United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 2
March 1985
IRIMAI
The Great Lakes
-------
The Great Lakes
Silhouetted against the waters of Lake Superior, strollers enjoy the
sunset in Ouimet Canyon Provincial Park, Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Fifteen years ago, it was widely
believed that the Great Lakes
were dying. This issue of EPA
Journal examines the situation
now. What cleanup progress has
been made? What remains to be
done?
In the first article, Valdas
Adamkus takes an overview. He
is Administrator of EPA Region
5, and is Co-Chair of the Water
Quality Board of the
U.S.-Canadian International Joint
Commission (IJC).
The next article focuses on the
personality of the Great Lakes
region, describing its history,
culture, and economy. The piece
is by Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
of the Journal.
Congressman Henry J. Nowak,
D-N.Y., forecasts the
environmental fortunes of Lake
Erie, which borders his home
city of Buffalo.
Canada's approach to dealing
with pollution of the Great Lake's
is spelled out by J. D. Kingham,
the Canadian Co-Chair of the IJC
Water Quality Board.
The lessons scientists have
learned in their far-flung
laboratory—the five lakes—are
explained by William Richardson,
chief of EPA's Large Lakes
Laboratory in Grosse lie, Mich. A
Great Lakes ecological puzzle is
discussed by Lee Botts, a
planner and long-time participant
in the effort to protect the lakes.
The Great Lakes environmental
challenge for the 1980s—toxic
substances—is described by L.
Keith Bulen, U.S. Commissioner
of the IJC.
Three journalists present their
views on Great Lakes problems
and progress. The writers, who
report on environmental affairs,
are Paul MacClennan, Buffalo
News; Casey Bukro, Chicago
Tribune; and Dean Rebuffoni,
Minneapolis Star and Tribune.
The efforts by EPA Region 5 to
make a cleaner future for the
Grand Calumet River in the
Chicago area are reported by
Kathleen Osborne Clute of that
region's Office of Public Affairs.
This is the sixth in a series in the
Journal by EPA regional offices.
In other stories, the Journal
includes excerpts of the
statement by EPA Administrator
Lee M. Thomas at his
confirmation hearings February 6
before the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Also included is an article
analyzing the President's
proposed budget for EPA in
Fiscal Year 1986.
In another article, Senator
John H. Chafee, R-R.L, gives his
views on the outlook for
environmental legislation in the
99th Congress. Chafee is
Chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Environmental
Pollution, which oversees
EPA-related legislative matters.
The story of how an EPA
water quality specialist, Leroy
"Bub" Loiselle, Jr., has helped to
control pollution from gold
placer mining in Alaska is related
by Roy Popkin, a writer in the
EPA Office of Public Affairs.
Loiselle won an agency gold
medal for his work on this
pioblem. EPA's steps to
safeguard divers in polluted
waters are explained by Susan
Tejada, Associate Editor of the
Journal.
Concluding the issue are a
book review and the magazine's
regular features, Update and
Appointments. (D
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 2
March 1985
SEPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Josephine S. Cooper, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Paul A. Schuette, Acting Director, Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Susan Tejada, Associate Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor, Contributing Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the nation's land, air. and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the publication
of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public business
required by law of this agency. Use
of ?unds for printing this periodical
has been approved by the Director
of the Office of Management and
Budget. Views expressed by
authors do not necessarily reflect
EPA policy. Contributions and
inquiries should be addressed to the
Editor (A-107), Waterside Mall, 401
M St., S.W.. Washington, D.C
20460. No permission necessary to
reproduce contents except
copyrighted photos and other
materials
Restoring
The Great Lakes
by Valdas V. Adamkus 2
The Five Sister
Lakes: A Profile
by Jack Lewis 5
The Benefits of a
Cleaner Lake Erie
by Henry J. Nowak 7
How Canada Controls
Great Lakes Pollution
by J.D. Kingham 9
Learning in the
Great Lakes "Lab"
by William Richardson
Thinking Ecologically
in Lakes Protection
by Lee Botts
Toxics: Today's
Great Lakes Challenge
by L. Keith Bulen
Views from
Other Vantage
Points
Cleaning up the
Grand Calumet River
by Kathleen Osborne
Clute 2
Thomas States
Goals for EPA
EPA's Budget:
An Analysis
by Jack Lewis
Environmental Outlook
in the New Congress
by John H. Chafee !
Safe Diving in
Polluted Waters
by Susan Tejada 2
Fighting Waste
from Gold Mining
by Roy Popkin
Update: Recent
Agency Developments
Appointments at EPA
Book Review 32
8
s>
.
-
o
Front cover: Wading into Lake
Huron at daybreak, a smelt
fisherman tries to net his catch.
Every spring the smelt run in the
lake near East Tawas City. Mich.
Photo by Don Emmerich.
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan;
Ron Farrah.
EPA JOURNAL Subscriptions
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for the EPA Journal is
$20.00, The charge to subscribers in
foreign countries is $25.00 a year.
The price of a single copy of the
EPA Journal is $2.00 in this country
and $2.50 if sent to a foreign
country. Prices include mail costs.
Subscriptions to the EPA Journal as
well as to other Federal
Government magazines are handled
only by the U.S. Government
Printing Office Anyone wishing to
subscribe to the EPA Journal should
fill in the form at right and enclose a
Check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents.
The requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents.
GPO. Washington, D.C 20402
r-
,in
<>
Fin
.1,
as
P
LEX
iiSE
Pi
N
C
orr
par
ly lv
arr
e c
r A
ddi
ion
a\f
«dd
res
; L
ne
1
S
(
tre
!'v
:1 /
dd
es
|
1
Stc
te
/
Pl-
od
2
Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Restoring the Great Lakes
by Valdas Adamkus
jji, W NEW YORK
I could begin by citing some
awe-inspiring statistics about the Great
Lakes, but I won't. There are too many,
and they're cerebral; it is with our hearts
that we consider the lakes.
You are probably aware of the
dedicated efforts the U.S. and Canada
have made during the last two decades
to restore the lakes to their proper state.
The widespread, and widely publicized,
decline into which they had fallen by the
1960s has been halted. Last summer, all
but eight of the lakes' 516 beaches had
reopened; water quality is significantly
improved. We can say with great
assurance that the lakes are no longer in
immediate danger.
