Januarv-Fe
.lening the
Federal-State
Partnership
-------
Preserving
Earth's
Resources
{Excerpt from President
Reagan's State of the Union
message to Congress Jan. 25,
1984)
And as we develop the
frontier of space, let us
remember our responsibility
to preserve our older
resources here on Earth.
Preservation of our
environment is not a liberal or
conservative challenge, it's
common sense.
Though this is a time of
budget constraints, I have
requested for EPA !the
Environmental Protection
Agency! one of the largest
percentage budget increases
of any agency.
We will begin the long,
necessary effort to clean up a
productive, recreational area
and a special national
resource—the Chesapeake
Bay.
To reduce the threat posed by
abandoned hazardous waste
dumps, EPA will spend $410
million, and I will request a
supplemental increase of $50
million. And because the
Superfund law expires in
1985, I have asked
EPA Administrator Bill
Ruckelshaus to develop a
proposal for its extension so
there will be additional time
to complete this important
task.
1
President Ronald Reagan delivering State of the Union message with Vice President George Bush and
House Speaker Thomas O'Neill seated on the podium behind him.
On the question of acid rain,
which concerns people in
many areas of the U.S. and
Canada, I am proposing a
research program that
doubles our current funding.
And we will take additional
action to restore our lakes and
develop new technology to
reduce pollution that causes
acid rain.
We have greatly improved the
conditions of our natural
resources. We'll ask the
Congress for $157 million
beginning in 1985 to acquire
new park and conservation
lands. The Department of the
Interior will encourage careful,
selective exploration and
production of our vital
resources in an exclusive
economic zone within the
200-mile limit off our coasts
but with strict adherence to
environmental laws and with
fuller state and public
participation.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington, DC 20460
Volume 10
Number 1
January-February 1984
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
Susan Tejada, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the Nation's land, air and water
systems. Under a mandate of nation-
al 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 by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-
cy. The Administrator of EPA has de-
termined that the publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transac-
tion of'Vie public business required
by law of this Agency. Use of funds
for printing this periodical has been
approved by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
through 4/1/84. Views expressed by
authors do not necessarily reflect
EPA policy. Contributions and in-
quiries should be addressed to the
Editor {A-107). Waterside Mall. 401 M
St., S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460.
No permission necessary to repro-
duce contents except copyrighted
photos and other materials.
EPA Forges New
Relationship with States 2
Helping the States Carry a
Bigger Load 4
State Officials Explain
What They Can Do 6
The Chesapeake Bay:
Saving It Together 10
Measuring Water Quality:
An Inventory by
the States 12
Dealing with EDB, a
Dangerous Pesticide
16
EPA Moves to Curb Dioxin
Threat 18
Invisible Threat, Invisible
Resource: Underground
Tanks Contaminate
Groundwater 20
87 EPA Employees
Honored 23
Four Major Enforcement
Actions Taken 24
More Appointments at
EPA 25
Update—New
Developments at EPA 26
Soviets Grappling with
Pollution 28
Who's Who in EPA and
Their Phone Numbers 30
Under a Winter Moon 32
Front Cover: Dome of State Capi-
tol Building in Hartford, Conn.
The Connecticut Capitol has been
registered with the Department of
the Interior as a national historic
landmark because of "outstanding
expression of the eclecticism of
its high Victorian Gothic style."
The allegorical figures sur-
rounding the gold-leafed dome
represent agriculture, commerce,
education and other influences
that shaped the state. Photo by
Everett C. Johnson of Photri.
Photo Credits: Steve Delaney;
Earl R. Baker, U. S. Department of
Agriculture; Dr. Richard Schoett-
ger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice; Department of the Army;
Owens/ Corning Fiberglas; £ J.
White Co.; Photri, and Mike
Flaherty of EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse.
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan,
Ron Farrah
EPA JOURNAL Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in the
U.S. for the EPA Journal is S20.00
for 10 issues.
I he charge to subscribers in loreign
countries is S25.00 a year. The price of
a single copy of the Journal is S2.00
in this country and S2.50 >! sent to a
foreign country. Prices include mailing
costs. Subscriptions to EPA Journal
as well as to other Federal Gov-
ernment 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 Superin-
tendent of Documents. The request
should be mailed to: Superintendent
of Documents GPO. Washington.
D.C 20402
Name-First. Last
Please Print
Company Name or Additional Address Line
JLL
Street Address
JJJJ_l_L.iJJ_LLL
City
rState
jLLLLLLLJ J
Zip Code
I IPayment enclosed
(Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents)
I ICharge to my Deposit Account No
-------
EPA Forges
New Relationship
with States
R
inn) u
_ecent steps taken by EPA represent a
significant turning point in the way we
view federal and state roles. The
emerging relationship with states is a
true working partnership, in which each
level of government is responsible for
performing the functions it does best.
When the major environmental laws
were passed in the 1970s, the Congress
observed that states had uneven and, in
some cases inadequate, capability to
undertake aggressive, effective environ-
mental protection programs. Legislators
felt, too, that some states might be moti-
vated more by economic rivalry than by
the environmental ethic, and that the
resulting competition would threaten the
national cleanup that most considered
essential. Consequently, these laws
assigned to the federal government, in
the institution of EPA, most of the key
functions involved in the design and de-
livery of environmental services. Where
states were involved, they were assigned
carefully circumscribed functions.
With such statutory backing, and with
public expectation reinforcing the need
for a strong, central environmental au-
thority, it is not surprising that we at the
federal level soon concluded that EPA,
rather than the states, was the critical ve-
hicle for preserving the integrity of the
Nation's air, water, and land resources.
We are in the Eighties now, and EPA
has begun to recognize the re-emergence
of states as central players in the en-
vironmental movement. For one thing,
the Congress has now stipulated that the
lion's share of the administration of en-
vironmental statutes will be carried on by
states. Right now, more than half of the
responsibilities eligible to be delegated
by EPA are being managed successfully
by states. For another, state staffs and
authorities have grown enormously in
both dimension and sophistication since
1970. We know, for example, that for ev-
ery person employed by EPA, many
times more are employed by the states
and localities in the administration of en-
vironmental programs; and these people
are, by all accounts, highly motivated
and well-trained.
These changes have led to a growing
recognition by EPA that states must play
a much larger and distinct role. Workers
at the federal, state, and local level are all
part of a complex and interdependent
national network for environmental pro-
tection. Despite this, no one had done
the essential conceptual work of refining
roles to ensure that states and EPA work
EPA JOURNAL
-------
By Alvin L. Aim
Deputy Administrator, EPA
effectively together as the dynamic proc-
ess of decentralization takes place.
That is why, as one of his first actions
upon taking over, Bill Ruckelshaus com-
missioned a task force to examine the
appropriate division of roles and func-
tions between EPA and the states in the
Eighties. More than one-third of the
group's membership was drawn from
state environmental managers.
The work of this task force is one of
the most significant developments in
federal/state relations in a long time. It
provides us with a new vision of how
EPA and states must work. It assigns to
cash party roles and responsibilities
appropriate to its unique placement and
strengths. In effect, states will become
the day-to-day operating arm of environ-
mental management; EPA will set nation-
al policy and standards, while providing
to states the research and technical sup-
port essential to the undertaking.
lost of our environmental statutes
provide for delegation to states of the
lead role for day-to-day program op-
erations, including enforcement. To dis-
charge their responsibility, states will now
write the permits, perform the in-
spections and take necessary action to
ensure that individual pollution sources
comply with applicable national standards.
States must now also report accurately
on environmental progress, meet com-
mitments on use of federal funds, and
make consistently sound environmental
decisions that justify public confidence.
EPA, on the other hand, remains
accountable to the Congress and the
President for national environmental
progress. It will always retain those func-
tions related to program direction,
coordination, and consistency that are
better performed at the national level.
EPA must continue to set the environ-
mental standards that are the framework
on which state programs are built. EPA
must apply its critical mass of central re-
sources to conduct research, to develop
tools for use in the field, and to provide
technical services where needed to avoid
wasteful, duplicative investment by the
states. EPA must provide the residual en-
forcement clout to make sure compliance
is achieved in the most environmentally
significant areas, often playing the role of
the "gorilla in the closet" to foster
stronger state enforcement efforts. And,
to fulfill its accountability for national en-
vironmental progress, EPA must conduct
constructive oversight of state programs.
Strong state programs result in en-
vironmental improvement and make EPA
successful. A technically proficient EPA,
with public support and credibility, helps
the states in an operational sense and
gives the public confidence in all environ-
mental control programs. Clearly, one of
EPA's major goals must be to bring
about conditions in which states can be
most successful in their daily man-
agement of national environmental pro-
grams. To do so, we at EPA must change
our way of operating in many respects.
First, we must be explicit and concrete
as to the performance we expect, and
hold states accountable for actual prog-
ress. While doing this we must respect
their independence as to the specifics of
programs, and not "nit-pick" individual
decisions.
Second, we must expand our hands-on
technical assistance and oversight activi-
ties. We cannot merely give states some
sort of report card, then leave them to
muddle through. We must help find ways
to solve problems when deficiencies
occur, particularly when these problems
follow patterns that are detectable across
a number of states.
Third, we need to recognize that the re-
lationship between state and federal
roles changes as programs mature. New
programs, such as RCRA, will at first in-
volve a much higher degree of direct
federal participation. As time passes,
states can assume responsibility for more
and more of the direct program op-
erations, with the goal of eventually
taking full charge of the program. Again,
what is needed is a much better focused
system of oversight and technical assis-
tance to speed this maturation process.
As a working premise, EPA should leave
the bulk of program operations—
including permits, inspections, and
enforcement—to the states. Our role in
direct operations should be secondary, to
back states up if and when they need
help.
We are already moving to implement
this new approach in a number of ways.
The Administrator will soon issue two
new policies to direct all staff in EPA as
to their responsibilities under the new
approach. The first of the policies will
cover delegation of EPA program author-
ity to states. The fundamental thrust of
the policy is to promote the swift, re-
sponsible transfer of program authority to
states that want it, and to work with
states to dismantle unnecessary barriers
to delegation. The other policy will cover
oversight, and will incorporate a com-
prehensive, constructive approach to pro-
viding assistance and evaluating progress.
In addition, we plan to consult fre-
quently with an advisory committee com-
posed of state environmental officials to
provide early, influential state partici-
pation in EPA policy development
affecting states.
\Jne more element of our implementa-
tion will be to undertake one or more
pilot projects to demonstrate the
effectiveness of carefully targeted tech-
nical assistance to states. We think these
pilot projects will advance the process of
change by serving as models for the rest
of the Agency in learning new ways of
thinking and behaving.
The price of increased state autonomy
is increased state accountability. Future
success will increasingly depend upon
our ability to measure and communicate
the results of the work we share with
states. In the past, reporting require-
ments have been a bone of contention.
Now EPA and states need to sit down
together and negotiate reporting that
meets their needs as well as ours. We
must be able to respond thoroughly and
persuasively to the need of Congress and
the public for continuous assurance that
our environmental goals are being
aggressively pursued and ultimately met.
In a larger sense, though, oversight
goes beyond negotiating objectives and
measuring performance. It also includes
frequent communication, assistance tar-
geted to state needs, and strong back-up
enforcement activity when necessary.
Oversight should be woven through all of
our daily relations with states. If we
achieve our aim of developing the means
of success—technical support, research,
and information management—we will
work together with them in different, less
intimidating ways than we have before.
Old patterns of behavior die hard, and
we are under no illusion that the Ad-
ministrator need only issue a policy for
people immediately to change their way
of doing business. In order to be success-
ful, we need first to view the federal-state
relationship in a dramatically different
way. Then we need committed and sus-
tained follow-up to translate these gener-
al principles into action. By defining that
relationship and committing ourselves to
action, we have the beginning of a pro-
ductive, long-term partnership. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
-------
Helping the States
Carry a Bigger Load
In the interim between the two terms
William Ruckelshaus has served as Ad-
ministrator of EPA, there have been
some enormous changes. Conspicuous
among them is the degree to which
states now carry out the day-to-day work
of environmental protection. In 1970, EPA
wrote the regulations, set the standards,
issued the permits, and did most of the
monitoring, inspection and enforcement
work involved in ensuring compliance
with national environmental rules. As of
1984, however, states have advanced
dramatically in staffing and sophistica-
tion, now playing a major role in the Na-
tion's apparatus for environmental pro-
tection.
The Administrator recognized the need
for EPA to adapt to this new reality and
asked his Deputy, Alvin L Aim, to define
and bring about the needed change.
Aim's approach was to form a task force
to examine appropriate roles for states
and EPA to play in a new partnership
that reflects the essential interdepen-
dence of both. To lend credibility and
practicality to the task force. Aim in-
sisted that state program managers be
prominently involved in its membership.
I was glad to serve as official Chair of the
Task Force, although Mr. Aim partici-
pated in virtually all of our proceedings.
The Task Force on State/Federal Roles
is one of the most refreshing experiences
I have yet had in government. All of the
members, whether from EPA or states,
faced the question of the appropriate
assignment of complementary functions
with extraordinary openness and candor.
Even when the truth hurt, as it some-
times did when we considered how
much EPA must change to support the
growing-network of state environmental
services, Task Force members faced the
facts and made sensible recommenda-
tions.
We asked our staff from EPA's Pro-
gram Evaluation Division to report on
several key factors affecting the state/EPA
partnership. First, we asked what EPA
does now. Where do we place our priori-
ties in practice? The staff divided EPA's
work into more than twenty functions, or-
ganized under seven major categories:
EPA JOURNAL
-------
By Lewis S. W. Crampton
Director
EPA Office of Management
Systems and Evaluation
direct program administration, technical
support, state program approval and
oversight, research, standard setting,
management support and national in-
formation collection. The staff then sur-
veyed EPA personnel to find out what
work is actually done within these cate-
gories, and how our work tends to con-
centrate within them. The findings show-
ed that EPA still invests quite a bit in
work now commonly done by states, and
that the Agency appears to underinvest
in the kinds of technical support states
need to perform with consistent ex-
cellence as elements of a national system
for environmental service.
The staff next interviewed a variety of
observers outside EPA—from industry,
environmental and public interest
groups, states and localities—to get a
reading on how the Agency's work is
perceived. In particular, we wanted to
know in which areas these observers
considered EPA's contribution essential,
as well as those in which states are con-
sidered better positioned to be success-
ful. These observations were frank, co-
gent and remarkably consistent. They
had a strong influence on our con-
clusions as to the proper role for each
partner.
I he staff next undertook com-
plementary studies of how EPA performs
oversight of state programs now, and of
how other successful, decentralized or-
ganizations carry it out. The first study
found substantial variation in oversight
as practiced by EPA's programs. Some of
the evidence demonstrates how difficult
it can be for a federal agency to trust the
judgment of states in individual actions,
even when those states have signed
delegation agreements commiting them
to maintain national laws and regula-
tions. The second study took Task Force
staff to such varied enterprises as Mar-
riott and Quality Inns, the Federal
Highway Administration and the National
Bank of Washington. This review showed
that large, decentralized organizations
cannot be successful unless their field
units are successful, and that the function
of headquarters is to provide the tech-
nical and administrative support that
allows achievement in the field. For EPA,
this translates to increasing our in-
vestment in research and technical sup-
port for states.
