bird flew back into the
sycamore, slapped its prize against the tree
trunk, and then flipped the stunned fish into
the air and caught it with the head facing
down its throat. With a single gulp, the
kingfisher completely swallowed its meat.
This bird has many human competitors
who also fish in the rills, riffs, rapids and
swirling pools of West Virginia's Cacapon
River, one of the Potomac River's most
beautiful tributaries.
Canoeing, swimming, and sight-seeing are
other activities which draw many visitors to
this stream which has been studied by the
National Park Service for possible inclusion
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
program.
Recognizing that West Virginia residents
living in the river corridor are strongly
opposed to Federal controls, the National
Park Service has completed, but not yet
released, a final report recommending
procedures by which the river could be
protected primarily through local and state
efforts.
Unless action is taken, the Park Service
fears, mounting population pressures and
rapid second-home development in the
Cacapon Valley could lead to serious
degradation of the river. In addition, cattle
wastes and pollution from other non-point
sources may jeopardize the purity of the
river's waters. Much of the river land is not
protected by zoning regulations.
The approximately five million people in
the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan
areas live only about 100 miles from the
Cacapon.
The desire of many urban residents to buy
property on a quiet country stream is fueled
by certain West Virginia real estate compa-
nies which advertise in Baltimore newspapers
about the opportunity to buy "a cheap cabin
on a redneck mountain river."
Berkeley
acaponj Spnngs
Map showing location of Cacapon River
Other ads contend that West Virginia's
high unemployment rate "gives you Po'
Boys' riverfront farmsteads."
The Cacapon springs to life in West
Virginia's Hardy County under another name,
Lost River. The initial section of the stream is
so known because a portion of it sinks
underground while traveling over a porous
limestone bed. The disappearance of the
surface water near Wardensville, W. Va.,
leaves a jumbled path of large boulders
marking what had been the river. Campers
sometimes hold picnics in the middle of this
"river."
The stream reappears again some 2.5 miles
down its course when it gushes out at the
bottom of the hemlock- and sycamore-
forested north slope of Sandy Ridge. The
born-again river is now known as the
Cacapon as it flows into Wardensville and on
to the Potomac some 80 miles away.
The stream now often foams as it surges
over rocky rapids and through lofty gorges,
an irresistible attraction to canoeists during
spring high water levels.
Bass, trout, pickerel, sunfish and eels are
caught by fishermen who often visit favorite
spots along the Cacapon. Not the least of its
attractions are the opportunities this stream
offers for swimming and river walking.
During low water you can splash on foot
down the middle of this stream for long
distances, a pastime known by Thoreau as
"fluvial walking" and one he often enjoyed.
In other deeper sections of the river you
can float down this stream on your back
carried by the current and glide by the green
forested hills and banks bedecked with wild
flowers.
As you drift with the river, startled turtles
who had been sunning themselves on
floating logs dive hurriedly into the water.
Your silent approach can frighten a green
heron on the bank, causing it to fly off
with a disgruntled squawk.
Nearing the Potomac the Cacapon
meanders in large loops and wide pools.
Outside Great Cacapon, the last town on its
route, the river passes under the great stone
arches of an ancient railroad bridge.
It enters the Potomac below a bluff near
Berkeley Springs, W.Va. The panoramic view
from this bluff, showing the confluence of
the Potomac and the Cacapon, surrounding
farmlands and a series of mountain ridges
fading into the horizon, was described by the
National Geographic as one of the most
beautiful in America, according to a sign
which once stood at this location before it
was stolen a few years ago by vandals.
On a recent weekend visitors who walked
along the banks of the Cacapon to its
meeting with the Potomac were struck by
the placid beauty of the location.
Even the rumbling of a coal train over the
railroad trestle could only detract momen-
tarily from the serenity of the river scene.
Down the Potomac an osprey, a fish hawk,
sailing above the water in quest of a meal,
veered off toward Washington.
Overhead a great straggling V of snow
geese flew east toward their coastal winter
home. The setting sun painted the Cacapon
in gold and then sank below the horizon,
leaving an observer in the dusk to wonder
whether this river can be preserved or
whether, once again, the truth of Oscar
Wilde's epigram will be proved:
"Every man kills the thing he
loves."-C.D.P. D
(See back cover for photo of Cacapon River)
28
-------
Illustration of a kingfisher
ready to dive into a stream to catch a fish.
Back Cover: A scenic stretch of the Caca-
pon River, a tributary which joins the Poto-
mac River near Berkeley Springs, W. Va.
Photo by Gerald Ratliff of Wonderful West
Virginia Magazine.
-------
/;
w
«.-.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington D C 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Third Class
Bulk
------- |