We are proud of the achievements
we've made, but we're not naive enough
to believe that these are sufficient. We
cannot and must not ignore the problems
that loom up before us: toxic chemicals
nestled firmly throughout the Great Lakes
ecosystem; pressure to divert Great
ILLINOIS ^^^ INDIANA
OHIO
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Lakes water to arid southwestern states;
and questions about how to balance
appropriately the demands of our
economy with the needs of our
environment.
The most immediate problem facing us
in the 1960s was accelerated
eutrophication: the premature aging of
the lakes due to the overproduction of
microscopic plant life and algae. This
plant life was being nourished by raw
and partially treated sewage, which
contained hefty loads of phosphorus, to
the detriment of fish and other aquatic
life.
The U.S. and Canada, in 1972, signed a
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
pledging both countries to a series of
actions designed to save the lakes. The
most significant of these was the
specification that both countries would
make massive improvements in their
sewage treatment plant systems. Both
nations, true to their word, have spent a
total of $7.6 billion since 1972 to improve
or replace 1,079 sewage treatment plants
along the shores and tributaries of the
Great Lakes.
These improvements, coupled with
strict controls on industrial wastewater,
have largely freed the lakes from their
oppressive nutrient burden and allowed
them grrdually to return to a much
healthier state.
In addition to controlling phosphorus
discharges from sewage treatment
plants, Canada and several U.S. states
and cities essentially banned phosphates
in laundry products by limiting the
amount that could be present. As a result
of the control measures taken to date,
the annual input of phosphorus to the
lakes from sewage treatment plants has
been reduced from a total of about
30,000 metric tons in 1972 to about 4,000
metric tons today.
Even that hasn't been enough. In a
1983 addendum to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, the U.S. and Canada
made commitments to further
improvements in controlling the flow of
phosphorus into Saginaw Bay (Lake
Huron) and into lakes Erie and Ontario,
the two lakes which still do not meet
U.S.-Canada phosphorus targets. These
controls will include efforts to control
phosphorus washing off of farmland into
the lakes and their tributaries.
(Adamkus is Administrator of EPA Region 5
and Co-Chair of the International Joint
Commission's Water Quality Board.)
EPA's Chicago-based Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) has
worked for several years with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the states
of Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana on
conservation farming programs designed
to reduce the amount of fertilizer-laden
topsoil washing into Lake Erie. A major
feature of that program has been the use
of farming methods which leave crop
residues on the surface of fields after
they have been harvested. These
residues keep the soil bound together
and help trap topsoil during rainstorms.
The Lake Erie project, which operates in
the 31 counties thought to be
contributing the most phosphorus to
Lake Erie, has shown that conservation
farming can cut soil losses 75 to 90
percent.
EPA's Great Lakes efforts are anchored
in GLNPO. This office, with an annual
research and operating budget of $4
million, coordinates federal water quality
research concerning the Great Lakes,
gives research grants, and works with
Canadian environmental professionals on
problems of concern to both countries.
When we look at the efforts we are
making in the Great Lakes and the results
we're getting, we realize that it's more
than the mere prodding of our
environmental consciences causing us to
act—economics is involved.
The fisheries alone are valued at
roughly $1.6 billion a year. Industry
needs the lakes to forge steel, mine
minerals, generate power, and ship
goods to the rest of the country and the
world. The midwest's economy, and
indeed the nation's, is heavily dependent
upon these five magnificent waterways.
The fisheries in the lakes have been
seriously affected by pollution,
overfishing, and the parasitic sea lamprey.
Despite all this, the State of Michigan has
calculated the worth of its Great Lakes
sports fisheries at $350 million a year,
while its 100,000 acres of coastal
wetlands generate more than $500 per
acre each year from hunters, trappers,
and wildlife photographers. The State of
Wisconsin has reported that sports
fishing and related services pumped $49
million into its economy in 1980.
It is obvious from the range of uses I
have just mentioned that there are
competing interests using our lakes. But I
believe that, with proper management,
the lakes will be preserved and protected
for everyone who needs them.
It is important that we continue to view
and to manage the lakes as a total
resource having many easily affected
components. EPA, agricultural interests,
health agencies, and various other
governmental agencies are all involved in
what was once the province of the
sanitary engineer. The shift from the
traditional water pollution control
framework to integrated resource
management was pioneered for the
Great Lakes by the International Joint
Commission (IJC), a six-member board
established by the U.S. and Canada in
1909 to protect the waters shared by
both countries.
The IJC, through the Water Quality
Board I co-chair, is concerned with
maintaining and improving the quality of
the Great Lakes ecosystem. This will
happen as we move steadily forward in
our efforts to identify and to control toxic
pollutants and to preserve the wetlands
that are so vital to the growth and health
of the 92 fish species that exist in our
lakes.
It is unacceptable to me, as I'm sure it
is to most of you as well, that people in
eight near-shore areas of the Great Lakes
are advised by health authorities not to
eat certain kinds of fish and to limit their
consumption of others. It is unacceptable
to me that chubs cannot be caught or
sold by commercial fishermen in Lake
Michigan because of high PCB and
pesticide content; that lake trout still
cannot reproduce naturally in the lakes
and exist only because the federal
government and the states spend
millions each year on stocking programs.
We have identified more than 800 toxic
chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem,
so it is no surprise that many of our fish
are inedible. These toxics usually are
organics and usually are found in trace
amounts. We're not exactly sure what
that means, but we're certain we'd all be
better off if those chemicals weren't in
our food chain.
Experts at GLNPO, EPA labs, and
universities are looking closely at the
toxic chemical problem. We're testing
fish, taking sediment samples, and
cruising the lakes in our research vessel
to learn more about the problems we
have and how we can best solve them.
We're looking at the connection
between the contaminated sediments of
so many of our harbors and the
compounds found in fish. We're also
working, in cooperation with the IJC, to
clean up the 27 U.S. toxic hot spots
identified by the IJC as the reason water
quality is so poor in certain areas of the
Great Lakes. EPA's recent master plan for
one such spot, Northwest Indiana's
Indiana Harbor and Grand Calumet River,
may eventually become a blueprint for
MARCH 1985
-------
;.a*res re.v .
<:arry out pollution
and limnology studios on the
action in other areas. (See related story
on page 21).
While we're out cruising the lakes in
our 122-foot research vessel, the Roger
R. Simons, mighty lake and ocean-going
ships are out there too. Stretching more
than 2,200 miles from the mouth of the
St. Lawrence River, in Canada, to the
head of Lake Superior, the lakes and their
connecting channels allow previously
landlocked ports to engage in
international trade. Cleveland, Chicago,
Milwaukee, Duluth, and Toledo are
among the Midwest's port cities.