In addition to these management-
oriented reports, the Task Force reviewed
a survey of public administration litera-
ture on federal/state relations, and a pro-
jection of trends in population, man-
ufacturing and other factors likely to lead
to the environmental challenges of the
future. We wanted to be sure that any
new division of labor we forged now
would stand up overtime.
Our Task Force met frequently through-
out the summer to review these findings,
to debate their implications and to begin
to set some directions for the future of
state/EPA relations. In some ways the
group was a model for the partnership
we need to build, because the interests
and concerns of all around the table were
clearly articulated, with the final recom-
mendations designed to respect the
needs of all. Here's where we came out.
First, state/federal relations must
change in response to the clear fact of
broad program delegation. States have
progressed so far in the past thirteen
years that they are now the primary op-
erational arm of a national network for
environmental protection. States should
concentrate on direct administration of
environmental programs, including per-
mitting and compliance activities. EPA
should focus on national standards and
research, technical support and oversight
for state programs, and accountability to
the President and the Congress for
national environmental progress. Of
course, EPA must stand ready to step in
to support states in essential areas like
enforcement if persistent problems keep
the state from carrying out its full re-
sponsibility.
Next, EPA must model its oversight of
state programs on that of other progres-
sive, decentralized organizations. Over-
sight is not merely evaluation; its es-
sence is constructive cooperation to find
workable solutions to problems. We must
realize that if state programs do not work
well, EPA cannot fulfill its mission; over-
sight means doing what is needed to
make sure they work.
Building a long-term EPA/state part-
nership requires greater mutual trust and
better mechanisms to involve states in
major policy decisions. Once we
acknowledge that states have the lead
role for day-to-day program administra-
tion, we must also allow that the views
of states have a direct, practical signifi-
cance for EPA's policy decisions affecting
field operations. This does not mean that
EPA should never set a policy that goes
against states' preferences; our responsi-
bility is to interpret and carry out the law,
regardless of who may disagree. It does
mean that as a practical matter it is
pointless for EPA to set program policy
that states simply cannot carry out.
Sounding out states on major policy
issues has always been smart. From now
on, it will be essential.
!n December, members of the State/
Federal Roles Task Force met with the
Administrator to present him these find-
ings. He accepted them with enthusiasm
and instructed EPA staff to undertake a
number of follow-up steps. Among them
are the issuance of companion policies
governing delegation of program author-
ity to states as well as oversight of those
programs. He also commissioned several
initiatives to reshape EPA's com-
munications and technical support to
states.
There is a quiet revolution taking shape
here. A principal focus of our Constitu-
tion is to set the appropriate roles of the
states and the federal government. Since
1789, this issue has continued to tug at
the workability of our system of gov-
ernment. Of course, we can never be ful-
ly free from the conflicts inherent in the
competing interests of federal and state
government. Still, the product of this
Task Force, practical and realistic as it is,
forged as it was by a coalition of state
and EPA officials and endorsed by EPA's
Administrator, seems likely to provide a
framework in which we can all work
together, both now and in the future.D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
-------
State Officials Explain
What They Can Do
i_j ow can EPA and the states work
together effectively to implement
national environmental legislation? EPA
Journal asked six key officials in state
environmental protection this question.
These leaders served on EPA's task
force on state/federal roles and are
members of the National Governors'
Association Subcommittee on the
Environment. Here are their views:
Robert A. Arnott,
Assistant Director
Colorado Department of Health
/Congress in the passage of environmental
^ legislation has emphasized implementa-
tion at the state or local level. While this has
for the most part been achieved, there
nevertheless have been difficulties in the
expeditious delegation of programs and in
the determination of state and federal roles.
The recently completed activities of the
State/Federal Roles Task Force, one of the
task forces created under the direction of
Deputy Administrator Al Aim, are perhaps
the most positive steps in recent years to
delineate roles and set future program
responsibilities. This effort was successful
because of the attitudes of the various
participants, their knowledge of the historic
difficulties with delegation, their common
concern for achieving results and the excel-
lent staff work provided by Lew Crampton's
office {EPA Office of Management Systems
and Evaluation).
The real challenge, however, still lies
ahead. A conceptual road map for the
effective implementation of environmental
legislation was developed as a product by
this task force. The principal role in program
implementation and enforcement of federal
environmental programs should be under-
taken by state and local government
agencies. The role of EPA should be one of
research; setting of national standards,
national goals and directions; and providing
technical and fiscal support. The main focus
should be on national goals, rather than
national activities to reach these goals.
The great degree of consensus achieved
by this task force in delineating roles must
now be brought together in a successful
implementation package. It will be extremely
difficult, and require a methodical process
to achieve. At several points in the past
selected activities of EPA have been studied
and new roles recommended. Implementa-
tion of these previous efforts has been
elusive. The best way in which to implement
successfully the present recommendations
would be through a "bottom-up" approach
and with the development of pilot-scale
projects at the Regional level. Thus, to
successfully implement the task force
recommendations a number of pilot projects
in several of the Regions involving the active
participation of states and appropriate local
governments is necessary. It is by utilizing
those successful pilot studies in the develop-
ment of overall program policy that the
implementation of federal environmental
statutes can be most effectively achieved.
One fact is most obvious—success will
require considerable change in the role of the
EPA. The agency's headquarters staff should
be concerned with the development of broad
policy approaches and minimum Regional
oversight. At the present time, this is not in
my view the "modus operand!" as Head-
quarters has not adequately achieved delega-
tion and adequate implementation of the
programs at the state level with effective and
minimal EPA Regional oversight.
The challenge ahead of us is one of imple-
menting redefined roles, the development of
pilot oversight policy activities, the success-
ful delegation of oversight activities from
EPA Headquarters to the Regions and
program implementation at the state and
local levels. This is a challenge in which I
hope to actively participate. It can be
successful if all will leave history where it
belongs—in the past!
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Robert A. Arnott
Richard J. Carlson
William M. Eichbaum
Richard J. Carlson,
Director
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
The Nation's environmental laws are for the
most part designed to be implemented by
state agencies with EPA creating the frame-
work for each program, setting standards,
conducting research and providing oversight
to ensure that national goals are met. Since
the early 1970s, responsibilities under the
Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA and
the Safe Drinking Water Act have been
successively delegated to individual states to
the point where states are now clearly the
prime implementers of national environmental
policy. States, through permitting, inspec-
tion, monitoring and enforcement activities,
are crucial to achieving environmental results.
Recognition of this simple fact is the key
to understanding how we can improve the
effectiveness of national environmental
legislation. Without successful state
programs there can be no real progress in
improving environmental quality.
To increase the effectiveness of state
programs there must be a shift in attitudes at
the federal level. In the conduct of its over-
sight function EPA must recognize that its
success in protecting the environment
depends upon weJI-managed state programs.
EPA must provide useful support to the
states, taking into account the wide variation
in state government organization, political
culture and environmental problems. The
achievement of national goals does not
require that each state administer identical
programs, only that results be uniform across
the country. Under delegated programs, EPA
should take advantage of existing strengths
at the state level while assisting states in
upgrading areas where they are weak.
Congress, too, must also realize that state
attitudes and experiences are critical in
developing new programs and refining old
ones. As front line managers, states have an
excellent notion of what works and what
doesn't. The Nation long ago committed
itself to the achievement of environmental
quality. The goal is clear. The challenge now
rests with improved program administration.
In this effort the states have much to
contribute.
Effective environmental programs depend
upon the establishment of a true partnership
between EPA and its state managers in
which there is a recognition of interdepen-
dence and shared goals, with an underlying
sense of trust. To me this was the most
significant conclusion of the recently
concluded State/Federal Roles Task Porce.
The Task Force report contains principles
that should form the basis for a new and
improved state-federal relationship, imple-
mentation of the report should not only
result in better state-federal relations but
improved environmental quality for all
citizens of the Republic.
William M. Eichbaum
Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Programs
Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
The delivery of environmental protection is
a partnership between EPA and the states.
Most of us recognize that the intent of the
various federal laws to protect the environ-
ment and public health cannot be fulfilled
without strong EPA and state programs.
Nevertheless, this is an appropriate time to
reflect upon the traditional roles of EPA and
the states and to perhaps refocus or redirect
the division of responsibility toward a more
viable partnership.
EPA is the agency that must ultimately
report to Congress and the Nation on the
progress of environmental clean-up; and
thus, it falls to EPA to provide national
leadership in creating an atmosphere that
supports environmental protection as a
positive and achievable goal. By working
closely with the states, EPA can and must
build mutual confidence as it sets national
policies and makes the decisions necessary
to carry out environmental laws. The states
should uphold their end of the partnership by
constructively participating in this process.
For well over a decade, the states have
been acquiring the staff and expertise to
administer their environmental programs.
They are especially well equipped to manage
environmental program operations —adminis-
tration, monitoring and enforcement—and
they are close to the environmental issues at
hand. The states have already become the
implementing arm of these federal programs.
EPA's role should focus on oversight and
support of the state programs. Where federal
law provides for it, EPA should proceed as
quickly as possible to streamline and
expedite the delegation of administering
federal programs to the states. !n addition,
both EPA and the states should develop
criteria for federal oversight responsibilities,
federal intervention in state actions and the
federal role in enforcing laws and regulations.
As its role in daily environmental operations
decreases, EPA should increase its responsi-
bility to provide the states with technical
support and trr-ining, carry out scientific and
health related research, set standards, coor-
dinate solutions to regional and interstate
problems and collect and disseminate
comparative information at the national level.
It is important for the states to regularly
count on some predictable level of federal
funds for the management of their environ-
mental programs. New programs may require
higher levels of funding at first which taper
off to a base level as the states' expertise
and ability to absorb program costs increases.
While these general principles need further
development and definition, nevertheless,
they can form the basis for strengthening the
existing partnership between the states and
EPA to implement the goals of federal
environmental laws. In this effort, it is
important to recognize that success of the
partnership depends upon participation in a
positive manner which manifests to the
people of the country that a truly national
program of environmental protection is being
implemented.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
7
-------
J. Leonard Ledbetter
Director
Georgia Environmental
Protection Division
Oongress recognized during the development
of national environmental legislation that a
partnership between the federal government
and the states would enhance the possibility
of early and effective implementation of the
programs. Since the early 1970s the partner-
ship has been evolving and the priority that
Administrator Ruckelshaus and his manage-
ment team is placing on further strengthen-
ing the partnership is needed and timely. His
decision to clarify the respective roles of the
states and EPA early in this process has
resulted in the identification of some
functions better suited for the states and
others for EPA. The improvement of the
partnership or "team approach" will result in
more trust and effective management in the
future as each partner focuses on the priority
functions assigned.
EPA and the states can best work together
by recognizing that the average citizen is
more concerned about proper protection and
management of the environment than which
level of government performs a specific role.
The public does expect and demand cost-
effective environmental programs with a high
degree of credibility. The American public
does not find a "barely tolerable environ-
ment" acceptable. At the present a major
concern shared by most people relates to
their interest in "the government" providing
the necessary precautions to minimize the
exposure of the population to environmental
pollutants. Only through the maximum
utilization of all available state and federal
resources, especially personnel, will
measures be most effectively implemented to
attain the level of protection expected.
The current urgency for the provision of
credible answers related to the public's
concern about chemicals and other pollutants
in the air they breathe, the water they drink.
and the food they eat requires more than
ever before that EPA expedite research
efforts to respond. The states can address
these concerns through expeditious enforce-
ment and compliance efforts once problems
are identified. In addition, the states are
working on toxic air pollutants through the
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators (STAPPA) organization. The
subject of toxicity in water is being coordi-
nated by the Association of State and Inter-
state Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) through a project known as
Toxicity Elimination and Management
Strategy (TEAMS). The National Governors'
Association (NGA) has been active in the
development and encouragement of an
integrated toxics program to address all
elements of environmental pollution caused
by toxic compounds. These efforts in
conjunction with EPA's risk assessment
program will enable the public to understand
the work by all levels of government to be
responsive to their environmental concerns.
In a highly mobilized society, it is impera-
tive that the degree of protection and level of
credibility be reasonabiy similar throughout
the Nation. EPA can best assure such
similarity through the authority assigned to
the agency by Congress. Current plans at
EPA to develop and implement a "delegation
policy" in tandem with an "oversight policy"
should demonstrate EPA's intention to
develop a meaningful delegation-accountabil-
ity system. Acceptance and support of this
system by the states, as well as EPA's
middle management and staff, will be
essential to assure the desired level of
success.
EPA and the states will be more effective
and successful with implementation of their
respective roles if Congress continues to
provide the legislation, as well as legislative
oversight, together with a realistic level of
funding consistent with the partnership
concept. Many states now fund a major
portion of the budget for environmental
programs; however, in order to assure the
"best and most effective" program, it is
essential that Congress continue to provide a
substantial level of funding (at least the FY
' 82 level) to offset costs incurred by the
states in administering federal environmental
legislation.
Donald W. Moos
Director
Washington State Department of Ecology
The key to an effective state/EPA relation-
ship in implementing national environmental
legislation is developing a solid track record
of joint accomplishment and mutual respect.
EPA must resist the temptation to view itself
as the "overseer" of national environmental
programs, particularly the assumption of
continuing management responsibility for
state programs which have been approved
by EPA. EPA is more like a senior partner
which is in a position to assist and guide the
activities of its other partners—the states.
The state environmental agencies operate
under authority conferred by the state legis-
latures and are fully responsible for the
management of state programs, including
those state programs which EPA approves as
meeting national requirements for delegation.
EPA must be ready, willing, and able to
support state program implementation
through standard-setting, research, financial
assistance, and constructive oversight
activities. A constructive approach to over-
sight can be demonstrated through EPA's
commitment to providing the technical
assistance, including management assis-
tance, which will assist the states in
resolving the real world problems which they
encounter while implementing environmental
programs.
For their part, the states must continue to
demonstrate commitment to achieving the
objectives spelled out in national and state
environmental laws and to administering
delegated programs in a manner consistent
with state/EPA delegation agreements. The
states must be willing to identify needs for
improvement in state programs and be open
to requesting and using EPA assistance to
solve implementation problems in creative
and effective ways.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
J. Leonard Ledbetter
Donald W. Moos
Anthony D. Cortese
Such willingness and commitment by EPA
and the states to offer and use meaningful
assistance to solve implementation problems
is the quickest way we can improve our
record of joint accomplishment and mutual
respect. A shared attitude of respect and
good faith, which results in real achieve-
ments, can eventually permeate the
negotiated agreements, reporting systems,
and other communications which comprise
the state/EPA relationship and can ensure
success in reaching our joint objectives.
Anthony D. Cortese
Commissioner
Massachusetts Denartment of
Environmental Quality Engineering
During the past 15 years the Nation has
launched an unprecedented set of nation-
al programs aimed at protecting health
and improving environmental quality.
Congress envisioned a strong federal-
state partnership in implementing these
programs. For example, EPA has primary
responsibility for implementing the Toxic
Substances Control, the Federal In-
secticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide, and
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse and Liability acts. However, Con-
gress gave states the primary responsi-
bility for implementing the Clean Air,
Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water and
Resource Conservation and Recovery
acts within a broad national framework
established and overseen by EPA. Un-
fortunately, the full partnership en-
visioned by Congress has not been real-
ized for many legal, institutional, eco-
nomic, technical and political reasons. I
believe that we can have more effective
implementation of national legislation by
redefining the roles of the federal gov-
ernment and states in implementing
these laws and taking steps to improve
the federal/state partnership.