The Lake Carrier Association, a trade
group representing the operators of
Great Lakes bulk cargo ships, says 149.6
million tons of cargo were shipped on
the lakes last year. Shipping, of course,
carries with it environmental problems,
as we saw by the invasion of the sea
lamprey which reached disasterous
levels after the St. Lawrence Seaway
was christened. Other dangers include oil
and chemical spills. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers has been studying the
possibility of extending the winter
navigation season from mid-December
until late January, a move that would
involve some ice breaking and possible
shoreline erosion and damage, along
with possible disruption of the normal
winter habitat of Great Lakes fish.
I think I've touched on the major ways
the lakes affect our lives. These will not
change, but what will change are the
kinds of issues we as a nation must face
in connection with the lakes.
Perhaps the most emotionally charged
of these issues is that of diverting Great
Lakes water to areas of the U.S. where
limited existing water supplies are being
depleted. Diversion is not new. It began
in 1829, when the original Welland Canal
was opened to provide a navigational
link between lakes Erie and Ontario. The
two other diversions occur at Chicago,
where the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal funnels water from Lake Michigan
to the Mississippi via the Illinois
Waterway; and in Canada, where the
Long Lac and Ogoki rivers flow into Lake
Superior.
None of these, however, begins to
approach the scale of diversion that
would occur if we were to pipe Great
Lakes water across part of our continent.
The cost of such a move, very
preliminary analyses show, could be in
the billions of dollars, but the impact on
our lakes could be even greater.
Large-scale diversion could lower the
water level, to the benefit of coastal zone
interests which would gain shoreline and
to the detriment of those who depend on
existing water levels for navigation and
power generation. Diversion also would
reduce the amount of water available to
dilute pollutants and maintain water
quality. One study has calculated the loss
of economic benefits from ail this at
upward of $74 million a year.
Complicating the whole thing is the
international nature of the water
resource. A 1909 treaty prohibits
large-scale diversions from any
U.S.-Canada boundary water without the
consent of the IJC or both governments.
The treaty also provides for redress if
either government diverts lakes (such as
Michigan) or streams which flow into
boundary waters.
Because of this, the question of
diversion can only get bigger and more
contentious as the water crisis worsens
in certain parts of the United States. The
Midwestern resolve on this issue was
recently demonstrated when eight states
and two Canadian provinces formed a
compact to review any proposed
diversions.
Of more short-term concern is the
extent to which Great Lakes water is
withdrawn for uses such as irrigation and
industrial cooling and never put back. In
1975, such uses accounted for 4,950
cubic feet per second (cfs). In the year
2000, the figure is expected to rise to
8,420 cfs, and in 2035, these uses could
account for 16,000 to 37,000 cfs, largely
because of expected increases in thermal
power plant cooling needs. For
comparative purposes, let me mention
that 238,000 cfs flow out the St.
Lawrence into the Atlantic Ocean.
Consumption and diversion make a
significant impact on fisheries. The lower
water levels reduce the marshes and
littoral waters so vital to fish spawning
and growth. Half of the wetlands
bordering Lake Erie, for example, depend
on the water levels in that lake for their
existence. Also, consumption kills fish as
they are sucked into water intakes, and
diversion sends them off somewhere
else, probably equally lethal.
Economic, environmental, and political
interests will always be colliding over the
Great Lakes, and that is as it should be.
Our concern here at EPA is that the
environmental interests be defended. Our
"cluster of inland seas" are too valuable
for us to have it any other way. D
Helping
the Cleanup
EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO), located
in Chicago, monitors the lakes and
United States performance under
the terms of the U.S.-Canada Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The GLNPO reports to the Regional
Administrator of Region 5 in his
role as the agency's national
program manager for the Great
Lakes.
The Water Quality Agreement
and GLNPO address the lakes as a
total system affected by
contamination from water, land,
and air sources. The lakes serve as
traps for pollutants carried by rivers
from watersheds containing
approximately 20 percent of our
nation's industry and population.
Also, toxic contaminants
concentrate by factors of hundreds
of thousands to one as they move
through the food chain from water
into fish eaten by millions of
people.
GLNPO monitors water, air
deposition, sediments, and fish
tissue to identify hot spots and
trends, using its research vessel
and through cooperation with
various states, federal agencies,
and universities. Other recent
activities include: preparation of
phosphorus control plans in
cooperation with the states to meet
target loads identified in the
Agreement; providing funds and
technical support for the binational
Niagara River Toxics Committee
and its report; achieving agreement
on uniform fish consumption
advisories by the four Lake
Michigan states; and initiation of an
intensive binational and interagency
study of the Upper Great Lakes
connecting channels between lakes
Superior, Huron, and Erie. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
J*.
The Five Sister Lakes:
A Profile
by Jack Lewis
Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake
Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario: five
sister lakes, five "Great Lakes." And the
word "great" is not at all inappropriate to
describe their size and their importance:
Consider the following facts:
• Together the Great Lakes form the
largest surface expanse of fresh water in
the world (94,560 square miles);
• All five of the Great Lakes are ranked
among the fifteen largest lakes in the
world: in terms of surface area, Lake
Superior ranks second; Lake Huron, fifth;
Lake Michigan, sixth; Lake Erie, eleventh;
and Lake Ontario, fourteenth;
• Completion of the St. Lawrence
Seaway in 1959 connected the Great
Lakes to form the largest freshwater
transportation network in the world. This
deep waterway stretching 2,200 miles
from Duluth, Minn., to the Atlantic Ocean
handles over 350 million tons of cargo
every year;
• United States and Canadian cities along
the shores of the Great Lakes comprise
the largest industrial complex in the
world. More than 40 million people—15
percent of the U.S. population and 25
percent of the Canadian population—live
and work in these communities. Some
experts predict that a single Great Lakes
megalopolis will one day extend all the
way from Milwaukee to Toronto.
The natural processes that formed the
Great Lakes began at least 32,000 years
ago. Huge masses of ice, known as the
Wisconsin glaciation, carved out lake
beds as they advanced south over the
surface of North America. The glaciers
began receding approximately 18,000
years ago. By 5,000 B.C., the Great Lakes
had assumed roughly their present form.
But even at 7,000 years of age, the Great
Lakes are considered "young" compared
to lakes in other parts of the world.
The Great Lakes flow eastward down
to the sea. Lake Superior and Lake
Michigan are 600 feet above sea level,
while Lake Ontario—below Niagara
Falls—has an elevation of 250 feet. A
canal now takes shipping around Niagara
Falls between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario,
but for centuries the Falls posed a major
(Lewis is Assistant Editor of EPA Journal/.
• .• Lake Erie wit!
;"d New York City. In 1825,
is completed, George
sketched the Seneca Chief traveling
,n the deep cut of the canal west of
v. y.
barrier to navigation of the Great Lakes.
Indian canoe travel was the most
ambitious form of shipping the Lakes
witnessed for most of their long history.
Various tribes contended for control of
the region. The powerful Iroquois tribes
monopolized Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and
Lake Huron, while the Chippewa
dominated Lake Superior. Lake Michigan
was home to several tribes: the
Winnebago, the Sauk, the Menominee,
and the Miami.
Legend has it that another primitive
tribe of warriors—the Vikings—reached
the Great Lakes during the Middle Ages,
but the authenticity of presumed Viking
artifacts found in Ontario and Minnesota
has been subject to question.
The Westerner generally credited with
discovering the Great Lakes is the French
explorer, Samuel de Champlain. He stood
on the shores of Lake Huron in 1615,
but he paid scant attention to the
discovery in his journal. Champlain's
objective had not been to discover a new
lake. Like Columbus before him, he was
obsessed by the quest for an ocean route
to China.
Champlain's quest for a passage to
China was still continuing in 1634 when
he ordered Jean Nicolet to explore the
"Lake of the Illinois," now known as Lake
Michigan. Nicolet carried with him in his
birch canoe a robe of Chinese damask.
As he neared the shores of Green Bay,
he put the damask over his buckskins.
Nicolet hoped he would soon be
conferring with Chinese merchants. Much
to his disappointment, only Indians were
on hand to greet him when he stepped
ashore!
French exploration of the Great Lakes
never led to China, but it did lead to the
foundation of a massive new colony
known as Canada. Jesuit missionaries,
who played a great role in settling the
Canadian wilderness, called the Great
Lakes "seas of sweet water." At the time,
this was not poetic hyperbole. Before the
onslaught of the Industrial Revolution,
the Great Lakes were "seas of sweet
water."
The founder of Detroit, Antoine de la
Mothe Cadillac, also marvelled at "the
sparkling and pellucid water" of the
Great Lakes. Cadillac regarded the shores
of the Great Lakes, circa 1701, as a
latter-day Garden of Eden: "The banks
are so many vast meadows where the
freshness of these beautiful lakes keeps
the grass always green. These same
meadows are fringed with long and
broad avenues of fruit trees which have
never felt the careful hand of the
watchful gardener; and fruit trees, young
and old, droop under the weight and
multitude of their fruit, and bend their
branches towards the fertile soil which
has produced them."
After another great Frenchman, the
Chevalier de La Salle, claimed the
Mississippi River for Louis XIV, the
French Empire in North America
extended all the way from Nova Scotia
west to Lake Superior and south to the
Gulf of Mexico. French domination of the
MARCH 1985
-------
northern half of that empire ended less
than a century later when Britain scored
a resounding victory in the French and
Indian Wars of 1754-1763. As the price of
her military defeat, France had to cede
both Canada and the Great Lakes to
Britain.
The next great historical upheaval in
the region was the American Revolution.
During the early years of the Revolution,
colonial rebels ended British control of
the lands between the Great Lakes and
the Ohio River. Other raids secured
American positions in western New York
and northwestern Pennsylvania. The
Great Lakes themselves saw only minor
naval skirmishes during the Revolution.
American victory deprived the British
of their brief hegemony over the Great
Lakes. The Treaty of Paris, concluded in
1783, used the Lakes to raise a natural
barrier between the fledgling United
States and British Canada. The treaty
gave the rebels exclusive control of Lake
Michigan and divided the other four
Great Lakes right down the middle.
The War of 1812 unleashed the last
outbursts of violence along the boundary
separating the United States from
Canada. In September 1813 American
and British forces clashed in a major
naval battle on Lake Erie. The Americans,
led by Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry,
emerged the clearcut victors. For the first
time in their history, the British were
forced to surrender an entire naval
squadron. "We have met the enemy, and
they are ours," Commodore Perry
reported in words destined to become as
famous as his victory.
The recipient of Perry's immortal
dispatch was General William Henry
Harrison, already famous for his 1811
victory over the Shawnee chieftain,
Tecumseh, at Tippecanoe Creek, Ind.
Together Harrison and Perry proceeded
to drive the British from Detroit. In
October 1813 they subjected the enemy
to a final defeat on the Thames River in
Ontario. In 1840 "Tippecanoe" Harrison
was elected President of the United
States. But a chill he caught at his
inauguration was to make Harrison's
tenure in office the briefest in American
history.
Since 1813, the relationship between
the United States and Canada has been
extraordinarily peaceful. The Rush-Bagot
agreement of 1817 and the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909 laid a solid
groundwork for U.S.-Canadian harmony.
Both countries take pride in the fact that
no armaments have been deployed along
their common border in nearly a century.
U.S.-Canadian cooperation was to
reach its peak in the 1950s. Planning and
construction of the monolithic St.
Lawrence Seaway drew the two countries
together in an uncommon mission:
completion of the largest freshwater
transportation network in the world.
When it opened in 1959, the Seaway was
acclaimed as one of the wonders of
modern engineering.
The century and a half between the
War of 1812 and the opening of the St.
Lawrence Seaway in -1959 was a period
of stupendous commercial and industrial
development in the Great Lakes region.
The Erie Canal, completed in 1825,
connected Lake Erie with the Hudson
River and the major Atlantic seaport of
New York City. Starting in 1829, freight
traffic between Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario was able to skirt Niagara Falls via
the Welland Canal. The year 1848 marked
another transportation milestone: Lake
Michigan was joined to the Mississippi
River through the completion of the
Illinois Waterway.
An equally vital breakthrough occurred
in 1854 when an all-rail network at last
connected New York to the Great Lakes
trading town of Chicago. That tiny
frontier outpost was to mushroom into a
metropolis over the next century, its
population increasing 150-fold. Railroads
also hastened the development of other
communities near the Lakes. Almost
overnight, trains supplanted ships as the
preferred mode of passenger travel.
Many an ill-fated vessel had met its ruin
on the tempestuous and unpredictable
waters of the Great Lakes.
Freight traffic on the Lakes, however,
continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
Mineral riches, such as copper and iron
ore, moved in increasing quantities from
the more rustic northern Great Lakes to
the urban manufacturing centers of
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York. To
accommodate this growing volume of
raw materials and finished products,
heavier steamboats began crowding out
the sailing ships that had once reigned
supreme on the Lakes.