In broad terms, EPA should conduct re-
search on environmental problems, es-
tablish national standards where appro-
priate, provide technical and financial
assistance to states, and oversee the
states to insure a degree of national con-
sistency. States should have the primary
responsibility for planning and im-
plementing programs to achieve environ-
mental goals and standards. EPA should
take strong implementation and enforce-
ment actions only on interstate pollution
problems or when states are unwilling or
incapable of carrying out the job.
Mutual trust between EPA and the
states is the essential ingredient for effec-
tive implementation of national environ-
mental programs. Lack of trust in the
past decade has led to inefficiency,
duplication of effort, needless paperwork,
frustration on the part of the public and
industry, ineffective, costly and burden-
some regulations, and slowed progress
in achieving environmental goals.
Due to a number of factors including
federal technical and financial assistance,
federal mandates and public pressure,
state programs have improved dramati-
cally since the early 1970s. Today there
are over 20,000 state and local officials
involved in environmental protection
efforts compared to approximately 10,000
at EPA. Indeed, only 1,500 people at EPA
are available for direct program im-
plementation and enforcement. All states
have environmental requirements which
prevent the fear of "pollution havens" of
the 1960s. Many states are far ahead of
the federal government in dealing with
air and water, toxics, hazardous waste
regulation and cleanup and acid rain.
EPA should recognize the differences in
capability and willingness of states to im-
plement programs when establishing re-
quirements for states. The least common
denominator approach of tailoring uni-
form requirements for all states, based
on the problems of the worst state,
should be abandoned. States should be
full partners in the development of feder-
al policies and regulations to insure that
they will be easily implemented and
effective.
EPA should make it easier to delegate
programs to states. EPA should review
and approve generic program require-
ments, not individual source control ac-
tions.
EPA headquarters should delegate to
its regional offices the authority to
approve generic state programs. Current
policy calls for duplicative review by re-
gional offices and several different pro-
gram offices in Washington, which more
often than not have widely differing op-
inions on policy issues. This causes
seemingly endless negotiations between
states and EPA, lack of flexibility in de-
termining individual state needs, frustra-
tion, time delays and waste of scarce re-
sources.
EPA oversight of state programs
should be a post delegation audit type of
procedure designed to measure environ-
mental results. The approach should vary
depending on the maturity of the pro-
grams and the capability of the states.
Oversight should be designed to help
states improve their programs through
technical and financial assistance. Federal
resources currently employed in "bean
counting" could be used to make the
programs more effective. If audits and
assistance reveal a pattern of improper
program administration, EPA should be
empowered to withdraw approval of the
program and run it federally.
The combined resources of the states
and EPA fall far short of those necessary
to clean up and protect our fragile en-
vironment. It is imperative that we use
these limited resources effectively to
attack environmental problems. To do
this, EPA should view successful state
implementation of programs as an es-
sential ingredient in the success of
national environmental legislation.! .
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
-------
The Chesapeake Bay:
Saving It Together
A crowd of 700 people attended a con-
ference on how to clean up Chesapeake
Bay. The conference was at George
Mason University in suburban Washing-
ton, D. C.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most
vivid examples in the country of the need
for partnerships in dealing with environmen-
tal problems. Its pollution sources range from
septic tanks to runoff from city streets. The
government jurisdictions with cleanup
responsibilities include three states, the
District of Columbia and dozens of towns,
counties and cities. Millions of people have a
stake in the future of the Bay.
"The Chesapeake, more than most bodies
of water, is a people's bay," EPA Adminis-
trator William 0. Ruckelshaus said recently.
"Its survival is up to all of us." No one
agency or state has the resources or the
authority to protect the Bay alone, he
emphasized.
Efforts to save the Bay recently resulted in
an agreement to set up an Executive Council
to carry out a concerted cleanup program.
The agreement was signed by representa-
tives of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the EPA and the
Chesapeake Bay Commission. Sponsors of
the agreement called it "a milestone which
marks the beginning of a greatly expanded
regionaS alliance in Bay-wide management."
Speaking at the conference at which the
Bay cleanup agreement was signed, Ruckels-
haus said, "Few times in American history
have the states, the federal government and
citizens groups developed the potential to
work together in such a constructive way.
This can be a truly unique partnership."
Ruckelshaus pointed out that such a
partnership has a national meaning and
value. "The Bay is, indeed, a priceless
resource. It is the most productive fishery in
the Nation—exceeded only by the vast ocean
fisheries that surround our two shores," he
said. "It is one of the largest and most
productive estuarine systems in the world. Its
harvests are legendary."
"But the wonder of the Chesapeake does
not end here," Ruckelshaus continued. "It is
a major shipping center, one of the world's
largest recreational realms, and its wetlands
and protected creeks are the habitat of an
amazingly diverse ecosystem that science is
still far from understanding. More than 2,700
plant and animal species have been
identified."
"Today," Ruckelshaus added, "the Bay's
economic assets are staggering. In 1980, the
total dockside value of commercial fish
species landed in Maryland and Virginia by
resident fishermen was $106 million. !n addi-
tion, sport fishermen took an estimated 28
million pounds of gamefish from Chesapeake
waters in 1979, a catch valued at over $250
million in market terms."
But despite its value as a major resource,
the Bay is in trouble. Ruckelshaus pointed
out that neglect and abuse have strained the
Chesapeake's capacity to handle the wastes
that are entering it. "We must stop that
trend, and begin, all of us, to restore the Bay
to former greatness," Ruckelshaus said.
"Just as people, whose numbers have
increased so rapidly in the watersheds that
feed the Bay, have caused much of the
identified problems—so those same people
must assume responsibility for the Bay's
cleansing."
The EPA Administrator pointed out that
the nature of the pollution threatening the
Bay is a key reason why a partnership effort
is needed. He explained that across the
Nation specific point sources of pollution are
proving easier to control than diffuse non-
point sources. In the Chesapeake case too,
non-point sources such as soil erosion,
chemical run-off from farms and storm drains
are the key problem.
"Unfortunately, there is no alternative to
the concerted action of hundreds of
thousands of people— many of whom live far
enough upstream from the Bay that they
don't realize the effect of their unintentional
actions," Ruckelshaus said. He added that in
cleanup efforts, a spirit of cooperative
responsibility needs to spread to those living
far up the tributaries—the Susquehanna, the
Potomac, the Patuxent, the Rappahannock,
the York, and the James rivers.
"Ultimately, it is the citizens of these
states—the major beneficiaries of a healthy
Bay—who must be prepared to assume
primary responsibility for protecting their
own interests," Ruckelshaus said. "They
must accept a major portion of the cost of
increased pollution control expenditures, they
must control agricultural runoff and various
discharges into the rivers and streams that
feed the Bay, and they must at every turn
think about the consequences of their own
individual actions. Local governments will
have to play a more active role in remedial
efforts."
Ruckelshaus outlined the federal role in the
Chesapeake Bay partnership. The EPA
Administrator pointed out that the U.S.
public has already invested heavily in the
future of the Bay, an investment that is just
beginning to pay off. "The major source of
that national commitment has been the
sewage treatment construction program and
without it things would be far worse in the
Bay than they are," he said.
In the last 10 years, almost $2.5 billion in
federal grants have been targeted to the
Chesapeake watershed, and have produced
secondary and advanced treatment facilities
that improve the quality of water in the Bay.
"We must not forget this money has come
from the taxpayers of the Nation. And the
states have contributed millions of dollars in
return as their fair share of those matching
grants," Ruckelshaus said.
In 1984, EPA will allocate $163 million in
construction grants for sewage treatment
plants in areas of Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia
that flow directly into the Bay, and $15
million to support state water quality
programs. In the Baltimore area EPA is
developing a toxic integration program which
will investigate the magnitude of sources and
alternative solutions for control of air, land
and water toxics. This is one of three such
studies in the Nation and will help cope with
the problem of toxic materials, Ruckelshaus
said.
Over the last seven years EPA has spent
$27 million to complete the massive Chesa-
peake Bay study, released a few months
ago. It is one of the most comprehensive
works of its kind. This fiscal year, EPA is
targeting $4.2 million to the Bay for monitor-
ing, for the development of models capable
of determining the impact of various control
options, for the continuation of the develop-
ment of an information base on the Bay and
for matching grants to the states.
Ruckelshaus emphasized that the Adminis-
tration recognizes the vital resource needs of
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
the states surrounding the Bay and is review-
ing the options for meeting those needs.
"The point source problems will continue to
be addressed through the sewage treatment
grant program. The state program support
grants will be continued. We will maintain
the information base created in the just
completed study," Ruckelshaus said.
"In any event EPA will provide continued
support for this historic effort," said the
Administrator.
EPA will help coordinate the actions of the
states and various federal agencies, the
Administrator added. "Only by having a
single entity—the Chesapeake Executive
Council working through EPA's Annapolis
office—can the tasks confronting us be
carried out successfully.
"As I indicated, EPA will continue to
encourage the development of a Chesapeake
Bay information base and we will all work
together to coordinate the findings of the
Bay's major research efforts. Our goal is to
develop an understanding of the Bay's
ecology unequaled on any other estuary in
the world so that we can improve our
environmental management. Only if we
coordinate our efforts will we succeed."
The agency will continue to provide tech-
nical assistance, Ruckelshaus said. As the
states assume more responsibility for
enforcing the law, EPA's assistance role has
grown, Ruckelshaus added, reaffirming that
EPA's expertise will always be available to
the Chesapeake states.
The EPA is also coordinating the activities
of the federal agencies that have an impact
on the Bay, including those of agencies
which help control the Bay's pollution and
nutrient load.
Finally, Ruckelshaus said, EPA will provide
a central focus for the high-level commit-
ment necessary for the tough control
decisions to be made. "The Bay itself is the
consequence of a complicated set of natural
phenomena —riverine and tidal flows, sedi-
ment, nutrients, vegetation and the direct
acts of man. So too are the complicated
interactions of the decision-making authori-
ties. So long as all the parties are willing to
devote substantial time and effort to work
out compromises, to equitably share and
assume responsibility, and to recognize each
other's limitations and constraints—the result
of this complex interaction will only lead to
progress."
"Only in the spirit of federal-state coopera-
tion will we win our battle against the forces
of decline which are attacking the Bay," the
Administrator said.
"Just as we reached a point in time in the
early 1970s when I knew we were going to
succeed in stemming the catastrophic decline
of Lake Erie, I am just as confident today
that we are going to win the battle of the
Chesapeake," he said. "We have the dedica-
tion, the work plan and the resources. Now
all we need is the time."
He described the recently-signed agree-
ment as an encouraging example "of how
states can rise above their own everyday
interests and of how the federal government
can target a problem and actually do some-
thing about it." D
Additional photo on inside back cover
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
-------
Measuring
Water Quality:
An Inventory
by the States
Increased levels of wastewater treatment
in municipal sewage treatment plants
have to a large extent offset the increase
in pollutant loads that has occurred in
the U. S. because of increasing popula-
tion, new sewers and population shifts.
Industries have substantially reduced the
discharge of certain key pollutants since
the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972.
However, municipal and industrial
discharges—point sources—continue to
cause water quality problems such as
standards violations. Furthermore, about
one fifth of the states cite another pollu-
tion problem—nonpoint sources—as the
most important cause of water degrada-
tion. Nonpoint pollution includes runoff
fronrt such sources as agricultural op-
erations and acid mine drainage. Other
issues of national concern are pollution
resulting from toxic substances, and
groundwater contamination and deple-
tion.
These are conclusions from EPA's
National Water Quality Inventory, the
fifth in a series of such reports to Con-
gress. The Inventory is based on informa-
tion provided to EPA by the states under
the Clean Water Act, supplemented by
EPA data.
The results of this latest inventory indi-
cate that "the basic approach to pollution
control envisioned in the Clean Water Act
is working," the report says. As evidence,
it cites the following:
• Discharges of several key industrial
and municipal pollutants have been re-
duced.
• Rates of significant noncompliance
with municipal and industrial permit
limits are decreasing.
• Controls are being developed and ap-
plied to deal with nonpoint sources.
• Some progress is being made in con-
trolling toxic pollutants.
• Overall water quality is generally im-
proving.
Signs
of Progress
As an example of water cleanup, the re-
port said rules requiring use of the best
practicable treatment of wastes have sub-
stantially reduced industrial discharges of
six key pollutants. In the five years from
1972 to 1977 BOD (the oxygen-
consuming waste load) was cut by 71
percent, suspended solids by 80 percent,
oil and grease by 71 percent, dissolved
solids by 52 percent, phosphate by 74
percent and heavy metals by 78 percent.
Meanwhile, sewage treatment plants
nationwide are removing about 13,600
tons per day of two major pollutants—an
increase of 65 percent over 1973 cleanup
levels. The pollutants are suspended
solids and BOD. The total amount of pollu-
tants entering the Nation's waters from
these plants has stayed roughly the same in
the last decade, even though the popula-
tion served increased by 18 million and
municipal wastewater flow increased by
almost 7 billion gallons per day.
Illustrating the improvement in com-
pliance, EPA data show that the percent-
age of major municipal treatment plants
in significant noncompliance with their
discharge permits decreased from 27 per-
cent in October 1981 to 22 percent a lit-
tle over a year later. Significant noncom-
pliance rates for major industries de-
creased three percent in the same period,
from 18 percent to 15 percent.
The water quality report noted that cur-
rent limits and industrial permits are
removing significant amounts of a num-
ber of toxic organic chemicals and heavy
metals. It added that well-operated mu-
nicipal plants meeting secondary treat-
ment requirements "provide incidental
removal of priority pollutants such as
heavy metals and organics."
However, the report pointed out, "toxic
pollutants continue to cause water quali-
ty problems in many areas," and are an
issue of national concern.
Overall, the report concluded, the Na-
tion's water quality is beginning to show
improvement as a result of the cleanup
effort. According to estimates submitted
by the states for the inventory, a majority of
the waters which were assessed met the
Clean Water Act's interim goal of fishable
and swimmable quality. The report called
this "one of the primary measures" of
the condition of U.S. waters.
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The states provided many examples of
water quality improvements that can be
attributed directly to cleanup programs.
For example, 36 states cited im-
provements in their waters as a direct re-
sult of the construction of wastewater
treatment facilities. Twenty states cited
improvements in water quality due at
least in part to industrial controls. And
although the impacts of nonpoint source
controls can be hard to quantify, some
states report significant successes in non-
point source abatement.
Problems
Still Remain
Water pollution cleanup still faces some
big tasks, the report points out.
Remaining problems, in addition to non-
point source pollution, include:
• Municipal and industrial waste dis-
chargers continue to cause violations of
existing water quality standards in var-
ious areas in nearly all states.
• Groundwater problems—due either to
contamination or depletion—are reported
in more than half the states. Commonly
reported causes of groundwater prob-
lems include waste disposal, landfill leak-
age and septic tank discharges.
• Thirty states reported water quality
problems due to toxic substances which
are coming from a variety of sources
such as industrial operations, agricultural
runoff and solid wastes disposal. Be-
cause of the tendency of some toxics to
accumulate in fish tissue, fishing bans
and fish consumption warnings are in
effect in a number of waters such as New
York's Lake Ontario and Upper Hudson
River and Michigan's Saginaw and Titta-
bawasee rivers.