A curious aberration in the history of
the Great Lakes occurred between 1849
and 1856 when a devout Mormon named
James J. Strang claimed that heavenly
voices had instructed him to take
possession of Beaver Island in Lake
Michigan. There he was to reign for six
years over a thriving society of
polygamists as the first and only "King"
in the history of the American republic.
Finally, in the summer of 1856, Mormon
assassins and mainland invaders brought
a bloody end to Strang's strange dreams
of royal splendor.
Technology and progress were "king"
elsewhere in the Great Lakes. Duluth,
Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Rochester, and
Buffalo all prospered as the nineteenth
century gave way to the twentieth. One
of the greatest industrial centers in the
world—Gary, Ind.—did not even exist
when the twentieth century began; all of
its phenomenal growth has occurred
since 1905! Today the American and
Canadian cities bordering the Great Lakes
comprise the largest industrial complex
in the world.
Once-thriving Great Lakes industries
such as lumbering and fishing have
declined in importance as the natural
riches on which they depend have
undergone depletion and deterioration.
However, a great deal has been done
since World War II to arrest and, in some
cases, even to reverse these patterns of
decline. In this effort, environmentalists
have been aided by the recent slowing of
population increases and economic
growth in the Great Lakes region.
These stabilizing forces are helping to
preserve the natural beauties of the Great
Lakes, which have been drawing visitors
for over a century. Lake Ontario's
Niagara Falls—long the mecca of
honeymooners—remains by far the
greatest natural attraction in the entire
region. Lake Huron's Mackinac Island,
with its fabled Grand Hotel, ranks a
distant second. Birdwatchers are drawn
like the flocks of birds they observe to
temperate Lake Erie, with its abundance
of aquatic plants. Spectacular sand dunes
ornament the Indiana and Michigan
shores of Lake Michigan, which has
receded considerably from its original
boundaries.
Less frequented by tourists is Lake
Superior, which is protected from
overcrowding by its remote northern
location. Superior is by far the most
magnificent of the Great Lakes—and still
the purest. With its 3,000 miles of rocky
coastline, it ranks as the largest
freshwater lake in the world. In legend,
Lake Superior was the home of the
Indian gods, America's answer to Mt.
Olympus. These Indian spirits are still
said to haunt Superior's Apostle Islands,
which were immortalized by Henry
Wadsworth Longfellow in "The Song of
Hiawatha."
Nature rules the world of Great Lakes
tourists, but the everyday life of Great
Lakes residents is, for good or ill, in
human hands. Decades of urbanization
and industrialization have taken their toll,
as has the increased volume of shipping
on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lakes Erie
and Ontario, plus the southern end of
Lake Michigan, have suffered the most
noticeable damage.
Fortunately, the nearly pure waters of
Lake Superior flow into all the other
Great Lakes, so the potential for restored
water quality—however slow—does still
exist. But it will take years of concerted
effort on the part of all the states and
provinces bordering the Lakes to save
them for future generations. If the Great
Lakes are to remain "Great," nothing less
will do. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Benefits
of a Cleaner Lake Erie
by Henry J. Nowak
•
i/ the
The fortunes of Lake Erie and Buffalo,
New York, are inseparable.
Just as the lake was the key to
nineteenth century Buffalo's growth and
development into the "Queen City of the
Lakes," today it is again being viewed as
the key to the city's revitalization. While
the lake and the city suffered through
bleak times—the lake from environmental
damage, Buffalo from economic
deterioration—today Lake Erie and
Buffalo together look forward to a
brighter future. Ironically, the
combination of the decline in heavy
industry along the Buffalo area
waterfront and the improved quality of
Lake Erie water has led to a rediscovery
of the lake as a reservoir of vast potential
for improving the quality of life.
Two decades ago, people were
describing the lake as dead or dying. But,
to borrow from Mark Twain, the reports
of its death were greatly exaggerated.
Lake Erie—the "dying lake," as it was
termed in the late '60s—has been cleaned
up and revitalized as a "swimmable and
fishable" freshwater resource. Since
1972, more than $14 billion has been
invested in the restoration of the Great
Lakes, due to an unprecedented bilateral
commitment by the U.S. and Canadian
governments at federal and
state/provincial levels. Although there is
much more that needs to be done, we
have made measurable progress in
restoring the quality of one of the world's
major sources of fresh water.
During this period, many cities on Lake
Erie experienced a change in their
economies. Smokestack industries, such
as steel and automobile plants, have
closed or relocated. For some
localities—like Buffalo—this has brought
about a major restructuring of the
economic base. The emphasis now is on
seeking to diversify the economy and
looking for sustainable and viable
commercial and recreational
growth. Clean water plays an important
role in this process.
With the de-emphasis on steel and
heavy industrial uses for the Buffalo
waterfront, for example, its economic
and recreational potential has been
rediscovered. Residents now look toward
the waterfront and see what they haven't
been able to recognize in 20 years—a
clean lake and shoreline. The emphasis is
on redeveloping this underutilized
waterfront property and taking advantage
of the tremendous federal investment in
improving water quality.
Baltimore, Boston, and Toronto are a
few cities that have already developed
their ports into commercial, residential,
and recreational attractions. The Port of
Buffalo is making marked progress in this
direction. The Erie Basin Marina and the
Buffalo Naval and Servicemen's Park are
recent developments that have helped
stimulate construction of residential
condominiums and restaurants along the
downtown waterfront, with a Marina
Marketplace retail entertainment complex
awaiting the start of construction.
These are just a few of the recent
developments along Buffalo's five-mile
lake front. Because of the tremendous
potential for this newest frontier, the city
has commissioned a Waterfront Planning
Board to study the many proposals
submitted for the waterfront and to make
recommendations for a 30-year master
plan. One of the planning board's tasks
will be to link Buffalo's new light rail
rapid transit system, a downtown
pedestrian mall (under construction), and
a planned baseball stadium with the
waterfront.
Much of my effort in the past few years
in Congress has been to foster this goal. I
have been seeking federal and state
funds for a variety of projects to act as a
magnet to attract broader private
investment. These projects include a
Gateway Bridge linking downtown to the
waterfront, an expanded and modernized
roadway for easier pedestrian and
vehicular access, a reconstructed small
boat harbor, additional boat launching
sites, a safe fishing pier for shoreline
fishing, and an artificial fishing reef to act
as a fish habitat and spawning ground.
One added attraction to the Buffalo
lakefront has been improved sport fishing
in the Golden Triangle: the region in the
MARCH 1985
-------
eastern basin bounded by Buffalo, Point
Abino, and Sturgeon Point. Smallmouth
bass, walleye, trout, and salmon have all
begun to increase in population and
attract fishermen-tourists to our area.
Because of increasing interest among
fishermen and recreational boaters, I will
continue to pursue assistance for water
resource access and infrastructure
improvement on the Lake Erie waterfront.
Federal support for maintaining the Great
Lakes water quality is an essential
ingredient in the success of this effort.
One does not have to look far to see
the economic benefits gained from the
sport fishing industry. In Lake Erie's
western basin, the walleye population
has made such a remarkable recovery
since 1975 that it now supports a $350
million industry just from sport fishing,
marinas, and retail development along
the Sandusky, Ohio, waterfront.
While the transition from a heavy
industrialized waterfront to a commercial-
residential-recreational waterfront is
underway in Buffalo, a great deal of
planning and research still needs to be
done. Fortunately, this too is taking
place. In addition to the efforts of the
Waterfront Planning Board, other studies
are being conducted to determine if the
Port of Buffalo should be moved down to
the abandoned Bethlehem Steel property
where the space and facilities may be
better utilized—making additional space
available for harborfront activity,
including a public beach.
Just this past summer in Buffalo we
witnessed the tremendous display of
interest that exists in the lake as a
multi-purpose resource. Three Lake Erie
conferences were held with wide
participation by public officials, private
interests, and concerned citizens.
One of the conference sponsors, the
Great Lakes Laboratory of Buffalo State
College, has, with my support, been
conducting research on the population
dynamics of the sport fish species in the
eastern basin. The Corps of Engineers
has lent the lab a research vessel at my
suggestion.
Because of the revived interest in the
waterfront, and a sense of momentum
toward the achievement of a renewed
sustainable economic base, I am working
closely with New York's Governor Mario
Cuomo to provide funds in the upcoming
state budget for improved access,
increased fish stocking, and the initiation
of the artificial reef project.
While this economic transition is a
priority among the many waterfront
initiatives, the commitment toward a
clean and safe Lake Erie environment is
even greater. With the recent discovery
of ground-water toxics contaminating
many sources of drinking water
throughout the country, protecting fresh
water remains a critically important
issue. We must continue our efforts to
further curb point source and nonpoint
source pollution of our watersheds.
Because of the complex nature of
pollution and waste treatment, the
federal government is often the only
recourse for dealing with the devastating
environmental atrocities we have
witnessed. Therefore, Congress must
insist on effective implementation of
federal legislation such as the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and Superfund.
;<} Buffalo skyline, b
for a day of summer sailing in Lak-
However, while the increased role of
the federal government is debated in
Congress, the states must also be
prepared to play a broader role in
environmental protection.
Here in New York, our own state
Department of Environmental
Conservation has just concluded a
three-year Niagara River Toxic Study to
determine the sites and extent of the
toxic dumps in and around the Niagara
River. As a result of this study, additional
research will be conducted to determine
how best to clean up these sites. The
Governor has announced he will provide
additional funding for hazardous waste
site cleanup, expand the definition of
hazardous waste, and provide for stricter
enforcement of pollution control laws.
We must devise ways to improve U.S.
and Canadian government and Great
Lakes provincial/state cooperation in
maintaining and addressing common
environmental concerns. With a sincere,
coordinated bilateral commitment from
the federal and state governments we
could ensure an even cleaner and
healthier Great Lakes environment for the
decades ahead.
For Buffalo and other Great Lakes
cities, the investments in environmental
protection will continue to pay
incalculable dividends in terms of
economic growth and urban
revitalization. [.]
EPA JOURNAL
-------
How Canada Controls
Great Lakes Pollution
by J. D. Kingham
(Dr. Kingham is Regional Director General of
Environment Canada in the Ontario Region,
and is Co-Chair of the Water Quality Board
of the International Joint Commission.
Environment Canada is that country's
environmental protection agency.)
The Great Lakes constitute one of the
most important natural resources in
North America. They have had a
tremendous impact on Canadian history
and economic development. Their water
and fish have been and will continue to
be important in our overall economic
activity, and they constitute a medium for
human transportation unique in the
world. But more than just support for our
physical survival, the refreshing breezes
and inspiring panorama of the Great
Lakes create a singularly significant
resource for the spirit.
Simply stated, the major threats to the
Great Lakes are changes in their water
levels, eutrophication, and toxic chemical
contamination. These problems were
clearly recognized by the International
Joint Commission, and the latter two
problems were meant to be dealt with in
the 1972 and 1978 versions of the U.S.-
Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement,
Progress with respect to lake water
levels has demonstrated dramatically the
extent of cooperation that exists between
Canada and the United States. Similarly,
attempts to control the eutrophication
problem (essentially the over-feeding
with nutrients of plant life in
lakes as a result of human activity) have
also been very encouraging. The toxic
chemical problem has proven very
difficult to solve. It is not intractable,
however, and the technology and
capability to deal with it exist now.
Canada and Ontario Work Together
The Federal Government of Canada
concluded an "Agreement Respecting
Great Lakes Water Quality" with the
Province of Ontario in 1971. This
agreement, in anticipation of the 1972
U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, established the basis for a
cooperative federal and provincial
program to control phosphorus from
domestic waste. An extensive research
program was conducted, and a
cooperative technology development and
demonstration program yielded
information on the feasibility of the
required reduction and the associated
costs.
Since the early 1970s, Canada and
Ontario together have spent over $1.8
billion to build and upgrade sewage
treatment facilities to meet the objectives
of the 1972 and 1978 Water Quality
Agreements. The single most dramatic
act, however, for the reduction of
phosphorus in the Great Lakes was that
of the Canadian federal government in its
regulation of phosphorus in household
laundry detergents under the Canada
Water Act of 1972.
The results have been clear. There has
been a reduction in algal blooms (which
result from the excess nutrients) and the
associated fouling of beaches. A
significant comeback in valuable fish
species, as a consequence of cleaner
water, has also been observed. Open lake
and near-shore phosphorus levels have
decreased in many areas. A growing
interest in urban waterfront
developments and parks has been
another positive result.