• States report that excessive nutrient
levels are a widespread problem, es-
pecially affecting standing waterbodies
such as lakes and potentially impairing
water uses such as fish propagation and
water-based recreation.
• Thirty-seven states report that their
waters are affected by other factors such
as dam releases, channelization of
streams and natural conditions.
Examples
of Improvement
On balance, however, the states reported
progress in cleaning up the Nation's wa-
ters. These improvements were due to a
variety of cleanup programs, including
better treatment of municipal and in-
dustrial wastes and controls on nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Some examples of water quality im-
provements due to construction and up-
grading of municipal waste treatment
plants with EPA aid include the
following:
• Rhode Island reported significant im-
provement along the Blackstone River
due to completion of sewage treatment
plant projects in Massachusetts and
Rhode Island.
• Connecticut cited an increase in the
recreational use of water and a de-
creased health risk directly attributed to
the construction grants program.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
13
-------
• In Maryland, a trend toward decreasing
numbers of acres closed to shellfishing
was tied to improvements in or expan-
sion of waste treatment facilities.
• Alabama reported that construction of
66 new sewage treatment plants has re-
sulted in improved water quality and the
elimination of potential health hazards in
a number of areas across the state.
• The District of Columbia reported re-
duced levels of certain pollutants in the
Potomac River due to improved effluent
quality from the Blue Plains sewage
treatment plant. Restoration of the Poto-
mac Estuary is beginning and many sport
fish have returned to the river.
• Decreases in the number of violations
of pollution limits in New Mexico over
the past two years were attributed to im-
provements in sewage treatment plants.
• In the Delaware River Basin water
quality is reported to have improved be-
low Philadelphia with the completion of
wastewater treatment plant upgrading.
• Biological surveys conducted in Illinois'
Drummer Creek have revealed sub-
stantial improvement in the creek after
upgrading of the Gibson City wastewater
treatment plant.
• California reported that construction of
a new wastewater plant which limits its
discharges to periods of high flow has
been responsible for a significant restora-
tion of water uses on the Russian River.
Industrial
Cleanup
Meanwhile, 20 states cited improvements
in water quality attributed at least in part
to industrial controls. Here are some ex-
amples:
• Vermont stated that the majority of its
industrial facilities have achieved a treat-
ment level using the best practicable
technology (BPT). A 1979 survey of the
state's larger industries failed to uncover
any serious toxic discharge problems.
• Connecticut reported that dramatic
gains in water quality achieved in the late
1970s due to use of best practicable tech-
nology in waste cleanup have been main-
tained.
• Florida reported that industrial controls
have been responsible for significant im-
provements in Escambia Bay.
• In Mississippi, 20 industrial facili-
ties previously out of compliance with
their permits are reported to have
achieved compliance within the past two
years.
• Lower cyanide levels in the Ohio River
mainstem are directly attributed to better
industrial treatment on the Monongahela
River, a tributary-
• Wisconsin reported that efforts to meet
1977 discharge limits requiring best prac-
ticable waste treatment technology in the
state's 47 pulp and paper mills have re-
sulted in a 90 percent decrease in BOD
and a 75 percent decrease in
suspended solids discharged
from these mills over the past
seven years. These reductions in dis-
charges have resulted in improved water
quality in a number of areas. In the Flam-
beau River, for example, no dissolved ox-
ygen permit violations have been noted
since 1978 in an area which once suf-
fered severe dissolved oxygen problems
due to paper mill discharges.
In many states, industrial facilities are
reported to have a higher rate of permit
compliance than municipal facilities. New
York reports that the compliance rate for
industrial facilities in that state is 81 per-
cent, while only 48 percent of municipal
facilities are consistently in compliance.
In Wisconsin, more than 90 percent of in-
dustrial discharges are reported to be
meeting the requirements for use of best
practicable technology, while 60 percent
of municipal dischargers were meeting
assigned treatment levels as of mid-1982.
In Nebraska, 40 percent of municipal
wastewater treatment plants were re-
ported to fully comply with permit re-
quirements, while 60 percent of industrial
facilities were in compliance in 1981. Ore-
gon reported that fewer industrial than
municipal facilities are having trouble
meeting permit limits.
Five states reported that improvements
in the quality of their water are due to a
combination of both municipal and in-
dustrial treatment plant upgrading and
construction.
In Texas, improved municipal and in-
dustrial programs were reported to have
led to better water quality despite pop-
ulation growth and rising levels of eco-
nomic activity in the state. Pennsylvania
cited improved municipal and industrial
sewage treatment as the major reason
for a net improvement of 136 stream
miles in 1981. Georgia reported on
strides made in improved water quality
downstream from major metropolitan
areas due to industrial and municipal
controls instituted since 1970, although
problems still exist in these areas. In Mis-
sissippi, significant water quality im-
provements were attributed to the com-
bined effect of construction of new mu-
nicipal and industrial wastewater treat-
ment facilities, and improved operation
and maintenance of existing facilities.
New York reported that its water quality
has improved measurably due to munic-
ipal and industrial point source controls.
In the Upper Hudson River, for example,
eleven problem discharges have been
eliminated in recent years due to munic-
ipal and industrial plant construction and
upgrading.
Facing
Another Problem
As point sources of pollution such as dis-
charges out of industrial pipes come
under control, many states are giving in-
creased emphasis to nonpoint sources of
pollution such as runoff from farms. Non-
point source controls have not been in
place as long as have point source con-
trols and their effects are harder to
measure.'But several successes were re-
ported by the states and are cited in the
National Water Quality Inventory. For ex-
ample:
• Connecticut reported that its nonpoint
source program has provided local gov-
ernments with help in dealing with agri-
cultural waste management, erosion,
aquifer protection and other nonpoint
source-related issues.
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
• In North Carolina, better cooperation
on limiting sediment runoff from con-
struction operations was reported as
more people become aware of the prob-
lem and understand ways to limit the
transport of sediment. Education pro-
grams are also helping reduce agricul-
tural runoff.
• Indiana reported that its agricultural
conservation program has been "ex-
tremely successful," with 4000 farms
now participating in best management
practices.
• In Kansas, soil conservation practices,
now used on a voluntary basis on many
farms throughout the state, were re-
ported to be effective in reducing soil
erosion and are expected to result in
more complete attainment of goals.
• Nebraska reported that three cost-
sharing programs have greatly contrib-
uted to the reduction of stream
sedimentation in the state.
• North Dakota reported that its non-
point source program has been very suc-
cessful in selected areas, especially in de-
veloping watershed controls and educa-
tional demonstration projects.
• Oregon reported that a sediment con-
trol project has demonstrated that cost
sharing, loans and technical assistance to
farmers can be successful ways of
ensuring the implementation of best
management practices.
Nonpoint source pollution, however, is
reported throughout the country. Penn-
sylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee, Ken-
tucky and the Ohio River area are re-
ported to be severely affected by acid
mine drainage and coal mine runoff. In-
diana reported that fish kills due to agri-
cultural operations such as the use of
agrichernicals account for an increasing
percentage of total fish kill incidents; and
in Illinois, agricultural operations are said
to be responsible for half of the reported
fish kills. In Pennsylvania, where acid
mine drainage in combination with other
sources is responsible for standards
violations in nearly 75 percent of those
2,744 stream miles which do not meet
standards, some progress in mine drain-
age abatement has reportedly been made
in the past few years but is expected to
slow due to limited resources. Another
problem mentioned by the states is the
sparseness of information on the extent,
causes and effects of nonpoint source
pollution. In the case of Texas, this has
prevented the setting of site-specific con-
trols in most areas of the state.
Nutrients from nonpoint sources of
pollution are harming many of the Na-
tion's lakes. Eutrophication is the "aging"
of waterbodies (primarily lakes and other
standing waterbodies} caused by nutrient
enrichment. High nutrient levels can
stimulate the growth of unsightly algae
and weeds which, in turn, affect fish pop-
ulations and recreational water uses.
Although eutrophication occurs naturally
in lakes over time, man's activities have
in many instances accelerated the proc-
ess. For example, urban runoff and drain-
age from cultivated farmlands are
sources of nutrients and sediments; mu-
nicipal and industrial discharges are also
often rich in nutrients such as phosphor-
us and nitrogen.
Many states are in the process of
classifying their lakes according to troph-
ic status (degree of eutrophication} and
establishing priorities for cleanup.
Future
Directions
While progress has clearly been made in
implementing the Clean Water Act, it is
also clear that certain water quality prob-
lems remain to be solved. The report dis-
cusses in some detail EPA's future
national program directions, which are
summarized as follows:
• EPA will continue its emphasis on con-
trols which specify certain levels of
cleanup technology. Effluent guidelines
to control the industrial discharge of tox-
ic pollutants will be issued. EPA, with the
states, will move rapidly to clear the
backlog of permits which must be reis-
sued to implement these regulations.
• The emphasis on meeting standards
set for the overall quality of water in a
river or stream will be increased. This
approach can then be applied effectively
where needed to control point sources of
pollution in those areas that will not
meet the fishable/swimmable water qual-
ity goal with technology-based controls
alone. In addition, EPA will be placing in-
creased emphasis on encouraging state
and local implementation of nonpoint
source controls where needed to achieve
or maintain high levels of water quality.
EPA officials announced that work is
nearing completion on a joint project
with state water pollution control admi-
nistrators to improve and streamline fu-
ture state water quality reports. The
project, entitled "States' Evaluation of
Progress Under the Clean Water Program
(STEP)," is expected to result in a special
joint state/EPA report to Congress in ear-
ly spring, 1984, covering changes in
water quality during 1972-1982. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
15
-------
Dealing
with EDB,
a Dangerous
(EPA Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus announced on Feb. 3 the
immediate suspension of EDB for use as
a grain fumigant and recommended
residue levels for grain and grain-related
products to protect the Nation's food
supply from EDB contamination)
EPA is exploring the possibility of two
further steps to deal with the problem of
raw and processed agricultural products
contaminated with the pesticide ethylene
dibromide (EDB).
First, the agency is considering issuing
an order for an emergency suspension of
EDB's use as a fumigant for stored grain
and on grain milling machinery.
Second, EPA is considering setting
guidelines for residues of EDB in grains
and food products for the states to fol-
low. These will serve as interim guides
until EPA can set its own national guide-
lines, which cannot be done until the
process is completed for revocation of an
exemption issued by the Food and Drug
Administration in 1956. The exemption
prevented EPA from setting tolerances
for residue limits for EDB and other bro-
mine fumigants in a variety of grains.
EPA on September 30, 1983, proposed
the cancellation and phase-out of EDB
uses on stored grain and grain milling
machinery. This action, which was slated
to be effective in 30 days, has been de-
layed by legal appeals filed by nine par-
ties. The appeals process inherent in
cancellation orders can take one to two
years to complete and permits continued
use throughout the hearing process.
In addition to the cancellation pro-
ceedings it initiated last September, EPA
ordered an emergency suspension of
EDB's use as a soil fumigant, which
accounted for 90 percent of the chem-
ical's agricultural use. Under emergency
suspension orders, no further use of the
chemical is permitted during an appeal
process.
Ultimately, the interim guidelines for
EDB residues in grains and food products
that EPA is exploring could be used for
federal enforcement purposes. The 1956
exemption that prevents EPA from set-
ting tolerances for EDB in grains was
based on a presumption that residues
would not carry over into processed
foods but would be volatilized during
processing. Improved analytical methods
have since demonstrated this to be in-
correct, and EPA has initiated the process
of revoking the FDA exemption.
The work EPA is doing to determine
residue levels for EDB in grains and food
products will be based on the sampling
done by various federal and state agen-
cies, as well as data being generated by
EPA. The U. S. Department of Agriculture
found only one positive sample in meats
(3 parts per billion) of 330 tested samples
from cows, swine and poultry, indicating
that meat products do not appear to be
involved even though these animals can
be expected to consume some EDB fumi-
gated grains, EPA reported. Limited FDA
samples of bread, cereal, milk and flour
showed EDB residues only in flour. These
findings were confirmed by further FDA
sampling of flour mills where residues of
EDB were found in flour, the agency said.
Further work is being undertaken to re-
fine several important elements needed
before a decision can be made to set
interim standards for products, including
the extent to which levels in fumigated
grain are reduced with aeration and with
processing and cooking. This last point is
felt to be especially important because of
concern over the EDB actually consumed
by people, the agency noted. Current
data suggest that residues are reduced
by factors of 100 to 200 as grain is proc-
essed into flour and flour into consumer
products. The agency feels refinement of
these reduction factors is needed for var-
ious types of grain and for different proc-
essing steps such as baking, frying, etc.
It should be noted that data showed
detectable levels of EDB, principally in
products such as flour, corn meal, grits
and cake mix, which require cooking be-
fore being consumed. This processing re-
duces residues but the exact extent to
which they are reduced is unknown, the
agency said. EPA will undertake to pre-
pare such foods over the next few weeks
to determine the extent of that reduction.
Industry is also developing information
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
A substantial portion of the grain stored
in the U.S. in storage elevators like these
is treated with the pesticide EDB, now
under close EPA scrutiny.
on the reduction that occurs in com-
mercial processing operations. Consumer
products marketed in a "ready-to-eat"
form have generally not been found to
have positive residues of EDB, the agen-
cy said.
The agency pointed out in its Septem-
ber 30 announcement of cancellation that
it would continue to monitor and sample
flour, baked goods, milk and meats to es-
tablish a more complete understanding
of the extent of the hazards to public
health resulting from the fumigation of
stored grains and spot fumigation of
grain milling machinery. It was further
stated at that time that, as a part of the
regulatory action, "if the extent of
the hazard posed from either or both of
these uses of EDB becomes more clearly
delineated, EPA will consider emergency
suspension of these uses as well."
The agency's actions follow reports
from the State of Florida and others of
the presence of EDB in some commercial
food products. The pesticide, first used in
this country in the late 1940s, has been
determined to have carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and teratogenic effects on
laboratory animals.
Ethylene dibromide has been reg-
istered as a pesticide since 1948. It is a
halogenated hydrocarbon, as are DDT,
chlordane, heptachlor, aldrin, dieldrin
and DBCP, which were subject to EPA
regulatory decisions in the 1970s. The
principal use, accounting for 90 percent
or nearly 20 million pounds per year, was
preplant soil fumigation: EDB is injected
into the soil to protect a crop from attack
by nematodes (root worms). Citrus,
pineapples, soybeans, cotton, tobacco
and over 30 other fruit, vegetable and nut
crops are treated in this way. EDB is also
used in quarantine programs to fumigate
citrus and other fruits and vegetables
after harvest to prevent the spread of tro-
pical fruit flies and to fumigate stored
grain and grain milling machinery to pre-
vent insect infestation. Minor uses in-
clude termite control, and fumigation of
storage vaults, beehives, and timber.
Another major use of EDB is as an
additive in leaded gasoline. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
17
-------
EPA Moves
to Curb Dioxin Threat
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
tPA has launched a massive effort to investi-
gate, identify and clean up sites contami-
nated by the chemical, dioxin.
"When we find dioxin, we will do more
detailed studies. When we find levels that
could threaten human health, we will take
action," said Alvin L. Aim, Deputy Adminis-
trator of EPA.
Dixoin contamination has been found in
soil, water and air samples. It has become
associated in public awareness with Agent
Orange, Love Canal, and most recently.
Times Beach, Mo.
EPA's efforts will be based on a national
strategy that has been developed by an intra-
agency task force appointed by Aim six
months ago in response to a charge from
Administrator William Ruckelshaus to have
the agency formulate a policy for dealing
with -dioxin contamination.
The agency's strategy will focus primarily
on what is considered the most toxic of the
75 dioxins-2,3,7,8,-TCDD (2,3,7,8-
tetracholoro-dibenzo-p—dioxin). The strategy
document, which indicates that this form of
dioxin could be present in many sites where
certain pesticides were formerly manufac-
tured, formulated and used, calls for coordi-
nating cleanup, regulation and research
activities in such a way as to minimize
current and future public health problems.
Under the framework provided by the
strategy, EPA will attempt to accomplish
three goals. It is going to:
• Study the extent of dioxin contamination
and the associated risks to humans and the
environment.
• Take action necessary to limit further
human exposure at contaminated sites.
• Evaluate regulatory alternatives to prevent
future contamination and evaluate disposal
methods to alleviate current problems.
"The strategy we have developed," Aim
said, "is a comprehensive, coordinated
approach for addressing a complex and
persistent problem. It represents the agency's
concerted efforts for dealing with an enor-
mously difficult problem quickly and effi-
ciently. It will provide the public with a
thorough synopsis of what to expect from
EPA from now on when it sends teams out
to investigate possible dioxin contamination."
Aim said the task force, headed by Steven
Schatzow, director of EPA's Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, divides responsi-
bility for implementation of the strategy
among existing agency programs.
EPA's Superfund program, headed by
Assistant Administrator Lee M. Thomas, will
direct the investigation of sites which appear
to contain the greatest potential for con-
tamination. The Office of Water will direct
sampling, studies at other representative sites
to assess potential problems. Research and
regulatory activity will seek increased under-
standing of dioxin and how to deal with it
effectively to prevent future environmental
problems.
"This strategy presents a picture of where
the agency's efforts will be concentrated
with respect to dioxin now and in the next
few years," Aim said. "We will be gathering
samples in many areas of the country, par-
ticularly where 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination
may be found as a result of its being
EPA JOURNAL
-------
produced as a byproduct in the manufacture
of the herbicide 2,4,5,-TCP."
Aim said that the agency's dioxin strategy
acknowledges gaps in knowledge about the
compound. "However, there is a lot we do
know and will be able to do, acting on that
information," he added. "We are operating
on the assumption that we can't wait for
perfect data before taking positive actions."
He added, "Since dioxin contamination
has been found in soil, water and air, the
strategy brings together the resources of
several EPA programs at the headquarters
and regional levels.
"This strategy establishes priorities,
assigns responsibilities and sets realistic
goals," Aim said. "In this way we will be
able to achieve a degree of consistency and
coordination among EPA offices and our
regions, as well as with the states."
The 2,3,7,8-TCDD isomer (a form of
dioxin) is known to cause chloracne in
humans. In laboratory animals, it has been
known to cause cancer, reproductive failure,
reduced effectiveness of the immune system
and significant changes in enzyme systems.
EPA's Cancer Assessment Group states that
this dioxin isomer should be regarded as
both an initiator and a promoter of cancer.
Dioxin can be an inadvertent contaminant
produced in the manufacture of 2,4,5-TCP
(2,4,5-Tricholorophenoi), a herbicide and
basic feedstock chemical used to produce
2,4,5-T and silvex, two well known herbi-
cides used until recently to control weeds,
broad-leafed plants of all types, and as a
defoliant. These products were used in
agriculture, forest management, right-of-way
control, and lawn care. The herbicide 2,4,5-T
was an ingredient of Agent Orange, a
defoliant used in Vietnam. Minute quantities
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxins are also
reported to be associated with the burning of
municipal wastes and certain electrical trans-
former fires.
National standards or levels at which
2,3,7,8-TCDD may cause adverse health or
other environmental effects have yet to be
established. In the absence of such stand-
ards, EPA will make site-specific assessments
of risks to determine adequate cleanup
measures.
In addition to investigating 2,4,5-TCP-
related production facilities and waste sites,
the agency's strategy calls for sampling of
air, water, soil, and fish and animal tissue in
an effort to determine background levels and
where the chemical may have spread. The
strategy will also provide for study of the
potential risks associated with human and
environmental contamination by 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and other dioxin isomers as well as for
developing regulations to prevent further
contamination.
To implement its dioxin strategy, EPA has
established seven categories (tiers) of investi-
gation and study ranging from the most
probable contamination to the least. They
are:
1. 2,4,5-TCP production sites (estimated to
be about 20) and waste disposal sites
(presently an unknown number).
2. Sites and associated waste disposal sites
where 2,4,5-TCP was used as the basic sub-
stance in the process of making herbicide
products (an estimated 30, with an unknown
quantity of waste disposal sites).
3. Sites and associated waste disposal sites
where 2,4,5-TCP and its derivatives were
formulated into herbicide products (produc-
tion sites alone are estimated at several
hundred).
4. Possible combustion sources such as
incineration of hazardous and municipal
wastes, internal combustion engines, wood
burning stoves, and others.
5. Sites where herbicides derived from 2,4,5-
TCP have been and are being used on a
commercial basis such as rights-of-way, rice
fields in Arkansas, forests, certain aquatic
sites, and pastureland.
6. Certain organic chemical and pesticide
manufacturing facilities where improper
quality control on certain production
processes would have resulted in the forma-
tion of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (probably less than
100).
7. Control sites where contamination of
2,3,7,8-TCDD is not suspected. These will be
compared with known contaminated sites to
form a background level for the strategy
studies.
The strategy document estimates that 80
to 90 percent of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD contami-
nation will be found in the first two
categories.
Cleanup activities in these areas will be
managed by the agency's hazardous waste
Superfund program. Initial efforts will be
aimed at getting parties potentially respon-
sible for the contamination to take appropri-
ate cleanup actions.
Funding for efforts in the remaining cate-
gories in the 1984 fiscal year will be under-
taken from a separate $4 million appropriation
which has been earmarked for the "National
Dioxin Study." A similar appropriation will be
sought for 1985. The time frame anticipated
for taking samples and conducting investiga-
tions in categories 3 through 7 is two years.
Dioxin research will be undertaken with
the collaboration of other federal agencies to
learn more about the risks of exposure to
humans and other species. The other
agencies are the Food and Drug Administra-
tion (which sets safe food consumption
levels), the Centers for Disease Control
(which prepares health advisories for EPA's
Superfund program), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (which has coordinated
relocations during dioxin cleanup operations),
the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration (which sets workplace exposure
limits), and the Veterans Administration
(which has developed a large body of
evidence on the Agent Orange issue).
EPA also is evaluating alternatives for
disposal and destruction of soils and wastes
contaminated with dioxin. These methods
include securing contaminated soils and
preventing runoff or percolation, solvent
extraction of dioxin from soils, and incinera-
tion to destroy the contaminant. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
19
-------
Invisible Threat, Invisible Resource:
Underground Tanks
Contaminate Groundwater
by Susan Tejada
Fiberglass tanks being installed under-
ground to hold gasoline for pumps at
new convenience store in Houston.
In Lee, Maine Raymond Hill man hauls
water for his family either from a nearby
creek or from a horse trough.
In Wyoming, Rhode Island 16 households
use bottled water.
And in Northglenn, Colorado 41 home-
owners have sold their homes.
These disparate situations have one thing
in common: they were all caused by gasoline
leaking from underground storage tanks. In
Lee, a 10,000-gallon leak has rendered one
quarter of the town's water supply undrink-
able. In Wyoming, 16 of some 40 homes in
the subdivision have contaminated water.
And in Northglenn, estimates are that more
than 30,000 gallons of gasoline were lost
over a three or four-year period before the
leak was discovered.
Leaking underground storage tanks are a
national problem.
No one knows for sure exactly how many
gasoline storage tanks there are, but
estimates put the number currently in use at
between one and a half and two million. This
does not include abandoned tanks, or tanks
used to store other hazardous and non-
hazardous liquids. The major oil companies
own about 40 percent of the gasoline storage
tanks in use, with the remainder belonging to
small oil companies, jobbers, factories,
farms, police and fire departments, and
individuals.
The great majority of tanks in use—about
1.2 million—are made of steel. Only a small
number of them—about 16,000—are pro-
tected against corrosion. About 200,000 of
the tanks in use are made of fiberglass.
Many of the tanks are leaking. In fact,
according to recent testimony by Jack
Ravan, EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Water, "gasoline may be one of the most
common causes of groundwater pollution in
many parts of the country due to leakage
from underground storage tanks." Some
studies have projected that anywhere from
10 to 25 percent of the tanks in certain states
are leaking. Ravan told the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Toxic Substances and Environ-
mental Oversight that some experts have
(Susan Tejada is Contributing Editor of
EPA Journal.)
"estimated that nationwide there may be
between 75 and 100 thousand leaking tanks
at this time, and the number is rising."
One reason tanks leak is because of old
age. A study by the National Oil Jobbers
Council indicated that almost one-third of all
tanks in the ground are 16 years or older.
The older an unprotected steel tank is, the
more likely it is to corrode. A 1977 survey by
the American Petroleum Institute (API),
updated in 1981, found that, in cases of
leakage, corrosion was the cause in 92
percent of steel tanks and 64 percent of steel
pipes. By contrast, breakage was the major
cause of leaks in fiberglass tanks.
Slow
but still significant
Corroded tanks leak slowly, so even a dealer
who inventories tank supplies regularly might
not detect a leak for a long time. According
to a draft report now being prepared for
EPA's Office of Solid Waste, "leaks of less
than approximately 15 gallons per day cannot
be reliably detected with inventory monitor-
ing." But a slow leak is not necessarily an
insignificant one. "One gallon of gasoline per
day leaking into a groundwater source," said
Ravan, "is enough to pollute the water of a
50,000-person community to a level of 100
parts per billion."
Increasing incidents of tank leaks are
happening at a time when, according to
Ravan, "reliance on groundwater is increas-
ing as a proportion of all fresh water used."
A 1983 position paper of the American
Institute of Professional Geologists noted
that "groundwater provides 23 percent of the
fresh water used in the United States. In the
semi-arid western states, it provides 38
percent of the fresh water supply. ... At
least 35 percent of public water supplies are
derived from groundwater. Thirty-four of the
100 largest cities depend completely or in
part on groundwater."
A 1983 report by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), titled Groundwater
Contamination by Toxic Substances, states
that "nationwide, approximately 112 million
people get their drinking water from the
ground; about 90 percent of all rural house-
holds depend on groundwater for their water
supply." An earlier EPA report on Ground-
water Contamination in the Northeast States
concludes that "buried storage tanks and
pipelines . . . are significant sources of
groundwater contamination."
The limited statistics available at this time,
many of which are summarized in the CRS
report, tend to back up this claim. In
Vermont, for example, a 1982 survey identi-
fied leaking underground gasoline and fuel oil
storage tanks and pipelines as the second
leading cause of groundwater contamination
incidents. Together with road salt, leaking
tanks accounted for nearly 60 percent of
Vermont's contamination incidents. In
Tennessee, a 1981 Profile of Existing
Groundwater Problems indicated that
gasoline leaks from underground storage
tanks and pipelines were a common problem.
In Pennsylvania, a 1982 Water Quality
Inventory found that, of 249 cases of
groundwater contamination by toxic mate-
rials, 71 percent were caused by gasoline and
finished petroleum products. The majority of
these cases involved leaking underground
storage tanks and pipelines.
Connecticut's Annual Oil and Chemical
Spill Summary for FY 1981-1982 mentions 45
cases of groundwater contamination by
gasoline, fuel oil, waste oil, or kerosene,
almost all of them caused by leaks from
inground storage tanks and pipelines. New
Mexico has documented 28 cases of ground-
water contamination by gasoline leaking from
tanks. And in Michigan, a 1982 Assessment
of Groundwater Contamination found that
100 of 897 known and suspected cases of
contamination were caused by leaking under-
ground storage tanks.
The BTX
factor ,
Gasoline floats on top of water. But some
toxic components of gasoline dissolve in
water. When gasoline is removed from soil
or water, these colorless, odorless compo-
nents—benzene, toluene, and xylene, or
BTX—remain behind. Benzene is an animal
carcinogen. Toluene and xylene produce
mutations in bacteria.
Awareness of problems caused by leaking
storage tanks and pipelines is relatively
recent. In the last five or six years, an
increasing number of incidents of leakage
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
IW
*>:*,?
{•1
has been discovered. Industry and federal,
state, and local governments are stepping up
efforts to deal with the problems.
Federal efforts:
Pinpointing legal authority
With passage of the Pipeline Safety Act of
1979, the U.S. Department of Transportation
was authorized to prescribe safety standards
and accident reporting requirements for
transportation of hazardous liquids in pipe-
lines. But the issue of where authority lies
for federal regulation of storage tanks is not
so clear. An EPA workgroup on underground
storage tanks, part of a larger EPA Ground-
water Task Force, is currently trying to
resolve the issue.
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund) specifically excludes from its
definition of hazardous substances subject to
provisions of the Act "petroleum, including
crude oil . . . natural gas, natural gas liquids,
liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable
for fuel. . . ." As a result, Superfund has not
been used to clean up gasoline leaks.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) requires EPA to develop regula-
tory controls for the generation, transport,
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazard-
ous waste. Existing RCRA regulations on
storage tanks are geared primarily to above-
ground tanks. But, as problems with per-
mitting of underground tanks began
surfacing more frequently over the past few
years, EPA's Office of Solid Waste, which
administers RCRA, embarked on the study
mentioned above, an Assessment of the
Technical, Environmental, and Safety
Aspects of Storage of Hazardous Waste in
Underground Tanks. The study provides a
profile of underground tanks used for hazard-
ous waste storage. Sixty-three percent of the
underground tanks included in the study
were made of carbon steel, the material most
susceptible to corrosion. Only nine percent
were made of fiberglass. More than half of
the underground tanks were more than eight
years old, and 44 percent of the waste stored
in the tanks was ignitable. The Office of
Solid Waste has concluded that, of approxi-
mately 2,000 tanks containing liquid hazard-
ous waste, 20 to 35 percent are probably
leaking now, and most are probably located
in populated areas.
RCRA is due for Congressional reauthori-
zation. One proposed amendment to the law
would require EPA to develop final regula-
tions on underground hazardous waste tanks
by March 1985. The Office of Solid Waste is
currently drafting such regulations.
In at least one case, says Joel Blumstein,
an attorney in EPA's Boston office, RCRA's
enforcement authority has already been used
to remedy the effects of gasoline leaking
from underground storage tanks. In 1982,
after a year of study, EPA determined that
drinking water contamination in the Village
of Wyoming, Rhode island was due to gaso-
line leaking from nearby Exxon and Mobil
service stations. In 1983, under the imminent
hazard authority of Section 7003 of RCRA,
EPA issued Administrative Orders to compel
the two companies to intercept and treat the
contaminated water in the community. With
the Administrative Orders now in force.
affected residents are receiving bottled
water paid for by the companies; the com-
panies are testing for contaminated soil
and must remove and dispose of any that
they find; Mobil is doing the engineering
work necessary to place temporary
groundwater interceptor wells at the site;
and negotiations with the companies
about funding a community water system
are continuing.