But we cannot stop here. There is still
a need to get control over the diffuse
sources of phosphorus in the Great Lakes
basin, in particular runoff of nutrients
from land, arising from the application of
fertilizers containing phosphorus to
agricultural fields in the basin. Here
again, the Canadian federal government
and the Province of Ontario have worked
cooperatively to develop a phosphorus
management plan which should become
a key component in the renewed
Canada-Ontario Agreement.
Progress in the toxic chemicals area
has been much more difficult. Some
definite steps have already been taken. In
1977, for instance, Canada passed an
Environmental Contaminants Act. This
act has been used to ban or control toxic
chemicals such as PCBs and
mirex—chemicals which were
contaminating the waters of the Great
Lakes. The water quality objectives of the
1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement have been adopted by the
MARCH 1985
-------
program, members of ,'f fan Wildlife
Service col p
-------
BA King
Learning
in the
Great Lakes
"Lab"
by William L. Richardson
Environmental scientists take great
pains in planning and executing their
laboratory experiments. EPA and other
water pollution scientists meticulously
design experimental chambers, called
microcosms, to simulate the reactions,
fate, and effect of chemicals in aquatic
systems. They mimic nature as they
carefully control temperature, light, and,
finally, the addition of chemicals,
Richardson is chief ol EPA's I
•
observing which organisms thrive, which
ones die, how fast they grow, what
abnormalities occur, and how the
chemicals are distributed between
sediment, water, and animal and plant
life. The information gained in this tiny
world helps develop scientific
understanding of chemical interaction
with nature.
Nature, by contrast, provides the real
world macrocosm; roughly 15,000 years
ago she created her own experimental
laboratory on the North American
continent, and in doing so provided
today's scientists a larger laboratory in
which to study and predict the impact of
chemical pollutants on our waters and
the life within them, and on the food
chain and water supply that ultimately
sustain human life.
This experiment began with immense
sheets of ice, miles thick, slowly carving
enormous aquaria from the earth as they
advanced southward. After centuries of
grinding and gnawing, these glaciers
retreated, leaving in their wake five
magnificent shining emeralds, the
Laurentian Great Lakes.
This vast "macro-laboratory" covers
the five main lakes, the connecting
channels and hundreds of feeder
tributaries, embayments, and thousands
of miles of shoreline. It provides the
setting for man and nature's
collaborative experiment in physics,
biology, geology, chemistry, limnology,
and toxicology, and also in political
science, economics, sociology, and law.
The experimental design includes man
first as the perturber of the natural
environment, then as one of the
perturbed species, and, finally, as the
scientist and manager.
Nature stocked the Great Lakes with
thousands of organisms, from
microscopic bacteria and plankton to lake
trout and huge sturgeon. This ecosystem
maintained its natural equilibrium for
centuries, first supporting sparse human
populations of native Americans and
early European settlers. What human
wastes entered the lakes over a century
ago were rapidly purified by natural
processes. But when the forests were
harvested to supply wood to eastern and
southern cities, the feeder streams and
rivers were choked with pulp and
sediments that destroyed important
spawning areas. This was man's first
serious interference (or "perturbation")
with the region's ecosystems.
Few scientific observations were made
until typhoid struck many Great Lakes
towns in the early 1900s. The
MARCH 1985
11
-------
typhoid-related studies resulted from the
1909 U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters
Treaty and the establishment of the
International Joint Commission (IJC), a
binational body that negotiates
international concerns about the Great
Lakes and other common water systems.
These earliest studies, from 1913 to
1916, focused on the connecting
channels—the Niagara River, Detroit
River, St. Clair River, and Lake St.
Clair—rather than the main lakes. The
research centered on bacterial
contamination from domestic sewage
and found, for example, that the
connecting channels flowing from Detroit
into Lake Huron reversed their direction
from time to time, bringing the raw
sewage back into the drinking water
intakes. As a result of the research and
its recommended solutions, drinking
waters were treated and disinfected and
the sewers relocated. Later, primary
wastewater treatment was instituted.
Since the early 1900s, pollutants have
flowed into the Great Lakes from
growing industrial centers on or near
their shores. Other pollutants have fallen
from the atmosphere over the lakes' vast
surfaces or come from pleasure boats
and ore and grain ships carrying their
cargoes from as far west as Duluth to the
St. Lawrence Seaway. Nuclear power
plants discharge cooling waters into the
lakes. At one point in the 1960s, Lake Erie
was declared dead or dying.
As all these elements were introduced
into the Great Lakes "laboratory," the
extent of American and Canadian
research grew and became much more
sophisticated. The first Conference on
Great Lakes Research in July 1953,
sponsored by the University of
Michigan's Great Lakes Research
Division, led to organization of the
International Association for Great Lakes
Research, which today has over 1,000
members.
Larger research and monitoring
programs followed in the wake of new
and more serious environmental and
public health concerns. When wildlife
was destroyed in the 1950s by
continuous oil slicks in the Detroit River,
enraged duck hunters and early
environmentalists carried the oil-soaked
carcasses to the steps of state capitols
and lobbied furiously in Washington. The
general public was alarmed when
beaches were closed to swimming, when
windrows of dead fish lined the Chicago
beaches, and when the Cuyahoga and
Rouge Rivers actually caught fire.
With the survival of the Great Lakes
ecosystem clearly at stake, the public
demanded action. Under Public Law 660,
anti-pollution enforcement and
comprehensive studies were initiated.
Scientific data were collected and used
as evidence in federal/state enforcement
actions. The Great Lakes Illinois River
Basin Project (GLIRBP) provided the first
comprehensive water quality information
for the lakes and it was used in a
landmark decision on diversions through
the Chicago Ship Canal.
At first, there was little need for
sophisticated science in dealing with
problems of gross pollution, i.e., grease,
raw sewage, bacteria, dissolved solids,
and the like. Judges and enforcement
panels were usually convinced by the
photographic evidence and data
summaries showing blatant violations of
water quality norms. But as we became
more aware of the many chemicals
involved and their potential impact not
only on the ecology but also on human
health, the 1970s saw the growth of
research and surveillance efforts.
Coordinated binational, interagency
programs collected data and developed
mathematical models to help predict the
future consequences of man's impact on
the lakes and provide insights into optimal
control strategies.
As oil slicks were diminished by better
waste treatment and controls, new
studies revealed a more ominous
problem that had been overshadowed by
previous, more obvious concerns.
Eutrophication had accelerated
proliferation of plant life in the lakes. The
bottom waters of Lake Erie were void of
oxygen for much of the summer.