Best bet:
TSCA
While the Office of Solid Waste is concen-
trating its efforts on regulating hazardous
waste storage tanks under RCRA, the best
bet for EPA regulation of underground tanks
for storage of non-waste materials such as
gasoline and other hazardous substances
appears to lie with another law the agency
administers, the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). Under the direction of EPA
Deputy Administrator Al Aim, the agency is
currently examining legal authority under
TSCA to set in place a comprehensive regu-
latory program for chemicals leaking from
underground storage tanks.
The agency will look at regulatory options
for both new and existing tanks, including
the possibilities of overseeing methods of
leak detection and cleanup, and setting
construction and installation standards.
Proper installation is especially important for
fiberglass tanks. A fiberglass tank not
fastened down properly or surrounded by
proper backfill material may crack or break.
The agency will also examine non-
regulatory options, such as working with
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
21
-------
industry to develop voluntary guidelines or
distributing information to tank owners and
the general public on technical aspects of
inventory control, leak testing, tank replace-
ment, and potential liabilities.
In the past, EPA has awarded grants to
three states for work on the storage tank
problem. With EPA funding, Maryland has
developed three publications: a procedures
manual for installing and maintaining
underground storage tanks, a training
manual for employees at storage tank
facilities, and a list of related technical
codes and organizations. With additional
EPA funding, New York has developed a
model code on underground storage tank
regulation and California is developing a
program for detection, correction and
prevention of tank leaks. The prevention
phase involved developing a model
ordinance mandating secondary
containment for new tanks and
monitoring for old tanks. The code has
now been passed by several cities in
Santa Clara County.
State and local efforts:
Legislation and investigation
A few jurisdictions across the country have
begun to take action on their own to handle
hazardous liquid leaks from underground
storage tanks. The EPA Office of Solid
Waste report describes six such efforts. In
addition to the California program described
above, the report mentions:
• Development by the Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commission of
model groundwater protection bylaws and
regulations requiring tank registration, tank
inspection, and zoning restrictions in ground-
water recharge areas.
• Passage of legislation in Prince George's
County, Maryland requiring tank and piping
system testing for storage tank facilities.
• Investigation by the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources of problems associated
with underground storage of petroleum
fuels. The Department found that, in
1977-78, there were 396 reports of soil
and/or groundwater pollution by petroleum
fuels leaking from underground tanks.
• Investigation by the New York Department
of Environmental Conservation of hazardous
liquid leaks and spills. The study estimated
that, of 83,000 functioning underground
tanks in the state, 20 percent were leaking.
• Enactment of legislation in Suffolk County,
New York to control groundwater contamina-
tion resulting from storage of hazardous
materials in both underground and above-
ground tanks. The county health department
began a tank permitting, inspection, and
testing program, and discovered that 10
percent of all tanks tested were leaking.
• Additional information prepared for EPA's
Office of Solid Waste mentions three other
jurisdictions with storage tank programs
under way or in development: in Dade
County, Florida, preparation of regulations to
control underground storage of petroleum
products; in Kansas, regulation of petroleum
storage tanks; and in Texas, proposal of
regulations for inspection of underground
tanks.
industry efforts:
Cutting losses
When gasoline or hazardous liquids leak from
a storage tank, industry loses more than the
liquid itself. It loses money—the money it
takes to replace the lost product and the
money it may take to repair any environ-
mental damage or compensate any potential
victims. As Joseph Lastelic, a spokesman for
the American Petroleum Institute, recently
told a reporter for The New York Times,
some petroleum companies are being sued
by communities whose drinking water sup-
plies have been contaminated by leaking
gasoline. Furthermore, the companies, he
said, have an economic stake in the millions
of dollars worth of gasoline leaking away into
the ground.
In general, when pollution victims have
sued, the courts have held oil companies
responsible for property damages caused by
gasoline leaks. Settlements have run into the
millions of dollars. According to National
Petroleum News (A/PA/), Exxon paid some-
where between $5-10 million to settle claims
stemming from a leak in East Meadow, New
York, and Chevron paid about $10-12 million
to settle similar claims in Northglenn,
Colorado. Estimates put the average cost of
cleaning up a simple tank leak at $70,000.
This could climb as high as $1 million
where soil cleanup and tank removal are
involved.
Insurance does not always ease the pain of
hefty payments. A National Oil Jobbers
Council survey, reported in NPN, found that,
while two-thirds of the respondents were
covered for "sudden and accidental" leaks,
they had no protection against slow leaks or
special liability. "Few, if any, policies cover
[slow] leaks," NPN explained, "especially
those which go undetected for long periods."
Yet such leaks are the ones that can be most
costly to remedy.
With such high stakes, industry is moving
to cut potential losses. "The majority of the
major oil companies have a tank replacement
program," says Rudy White, API's under-
ground leak specialist. "This usually involves
replacement of unprotected steel tanks with
tanks that are made of protected steel,
coated with fiberglass, or made of
reinforced fiberglass. The companies are
about half-way through their replacement
programs now." While the major oil com-
panies step up their tank replacement
programs, NPN points out that such a move
often is not feasible for "the little guy," the
smaller marketer who cannot afford new
tanks. In addition, fiberglass tanks are
chemically incompatible with certain sub-
stances, including some new blended fuels.
Industry concern is reflected at API. "We
receive eight to twelve calls a day," says
White, "asking questions about things like
proper tank installation and testing methods.
We get calls from anyone who deals with
underground storage tanks—chemical com-
panies, fire departments."
To answer the need for information, API
offers three services. First, the Institute
provides free consultations to any commu-
nity or fire department with a leak coming
from an unknown source. "We will help
them identify the source of the leak," says
White. "It's then up to the community to
decide how to handle it." Second, API staff
will travel to interested communities to
present a one-day seminar on prevention,
detection, investigation, and cleanup of
underground storage tank leaks. And third,
API puts out publications and audiovisual
products on the subject. These include
bulletins on removal, installation, lining, and
cathodic protection of tanks; an underground
spill cleanup manual; and a slide/tape
presentation on underground leak detection.
Leaking underground storage tanks have
earned an amusing, if inevitable, acronym:
LUST. The problems these tanks create,
however, while perhaps inevitable, are far
from amusing. In the coming months, both
the public and private sectors will be paying
more attention to finding ways of solving the
problems. Groundwater contamination, to
which leaking underground storage tanks are
a prime contributor, could, says Al Aim,
"emerge as the environmental problem of
the eighties." D
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
87 EPA Employees Honored
Administrator William Rucke/shaus pre-
sents a gold medal award to Don Barnes,
an EPA environmental scientist, for his
work on a strategy to deal with the toxic
chemical, dtoxin.
I n recent ceremonies, EPA cited 87 of its
employees for outstanding contributions in
1983.
At the December 16 ceremony, Adminis-
trator William Ruckelshaus said, "We are
proud of these employees, their personal
achievements, their contributions to the
Nation's quest for a better environment, and
above all, because they represent hundreds
and hundreds of the finest federal employees
— those who serve at the 40 or more EPA
installations around the country."
Ruckelshaus noted that among the
awardees were men and women who have
worked closely with governors and state
agencies in environmental cleanup. He called
federal-state partnership efforts—ordered by
Congress in many of the environmental laws
it has passed —a major development since
EPA was founded.
Among the EPA honors, the
Distinguished Career Award went to Nicholas
J. Dormer and posthumously to Robert T.
Walsh. Dormer is an accountant at EPA
headquarters and was cited for an outstand-
ing career in financial management and
budgeting, spanning 41 years of public
service. Walsh was a chemical engineer with
the Office of Air and Radiation in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. He made signif-
icant contributions in developing air pollution
control technology.
The Gold Medal for Exceptional Service
went to two groups. In addition, it was
awarded to three individuals: Dr. Donald
Barnes, an environmental scientist at the
headquarters Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances; Dean F. Hill, a chemist with the
National Enforcement Investigations Center
in Denver, and John C. Wise, Region 9
Deputy Regional Administrator.
Dr. Barnes was cited for his exceptional
and tireless efforts in developing policy
positions on dioxin and for clearly explaining
them in a variety of public forums over four
years.
Cooperative federal/state efforts were
singled out in the achievements of the other
individual gold medal winners.
Dean Hill was responsible for setting up
and managing the National Technical
Assistance Program for State Pesticide
Analytical Laboratories, a key element in the
grants program to assist the states in
carrying out the federal pesticide law. A
national training program was established for
state pesticide chemists. Procedures were
developed for on-site audits at state pesticide
laboratories. Hill established and is now
editor of a bi-monthly newsletter, Internal
Standard, which exchanges technical informa-
tion. The enforcement grant program was
strengthened by the expansion of lab analyses
and the ability to resolve lab problems.
John Wise was honored for distinguished
and dedicated leadership and sound profes-
sional management as the Acting Regional
Administrator of Region 9, which is
responsible for California, Arizona, Nevada,
Hawaii and the Pacific Islands of Guam,
American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and
the Trust Territories. He was cited as being
particularly effective in the development of
state/EPA agreements and liaison with the
governors in his region.
One group medal went to three attorneys
— Anne Asbell, David Batson and Arthur
Ray; a biologist—Ed Bender; an environmen-
tal engineer—David Rogers; and the Assist-
ant Regional Administrator for Policy and
Management in Region 4—Howard Zeller.
They comprised the litigation team which
helped win a $24 million settlement in the
case of the U.S. vs. Olin Chemical Company,
Inc. The complex negotiations lasted 18
months and revolved around the DDT con-
tamination of the Wheeler National Wildlife
Refuge and adjacent lands and waters near
Triana, Ala.
Six employees also shared the work that
brought the other group a gold medal. They
are Ira Wilder, Frank Freestone, Dr. John
Brugger, Michael Gruenfeld, Uwe Frank and
James Yezzi, Jr. They were cited for out-
standing service to environmental protection
through their conception, development and
testing of the EPA Mobile Incineration
System. The system was designed for field
use to destroy hazardous organic substances
collected from cleanup operations at spills or
at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The
incineration system —a breakthrough in
hazardous waste treatment and disposal —
consists of four trailers with a kiln, a
secondary combustion chamber, an MX
scrubber and a stack monitor.
Other honors included eight Administra-
tor's awards for excellence, 55 Silver Medals
for superior service, two Trudy A. Speciner
awards for outstanding contributions by non-
supervisory professional employees and five
Public Health Service meritorious service
medals. [_
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
23
-------
Four Major
Enforcement
Actions Taken
pour major actions have been taken
Irecently involving EPA and environmental
enforcement.
First, EPA, the State of Louisiana and 10
hazardous waste generators have agreed to
an estimated $50 million cleanup of two
hazardous waste sites in Baton Rouge
owned and operated by Petro Processors.
Second, in the biggest amount ever
sought by any federal agency for damage to
natural resources, the Justice Department
sued the Shell Oil Company for almost $1.9
billion in environmental damage that the
government says was caused by a Shell
pesticide factory near Denver, Colo.
Third, the Justice Department has gone to
court against the Occidental Chemical
Company (formerly Hooker Chemicals and
Plastics Corporation) to recover nearly $45
million spent by EPA and other federal
agencies to clean up the hazardous waste
site at Love Canal, in Niagara Falls, N.Y.
The wastes were disposed of at the site by
Hooker.
Fourth, EPA and Occidental agreed on
a $30 million settlement on the cleanup
of the S-Area landfill in Niagara Falls, N.Y.
If the Louisiana agreement is approved by
a federal court in Baton Rouge, it would
settle one of the largest hazardous waste
settlements ever brought by the
government.
The agreement involves the U.S. Steel
Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Shell Chemical
Corp., Exxon Corp., Allied Chemicals Corp.,
Ethyl Corp., Uniroyal Corp., Copolymer
Rubber and Chemical Corp., American
Hoescht Co. and Rubicon Chemical Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, the
companies are to clean up hazardous
conditions caused by the dumping of toxic
chemicals and other wastes over a 15-year
period at the two sites.
The work would include evacuation and
containment of buried wastes and would
require groundwater monitoring at the sites.
The companies also would be required to
maintain the sites in perpetuity and monitor
the sites for at least 30 years or longer if
there is a threat to health or the environ-
ment. They also would reimburse the EPA
for $600,000 in enforcement and investigative
costs.
The South Plants area of the Army's Rocky Mountain Arsenal, where Shell
Chemical Company had a pesticide factory.
EPA filed suit against the owners and the
waste generators in July 1980, alleging that
toxic organic compounds and heavy metals
had been released into local waterways,
eventually finding their way to the Mississippi
River, and were posing a threat to an
underground drinking water supply.
In its Shell Oil suit, filed at the request of
the U.S. Army, the Justice Department
charged that more than 40 hazardous
substances manufactured or used at the
Shell facility, located on the grounds of the
Army's Rocky Mountain Arsenal, had spilled
and that some had leaked into underground
water supplies tapped by nearby
communities.
The Justice Department filed suit against
Shell after the Army and the company failed
to agree on how much each should pay to
clean up the site. The complaint against
Shell seeks money to pay for the anticipated
costs of cleaning up environmental damage.
In 1982, a Memorandum of Agreement
was entered into by the Army, EPA, the
State of Colorado and Shell, under which the
Army and Shell began discussions about
possible cleanup activities at the arsenal.
The State of Colorado has tried since 1975
to force the Army and Shell to clean up the
arsenal. Shortly before the Justice Depart-
ment suit, the Colorado Health Department
filed a damage claim against the Army and
Shell asking each for $50 million in damages
for each release of hazardous substances
from the arsenal into the environment.
The chief chemicals found at the Shell site
are aldrin and dieldrin, two pesticides that
were banned in 1974 by EPA because they
were suspected of causing cancer and birth
defects. According to the Justice Depart-
ment suit, Shell and a predecessor firm
leased land at the arsenal and dumped toxic
chemicals at the site from 1947 until 1982.
The activities of the Shell subsidiary, the
Shell Chemical Corp., have caused only part
of the environmental pollution at the arsenal,
according to EPA officials. The arsenal was a
center for the production of nerve gas and
other chemical weapons, including mustard
gas and phosgene gas, from 1942 to 1970.
EPA officials said more than 160 different
contaminated sites had been discovered at
the 26-square-mile arsenal. The Justice
Department said Shell was not being held
responsible for any environmental damage
for which the Army was solely responsible.
Shell is being sued under the Superfund
law, which deals with the cleanup of
hazardous waste dumps.
In its Occidental suit, the government is
seeking to recover money already spent by
the government under the Superfund law
and other statutes to clean up the Love
Canal landfill and relocate residents living
near the sire.
The Justice Department moved to file the
EPA JOURNAL
-------
More Appointments at EPA
cost recovery claim in an amendment to the
original suit filed in December, 1979, against
the former Hooker Chemicals and Plastics
Corp. That suit had requested that the firm
clean up Love Canal.
EPA is also seeking a ruling making the
company liable for all future costs incurred
by the federal government in its continuing
cleanup of the area.
To meet the threat posed by the nearly
21,000 tons of hazardous wastes which
Hooker dumped into the canal from 1942
through 1953, EPA and the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
have been jointly cleaning up the site with
Superfund money pending final resolution of
the suit against the company.
A leachate collection and treatment system
has been installed at the site, and the site
will be covered with a synthetic cap. EPA
and the state have also funded a number of
environmental, health, engineering and other
studies of the Love Canal area.
The claim against Occidental is the largest
cost recovery action filed to date under the
Superfund law.
The fourth legal action—an agreement
to clean up the S-Area landfill in Niagara
Falls—was filed by the Justice De-
partment, on behalf of EPA, in the U.S.
District Court in Buffalo. The consent de-
cree, also signed by the State of New
York and the City of Niagara Falls, is sub-
ject to a public comment period before
the agreement becomes final.
The cleanup is designed to prevent fur-
ther migration of the chemicals from the
landfill and to protect the drinking water
supply of nearly 50,000 Niagara Falls re-
sidents as well as the Niagara River.
Occidental has agreed to undertake a
comprehensive remedial program to con-
tain and clean up the landfill and nearby
groundwater which has become con-
taminated by the landfill.
Between 1947 and 1975, Hooker dis-
posed of about 63,100 tons of chemical
wastes at S-Area. The landfill is located
at Occidental's Buffalo Avenue plant,
next to the city's water treatment plant,
and within a few hundred feet of the
Niagara River, an international river. The
S-Area landfill and Love Canal are among
several landfills in the Niagara Falls area
used by Hooker since World War II to dis-
pose of hazardous chemical wastes. G
Marcia E. Williams
Steadman M. Overman Russel H. Wyer
A deputy assistant administrator and
three division directors have been named
recently at EPA. In addition, three scien-
tists will join the Agency as part of a new
Senior Visiting Scientists program.
Marcia E. Williams is the new Deputy
Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Wil-
liams has been with the Agency since
1970. She worked until 1974 as a statisti-
cian and mathematician at EPA facilities
in Michigan and North Carolina. From
1974 to 1978, she held various man-
agement positions in the Office of Air,
Noise and Radiation's mobile source
emission control office in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
In 1978, Williams came to EPA head-
quarters as Chief of the Statistical Evalua-
tion Staff in the Office of Planning and
Management. She joined the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances in 1979.
There she has served as Director of the
Special Pesticide Review Division and as
both Deputy Director and Acting Director
of the Office of Toxic Substances.
Williams holds a bachelor of science
degree in math and physics from Dick-
inson College, where she was gradu-
ated summa cum laude. She also did
graduate work in physics at the Univer-
sity of Maryland.
Steadman M. Overman has resumed leg-
islative duties with EPA after a four-year
intergovernmental exchange assignment
to the State of Ohio. Overman, first
Assistant Director, then Director of EPA's
Legislative Division from 1971 to 1980,
now becomes Director of the agency's
Office of Legislative Analysis, part of the
Office of External Affairs. He will assist in
coordinating agency participation in Con-
gressional hearings, and will supervise
preparation of testimony and the drafting
of bills and amendments for agency sub-
mission to Congress.
During his Ohio assignment, from 1980
to 1984, Overman was Chief Legal Coun-
sel of the Ohio Department of Health,
and received the Distinguished Service
Award of the Ohio Association of Health
Officials for his work in that position.
Overman previously served with the U.S.
Public Health Service. This included
service as Chief of the Office of Legal and
Legislative Affairs in the Bureau of State
Services and as Chief Counsel for the
Office of Legislative Affairs in the Con-
sumer Protection and Environmental
Health Service.
Overman previously worked for the
Ohio Department of Health from 1953 to
1963. He hoids a bachelor's degree from
the Georgia Institute of Technology, a
master of public health degree from the
University of North Carolina, and a doc-
tor of jurisprudence degree from Capital
University Law School.
Russel H. Wyer was named Director of the
Hazardous Site Control Division, part of
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Wyer had been Acting Director of
the Division, which oversees Superfund
remedial cleanups at hazardous waste sites.
Wyer has been with EPA since 1970, serving
until 1981 as Deputy Director of the Oil and
Special Materials Control Division. Before
joining EPA, Wyer held severaf positions with
the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration in Charlottesville, Virginia, and also
served as a Sanitary Engineer for the U.S.
Public Health Service in Kansas City, Mo.;
Pine Ridge, S.D.; and Portland, Ore. Wyer
holds a degree in civil engineering from the
University of California at Berkeley.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
25
-------
Gary M. Katz
Dr. David V. Bates
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr Dr. John M. Neuhold
Gary M. Katz was named Director of the
Management and Organization Division, part
of EPA's Office of Administration and
Resources Management. Katz comes to EPA
from the Office of Management and Budget,
where he had been a management analyst
and, most recently, coordinator of analytical
project teams for the OMB Management
Review, part of the FY 1985 Budget Review.
Katz previously worked at EPA, from 1971 to
1978, holding positions in grants administra-
tion, agency planning and management, and
agency civil rights and labor standards
compliance. Katz worked from 1967 to 1971
for the Environmental Control Administration
in the former U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare prior to the Adminis-
tration's reorganization into EPA and, from
1966 to 1967, in the Office of the Mayor of
the City of New York. Katz holds a bachelor's
degree in political science from Gettysburg
College, and a master's of governmental
administration from the Wharton School of
the University of Pennsylvania.
Three eminent scientists will be joining
EPA as part of a new program to improve
agency science by attracting distinguished
visiting researchers to EPA laboratories. The
National Academy of Sciences wilt admin-
ister the Senior Visiting Scientists program
and help recruit researchers in the environ-
mental field from universities and other
institutions.
Dr. David V. Bates is one of the first three
scientists to participate in the program. To
help improve EPA's ability to set air quality
standards Bates will conduct research on the
effects of ozone on humans and the mech-
anisms by which ozone affects human health.
He will work at the Clinical Research Branch
of EPA's Health Effects Research Laboratory
in Chapel Hill, N.C. Bates is a professor in
the School of Medicine at the University of
British Columbia.
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr will conduct research
on chemicals in land-based hazardous waste
sites to help EPA study waste management
alternatives. He will divide his time between
several EPA laboratories. Loehr is a professor
of engineering at Cornell University and a
member of the National Academy of
Sciences.
Dr. John M. Neuhold will study water quality
data at EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Duluth, Minn, to help the
agency establish water quality-based
pollution standards. Neuhold is a professor in
the College of Natural Resources at Utah
State University.
Speaking about the new program, EPA
Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus said,
"These scientists will help us promote those
areas of environmental science that are most
significant to the agency." D
Update
A review of recent major
EPA activities and de-
velopments in the pollu-
tion control program
areas.
Black History
Month
EPA is actively supporting the
observance of National Black
History Month in February.
This year's theme is "Black
Americans—the Struggle for
Excellence in Education (Black
Inventors and Scientists—
America's Resource). The EPA
Offices of Civil Rights and Pub-
lic Affairs and the EPA Chapter
of Blacks in Government are
planning a series of activities
to support the theme.
Events scheduled include an
art exhibit, panel discussions
involving EPA employees,
guest luncheon speakers and
other activities. The recent pas-
sage by Congress of legislation
to make Martin Luther King
Jr.'s birthday a national holi-
day starting in 1986 has helped
give a special stimulus to this
year's celebration of Black His-
tory Month. Further informa-
tion on Black History Month
activities can be obtained by
phoning Dwight Doxey, Office
of Civil Rights, at 382-5669.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Emergency
Response
EPA recently announced the
award of two contracts totaling
some $79 million to provide
immediate emergency response
at hazardous waste sites in the
south and in the western and
northwest states.
The contracts are with Hazard-
ous Waste Technology Services,
Atlanta, a division of Soil and
Material Engineering, Inc., and
Environmental Emergency
Services Co., Portland, Ore., a
division of Riedel International,
Inc.
Each firm will provide all clean-
up personnel, equipment, and
materials needed to conduct
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Superfund emergency activities.
Each contractor is also respon-
sible for maintaining a manage-
ment organization to support a
standby network of cleanup
resources and to provide on-
scene deployment of these
resources in accordance with the
EPA On-Scene Coordinator's
instructions.
The Hazardous Waste Tech-
nology Services firm will stand
by to handle Superfund emer-
gencies for EPA's Region 4—
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Kentucky.
Environmental Emergency
Services will handle Superfund
emergency actions for EPA's
Regions 6 through 10, covering
the western and northwestern
states.
Contracts for Superfund
emergency actions in the New
England, Middle Atlantic, and
Midwestern states will be
awarded shortly.
At present, cleanup work is
being carried out at 182 hazard-
ous waste sites across the
nation: 51 emergency responses
and 140 long-term remedial
actions (both kinds of work
going on at some of the sites).
Delaware
Go-Ahead
Delaware has become the first
state in the nation to receive
federal authorization under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act {RCRA! to imple-
ment its hazardous waste pro-
gram, EPA recently announced.
RCRA is the federal law that
established the national program
to control hazardous wastes
being generated now and in the
future. (Another federal statute,
the Superfund law, deals with
the problems created by hazard-
ous wastes disposed of before
RCRA went into effect.)
EPA Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus said, "Delaware's
authorization signals a new era
for this country as the states and
federal government move jointly
to assure that the hazardous
wastes our society produces are
effectively controlled. Programs
will be unique to each state yet
consistent with EPA's hazardous
waste standards."
Gaining authorization is a
multi-phased process for the
states, but until final authoriza-
tion is obtained, EPA operates
the federal hazardous waste
program within each state. Once
authorized, the state operates its
own program.
The state must demonstrate
that the wastes it has identified
as hazardous and its standards
for regulating waste generators,
transporters, and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities
are equivalent to EPA's definition
of hazardous wastes and EPA's
standards. States must also
demonstrate that their hazardous
waste facilities' permitting
process is equivalent to EPA's
and includes opportunities for
public participation and authority
for adequate enforcement.
Delaware began to seek EPA's
authorization in November 1980,
when the federal hazardous
waste regulations developed
under RCRA first became
effective.
TOXICS
Benzene
Standards
EPA has announced its decision
to issue final standards control-
ling benzene fugitive emissions
from petroleum refineries and
chemical manufacturing plants
and to propose standards for
controlling benzene emissions
from coke by-product recovery
plants. At the same time, the
agency announced its intention
to propose withdrawal of stand-
ards proposed for three other
source categories of benzene.
"These regulations will address
those stationary sources of
benzene which have the most
significant impact on public
health," said Joseph A. Cannon,
EPA Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. "The two
sources we will be regulating
account for over 70 percent of
the stationary sources of
benzene, which has been linked
to numerous blood disorders,
including adult leukemia," he
said.
In the spring of 1984, the
agency intends to issue final
regulations establishing emis-
sions standards for benzene fugi-
tive emissions {non-stack
emissions, such as leaks) from
petroleum refineries and chemical
manufacturing plants and it will
propose standards for coke by-
product recovery plants. The
agency will propose withdrawal
of the proposed standards for
maleic anhydride plants, ethyl-
benzene and styrene plants, and
benzene storage vessels, on the
basis that new emissions data
and subsequent risk assessment
have shown the sources do not
warrant regulatory action be-
cause their risk to public health
is small.
Benzene is used to manufac-
ture a wide range of products
including plastics, insecticides,
and polyurethane foam. Benzene
is also a derivative of petroleum.
Numerous occupational exposure
studies have linked the chemical
to a number of blood disorders,
including acute myelogenous
leukemia {a cancer of the blood-
forming system in adults). These
studies, as well as widespread
public exposure to benzene emis-
sions from stationary sources
(55,000 megagrams/yr.) (one
million grams, or megagram,
equals 1.1 ton) led EPA to list
benzene as a hazardous air pollu-
tant under the Clean Air Act in
1977 and led to subsequent pro-
posals for national emissions
standards for benzene emissions
from the four source categories
in 1980 and 1981.
The final standards for emis-
sions from some 229 sources will
reduce benzene fugitive emis-
sions from petroleum refineries
and chemical manufacturing
plants from about 7,900 mega-
grams to about 2,500 megagrams
per year.
Additional benefits to air and
water quality will result from the
new fugitive emission standards
because the controls will reduce
emissions of other potentially
toxic hydrocarbons and because
leak control techniques will
further limit benzene and other
organics from entering waste-
water systems.
Capital costs for the final regu-
lations are estimated to be S5.5
million for all sources of the
benzene fugitive emissions at
refineries and chemical plants,
and annualized costs are esti-
mated to total $0.4 million.
Butadiene
Review
A 180-day reveiw of the chemical
1,3-Butadiene—a substance used
in the manufacture of synthetic
rubber and certain plastics—is
being initiated by EPA to deter-
mine if the compound should be
regulated.
EPA is under statutory obliga-
tion to decide in a 180-day time
period whether to initiate regula-
tory action if it makes a thresh-
old determination under section
4(f) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act that there may be a
reasonable basis to conclude that
a chemical presents a "signifi-
cant risk of serious or wide-
spread harm" to humans from
cancer, gene mutations or birth
defects.
1,3-Butadiene caused cancer
in both sexes of rats and mice in
laboratory tests. These studies
have been reviewed and found
valid by EPA staff scientists,
industry scientists, and the
National Toxicology Program's
Board of Scientific Counselors.
Judging the significance of the
risk and whether the potential
harm to humans is serious or
widespread involves several con-
siderations. These include the
number of persons exposed, the
level, frequency and duration of
their exposure, the route of
exposure, and the potency of the
agent.
1,3-Butadiene is a short-chain
unsaturated hydrocarbon that is
primarily used as a compound in
the manufacture of various types
of synthetic rubber, plastics and
latexes. The major uses of the
butadiene rubber products are:
tires and tire products, automo-
bile parts, toys, footwear, auto-
motive belts, hoses, and tubing.
Based on data now available,
EPA believes that significant risk
of serious harm may occur dur-
ing the production of synthetic
rubber from 1,3-butadiene. Sig-
nificant risk may also be associ-
ated with other exposure pat-
terns but additional exposure
data are needed to evaluate this.
Present data indicate that expo-
sures to populations near pro-
duction facilities are likely to be
low and that significant risks
may not exist. D
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
27
-------
Soviets Grappling With Pollution
Although the Soviet Union faces more
pollution problems than the United
States, it has only about 50 percent of
our capacity in the United States to cope
with them. That's the conclusion reached
by Region 5 EPA Administrator Valdas V.
Adamkus, who visited the Soviet Union
as head of a U.S. delegation of environ-
mental experts last September.
The Soviets have made some progress
in controlling pollution but they stili have
a long way to go, he said. "They tell us
that everything is under control, but
that's simply not so. There is no con-
struction grants program for wastewater
treatment plants, for example, and many
of their waste treatment plants are out-
moded and invariably overloaded.
"And don't bother to ask which is the
most polluted river in the Soviet Union
and which city has the dirtiest air. That's
something no foreigner will ever find out.
Although they are very willing to ex-
change scientific information, they keep
their environmental troubles pretty much
to themselves.
"There is nothing comparable to the
EPA in the Soviet Union, and that's per-
haps their biggest problem," said Adam-
kus, who is fluent in Russian as well as in
Polish, German, and Lithuanian.
"Different ministries handle different
pollution problems, and a lot of responsi-
bility is delegated to various health au-
thorities," Adamkus said. "Although the
Soviets have some very strict environ-
mental laws and they do want a clean
environment, their form of government
and economy make effective pollution
control impossible."
Their biggest problem is compliance
with and implementation of sometimes
overlapping environmental regulations,
he stressed. "The main reason is that ev-
ery industry is trying to protect its own
interests and conflicts are common," he
said.
"Pretreatment of industrial effluents,
for example, is required," Adamkus
observed. But, every industry—and even
every factory—has its production plan, or
quota. And the fulfillment of that quota
takes precedence over any environmental
concerns. "Therefore it often happens
that raw, untreated wastes are dumped
right into the rivers," he said. "If the steel
industry, for example, can get away with-
out spending any rubles for pollution
control, then the chemicals industry tries
Signing a protocol agreement on cooperative activity for 1984-85 at a September
1983 meeting in Kharkov, USSR, were (seated, from left to rights V. Lozansky,
chairman of the Soviet team; E. Jeremenko, a Soviet research director; and
Valdas Adamkus, EPA Region 5 Director and chairman of the U. S. delegation.
to avoid these expenditures also."
Since the Soviets lack broad and uni-
form implementation of environmental
regulations throughout their vast terri-
tory, water pollution problems will haunt
them for a long time to come, Adamkus
believes. Still, he said that water pollu-
tion has received the greatest emphasis
up to now and is by far the best-
addressed environmental problem.
A pleasant surprise in water quality
control, Adamkus said, was Volgograd
(the Stalingrad of World War II fame).
The city is a huge steel-making center,
but no industry is allowed to discharge
anything into the Volga River. All
effluents are not only pretreated but also
recycled, with most of them being used
to irrigate fields. Boats and barges are
not allowed to discharge into the river
either. Wastewater from river craft is
pumped ashore, then treated and recy-
cled. There are even patrol boats that
cruise up and down the river to see that
nothing is discharged. However, the ex-
cellent wastewater treatment in Volgo-
grad is the exception rather than the rule,
Adamkus said.
"Generally, air pollution receives the
same attention as water pollution but
here, too, the results are uneven," said
Adamkus. "We found Volgograd suf-
fering from smog, and other large cities,
especially industrial centers, seem to fare
no better."
Hazardous wastes come third in prior-
ity. "From the impression we received,
the Soviets don't recognize the potential
seriousness of hazardous wastes," he
said, "and because of this oversight,
hazardous waste problems have already
begun to appear."
"That's not the case, however, with
toxicants. Because they are closely
associated with water pollution, toxicants
receive more attention," Adamkus
pointed out.
Because agriculture in the Soviet Union
is of vital importance, the interest in pes-
ticides is also high. The Soviets use pes-
ticides liberally, but don't have nearly as
many varieties available as the United
States. They have problems with fish and
bird kills, too. To reduce silt and pesticide
loads in streams, the Soviets are making
frequent use of buffer strips—shrubs or
EPA JOURNAL
-------
*
The Don River at Rostov
in Russia. This is one of
the major waterways in
the Soviet Union, where
officials are working
to control pollution.
other vegetation planted along edges of
sloping fields.
"There is, in the Soviet Union, a con-
tinuing high interest in research and de-
velopment," Adamkus observed. "The
Soviets are committing their best scientif-
ic talents and resources to the de-
velopment of environmental technology
and methodology," Adamkus said.
"Western literature and science are used
to the fullest extent, and the desire to
cooperate with the West in environmen-
tal matters is decidedly there."
Two members of the North American
delegation, Dr. R. V. Thurston of Montana
State University and Dr. D. J. Randall of
the University of British Columbia, visited
the Institute of Aquatic Biology in Borok.
Here a team of Soviet scientists, led by
one of the foremost experts in the field,
Dr. Gherman Vinogradov, has been con-
ducting numerous studies on the effects
of pollution on fish. Dr. Vinogradov, in
collaboration with Dr. Thurston, has pub-
lished several studies on low-pH (acid)
waters and fish physiology in both the
Soviet and the Western press, thus con-
tributing to the overall knowledge of sci-
entists the world over. Although Soviet
scientists are often restricted by lack of
equipment and supplies, their com-
mitment to environmental protection has
impressed the U.S. delegation.
"As far as the EPA is concerned," said
Adamkus, "the Soviets are working
together with us on scientific projects
and sharing information with us. We
hope that this cooperation will continue
to our mutual benefit, not only in con-
trolling toxicants and nonpoint sources of
pollution but in other areas as well." The
control of point-source effluents, in-
strumentation, modeling, air pollution
technology, and the latest techniques in
biomonitoring are subjects of great
interest to them.
"We were taken to Lake Sevan in
Armenia, where an extensive water con-
servation project is under way," Adam-
kus said. Because of hydroelectric use,
the water level of the lake went down
some years ago, he explained, and now
the Soviets are trying to divert some riv-
er water to bring the lake up to its former
level. In addition, they are monitoring
fish and crustaceans as well as pollutants
from tributaries. "It is a showcase
project, well conceived and well ex-
ecuted," Adamkus said. In fact, the
Soviets have created a national park
around the lake so that they could moni-
tor and control all aspects of the environ-
ment, he added.
This was Adamkus's fifth trip to the
Soviet Union since 1972, when, as a
member of another U.S. delegation, he
helped negotiate the first environmental
agreement between the United States
and the U.S.S.R.
Accompanying Adamkus in addition to
Drs. Thurston and Randall were James
W. Meek, Chief of the Implementation
Branch, Water Planning Division, EPA
Headquarters; Ronald Preston, an aquatic
biologist with EPA's Region 3 Wheeling,
W. Va., office; Dr. Rosemarie Russo,
EPA's associate director for research op-
erations, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Duluth, Minn.; Madonna McGrath,
then director of EPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office in Chicago; and
Dr. Richard A. Schoettger, director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Research Laboratory in Columbia, Mo.
In 1982, under the US-USSR Agree-
ment on Cooperation in the Field of En-
vironmental Protection, a Soviet team
had visited the United States. In its trip
last year the U.S. delegation visited Mos-
cow, Kharkov, and other areas in its 16-
day program.
The delegation's official mission was to
meet with Soviet scientists, review
ongoing projects in the field of water
quality research and plan cooperative ac-
tivities for the period 1984-85.
Adamkus said he has high hopes for
continued cooperation. "I will not be sur-
prised if the Soviets propose new initia-
tives to increase the exchange of en-
vironmental experts. Despite all the dis-
agreements between East and West, the
Soviet Union and the United States will
try their best to continue their dialogue
and cooperation in efforts to restore and
preserve the natural resources of both
countries." D
Andropov
Comments on
Environmental
Protection
In a speech delivered in absentia to
the plenary session of the Communist
Party Central Committee December 26,
Soviet leader Yuri Andropov said the
following about environmental protec-
tion:
"This present-day scale and pace of de-
velopment of productive forces demand
changes in the attitude to questions con-
nected with environmental protection
and the rational use of natural resources.
This is a task of major economic and so-
cial importance. For what is at issue in
effect is protecting the health of the peo-
ple and taking a careful, thrifty approach
to the country's national wealth. More-
over, these are also questions of the fu-
ture. Their resolution will determine the
conditions in which the succeeding gen-
erations will live. It must be stressed
that despite the serious efforts being
made by us, this problem on the order of
the day remains acute.
"This indicates that work for the protec-
tion of nature requires even more per-
sistent and purposeful efforts. A narrow
departmental approach is intolerable in
this field, perhaps, more than in any
other field, as it sharply lowers the
effectiveness of the use of capital in-
vestments, hampers the pursuance of a
single policy in carrying out nature pro-
tection measures, engenders
irresponsibility for the ecological con-
sequences of the decisions taken, is con-
ducive to illusory economy, which, in the
final analysis, results in great losses. In a
word it is necessary to show a com-
prehensive approach to this problem
from the nationwide positions, and reso-
lutely improve the whole system of environ-
mental management and control."
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1984
29
-------
Staff Offices:
Administrative Law Judges
Edward B. Finch
382-4860
Civil Rights
Nathaniel Scurry
382-4575
Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization
John M. Ropes
557-7777
Science Advisory Board
Terry F. Yosie
382-4126
Administrator
William D. Ruckelshaus
382-4700
Deputy Administrator
Alvin L. Aim 382-4711
Associate Administrator for
International Activities
Fitzhugh Green
382-4870
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
Howard M. Messner
382-4600
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring
Courtney M. Price
382-4134
Office of the Comptroller
C. Morgan Kinghorn
382-4151
Office of Administration
K. Kirke Harper
382-5797
Office of Information
Resources Management
Edward Hanley
382-4465
Office of Administration and
Resources Management
Willis Greenstreet
(Research Triangle Park NC)
919-541-3970
Office of Administration
William E. Benoit
(Cincinnati. OH)
513-684-7911
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Jack Ravan
382-5700
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Lee Thomas
382-4610
Office of
Drinking Water
Victor Kimm
382-5508
Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits
Bruce R. Barrett
755-9187
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Steve Schatzow
382-5400
Office of Water
Program Operations
Henry L. Longest II
382-5850
Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement
Gene Lucero
382-4814
Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response
William Hedeman
382-2108
Office of
Solid Waste
John H. Skinner
382-4627
Region 1 - Boston
Michael R Deland
617-223-7223
Region 2 - New York
Jacqueline E. Schafer
212-264-2515
Region 3 - Philadephia
Thomas P. Eichler
215-597-9370
Region 4 - Atlanta
Charles R. Jeter
404-881-3004
Region 5 - Chicago
Valdas Adamkus
312-353-2072
30
-------
Associate Administrator
for Regional Operations
Samuel Schulhof
382-4719 •
Who's Who in EPA and
Their Phone Numbers
January 1984
General Counsel
A. James Barnes
475-8040
Assistant Administrator for
Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Milton Russell
382-4332
Assistant Administrator
for External Affairs
Josephine S. Cooper
382-5654
Inspector General
John Martin
382-4945
Office of Policy Analysis
Richard D. Morgenstern
382-4034
Office of
Standards and Regulations
C. Ronald Smith
382-4001
Office of Management
Systems and Evaluation
Lewis S. W. Crampton
382-4028
Office of
Intergovernmental Liaison
Deborah Steelman
382-4454
Office of
Federal Activities
Allan Hirsch
382-5053
Office of
Congressional Liaison
Gregg Ward
382-5200
Office of
Public Affairs
Jean Statler
382-4361
Office of
Legislative Analysis
Steadman Overman
382-5414
Office of Audit
Ernest Bradley
382-4106
Office of Investigations
Paul Olson
382-4109
Office of Management
and Technical Assistance
Roscoe Davis
382-4912
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation
Joseph A. Cannon
382-7400
Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances
John A. Moore
382-2902
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
Bernard D. Goldstein
382-7676
Office of
Radiation Programs
Glen L. Sjoblom
557-9710
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
John R. O'Connor, Acting
919-541-5615
Office of
Mobile Sources
Richard D. Wilson
382-7645
Office of
Pesticide Programs
Edwin Johnson
557-7090
Office of
Toxic Substances
Don R. Clay
382-3813
Office of
Monitoring Systems
and Quality Assurance
Courtney Riordan
382-5767
Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Carl Gerber
382-2600
Office of
Environmental Processes
and Effects Research
Erich Bretthauer
382-5950
Office of
Health Research
Roger Cortesi 382-5900
Region 6 - Dallas
Dick Whittington
214-767-2630
Region 7 - Kansas City
Morris Kay
816-374-5894
Region 8 - Denver
John G. Welles
303-837-5927
Region 9 - San Francisco
Judith E. Ayres
415-974-8023
Region 10 - Seattle
Ernesta B. Barnes
206-442-1203
31
-------
\A/e took advantage of a thaw in January's
chilly temperatures on a recent Sunday
afternoon to walk along the Potomac River
just south of Shepherdstown, W. Va. We
were looking for ducks.
Mergansers, golden eyes, and buffle heads
are among the duck species which occa-
sionally seek refuge on the ice-free sections
of the river during winter.
We began where the Potomac sweeps
under a high railroad trestle on the south end
of Shepherdstown and heads for Washington
some 60 miles away.
Using the road that skirts the steep banks
on the West Virginia side of the Potomac,
we didn't see any ducks immediately, but we
did observe bluebirds nibbling at the fruits of
a hackberry tree.
Further downstream we could see the
ruins of an old mill, the crumbling remains of
a once bustling operation. Another type of
ruin present on the bank was a massive pile
of trash. Such scars still pock many stream
and river banks in otherwise hauntingly
beautiful West Virginia.
Those who dump their bottles, cans, old
refrigerators and rusty bed springs are
counting on the same force that destroyed
the mill to remove their garbage—periodic
floods.
In addition to being an area where natural
forces sometimes erupt, this stretch of the
river was the scene of several savage Civil
War battles. Blue metal signs along the road-
way describe some of the engagements
fought here.
Noticing a canoe passing, we called out to
the paddlers to ask if they had seen any
ducks. The reply was that the only ones they
had seen were above Shepherdstown.
As the canoe disappeared down river we
kept walking and hardly noticed that dusk
had arrived. Finally we decided that it was
getting too dark to see birds now and we
began our return.
The quavery scream of a screech owl
startled us as we walked though the gather-
ing night. A sudden breeze rattled the bare
branches of an elm tree above us and we
noticed that the temperature was dropping
rapidly. The thaw had ended as quickly as it
arrived.
Stars spangled the night sky. Gradually a
nearly full moon rode above the tree tops. Its
beams silvered the river as a mounting breeze
ruffled the waters.
On either side of the river huge sycamore
trees raised their white gnarled and twisted
limbs above their main trunks. They reminded
us of boys in costume on Halloween night
trying to frighten each other.
Sycamores are often predominantly white
in winter because their tight bark splits.
These are ancient trees developed before the
evolution of flexible bark.
Some giant sycamores still stand along the
Potomac although their interiors have been
eaten out by disease. Hikers caught in rain or
snow storms have sometimes stepped inside
these massive cavities and found shelter until
the storm passed.
Using a flashlight, we checked one of the
roadside signs we were passing in the dark.
The sign informed us that the river at this
point was known as Pack Horse Ford, an
historic low-water crossing point much used
by pioneer travelers who brought many of
their possessions on horseback.
After the battle of Antietam thousands of
Confederate soldiers retreated to Virginia by
using this ford under cover of darkness. It
seemed peaceful now in the still of a January
night.
No echo remains of the shouting and
splashing of desperate men lashing their
frantic horses across the water pathway. No
muffled reverbations sound from the
cannons that boomed in the battles. Washed
away long ago were the torn corpses and
blood spilled by the wounded.
And as always throughout history when
the roaring and tumult of human battles
cease, the forces of nature—the rising moon,
the flowing river, the gusting wind —continue
on their rounds.
This January chill that left us shivering by
the time we reached our car must yield too
to the dictates of the seasons. The great
wheel of time is turning. Nothing can stop it.
Another spring is on the way. —C.D.P.
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Saving the Bay Together: EPA Adminis-
trator William Ruckelshaus speaks to a
conference at which an agreement was
reached to set up an executive council to
carry out a joint cleanup of the Ches-
apeake Bay. With Ruckelshaus are (l-r)
John Gottschalk, president of the Citizens
Program for the Chesapeake Bay: Vir-
ginia Gov. Charles S. Robb; Maryland
Gov. Harry Hughes; Pennsylvania Lt.
Gov. William Scranton, III; Washington,
D. C. Mayor Marion Barry; and Virginia
State Sen. Joseph V. Gartland, Chairman
of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
See article on P. 10
Back Cover: Scenic view of Kenai Penin-
sula, part of the Kenai National Wildlife
Refuge which is inhabited by moose,
grizzly bears, wolves, trumpeter swans
and many other wild animals. Photo by
Michael Flaherty of EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response.
-------
JSS.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington 0 C 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use 5300
Third Class
Bulk
------- |