Shoreline residents complained of
massive weed mats and floating green
scum. Water treatment plant operators
complained of clogged intake filters, and
citizens objected to the musty taste and
odors of drinking water.
Researchers using deep-water vessels
were able to get water, sediment, and
plant and other samples from all parts of
Lake Erie. They found that the
combination of waste contaminants
pouring into its waters was stimulating
plant growth to the point where decaying
vegetation was depleting the oxygen
needed by fish and other helpful
organisms. They were also able to relate
the problem to the seasons of the year.
The end result? Mathematical
predictions that correctly forecasted
quality improvements that could be
achieved if the input of phosphorus was
reduced. This research led to a billion
dollar cleanup program and vast
improvements in Lake Erie.
The research also led to initiation of
new studies of toxic substances. As a
result, DDT was banned when
researchers confirmed its impact on Lake
Michigan wildlife feeding on Great Lakes
fish (fish are amazing collectors of
pollutants in the waters in which they
live). In 1969, mercury was found in fish
in Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. It
was discovered that mink reproduction
fell off as a result of PCB-contaminated
salmon used as food.
Asbestos became the issue in Lake
Superior when scientists found it to be a
dangerous component in the taconite
tailings dumped into the lake by the
Reserve Mining Company plant. Those
findings contributed to a major court
decision. And, most recently, toxaphene,
a pesticide used primarily in the southern
United States, was banned after it was
found in fish in a lake on Isle Royale in
the middle of Lake Superior.
Today, over 800 chemicals have been
identified by research scientists studying
Great Lakes fish samples. Health
advisories remain in effect in many parts
of the lakes.
As minute as some of the loadings of
chemicals are, biomagnification may
concentrate them up to a millionfold at
the top of the food chain. It is not yet
clear what real impact or risks many of
these chemicals may present, either
alone or in combination. There is some
evidence that toxic substances may be
preventing lake trout reproduction in
Lake Michigan and may be retarding
other ecosystem functions. The presence
of tumorous fish and deformed fish
larvae may also indicate contaminant
effects.
Because it is impossible to study all the
chemicals in every area of the lakes at
one time, researchers have chosen to
study thoroughly a few chemicals at a
small number of locations. Now under
study are radionuclides and PCBs in Lake
Michigan; heavy metals and PCB-like
compounds in Monroe Harbor, Mich.;
PCB mixtures and metals in Saginaw
Bay, Mich.; and aromatic hydrocarbons
in the near-shore waters of Lake
Michigan.
Chemical pollution involving
compounds like DDT and mercury, and
other concerns in the Great Lakes
coincided with increased national
awareness of environmental degradation,
the establishment of EPA in 1970, the
signing of the U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement in 1972, and
passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. In 1971, EPA established its
research program on the Great Lakes at
Grosse lie, Mich., and in 1978 created the
Great Lakes National Program Office in
Chicago. Much of EPA's Great Lakes
research and surveillance is supported
through the agency's Region 5 office in
Chicago.
Most recently, a coordinated study has
been started to investigate the Upper
Great Lakes connecting channels. This
study is continuing nature's experiment,
as scientists working in microlabs and
the Great Lakes macrolab carry on man's
urgent efforts to keep his fresh waters
clean and the food chain safe. D
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
^^ Thinking Ecologically
^ ^x_ ir* *<»lr/"fcr» Di"s%4-s'ks«4-is>N»"t
A dozen years ago, Canada and the
United States agreed to clean up the
Great Lakes, and much progress was
made. But....
While most beaches are now open to
swimming, more fish have tumors than
before.
Algae are less abundant since the
amount of phosphorus coming into the
lakes has been reduced, but evidence is
piling up that growing toxic
contamination threatens the health of the
Great Lakes ecosystem and its
inhabitants.
Moreover, solutions to some Great
Lakes problems may have made others
worse. Environmental managers still face
many dilemmas.
For example, direct discharges of
industrial wastes are largely controlled
under the permit system of the Clean
Water Act, yet toxic chemicals and heavy
metals are stili entering the lakes from
the atmosphere. Research fostered by the
Great Lakes agreement with Canada has
shown that atmospheric deposition must
be the only source of many toxic
contaminants to the Upper Great Lakes
{Lake Superior, Lake Huron, and northern
Lake Michigan). Studies indicate that
even in the case of Lake Michigan, with
many industrial sources at the southern
end, half the total load of toxic
contaminants and heavy metals may now
be entering the lake from the air. How
these contaminants got into the air is not
fully understood. The routes are believed
to include evaporation from agricultural
spraying and landfills, vaporization in
industrial treatment systems, and
incomplete combustion.
Could it be that prevention of direct
discharges of industrial wastes into
waterways has displaced more toxic
(Botts founded the Lake Michigan
Federation, a citizens group concerned with
Great Lakes cleanup. She is also the former
Chair of the Great Lakes Basin
Commission, a water planning agency, and
is now research associate at the Center for
Urban Affairs and Policy Research of
Northwestern University.)
in Lakes Protection
by Lee Botts
Dead alewives float on the Chicago
shoreline. In "the great alewife dieoff" of
1967, Lake Michigan beaches were
unusable for a summer and drinking water
intakes were dogged for weeks.
chemicals into the atmosphere?
The diversion of industrial wastes into
publicly owned treatment plants creates
another dilemma when the result is
concentration of toxic chemicals in the
sewage effluent. The St. Louis River is
the largest tributary flowing into Lake
Superior. Since Duluth built its huge new
sewage treatment plant, the river is so
much cleaner insofar as conventional
pollutants are concerned that the walleye
have returned and fishing is better than it
has been for years. Nonetheless, a recent
study found that the sewage treatment
plant is now a large source of toxic
chemicals going into the St. Louis River
and Lake Superior.
Since the cleanup of the conventional
pollutants from the river, the sea lamprey
has also begun to spawn there. This
means that the sea lamprey is now
spreading throughout the Great Lakes
MARCH 1985
13
-------
system. The lamprey is the parasitic
invader from the ocean that first entered
the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence
Seaway and earlier manmade canals. By
attaching itself to large fish, the sea
lamprey kills them. It had almost
destroyed the lake trout in Lake Michian
by the 1940s.
That removal of lake trout as Lake
Michigan's leading predator was
followed by explosive growth of the
lake's alewife population. The alewife is a
small Atlantic herring that also entered
the Great Lakes through canals but is not
well-adapted and tends to die off in the
spring. "The great alewife dieoff" in Lake
Michigan in 1967 was one of the all-time
Great Lakes ecological disasters.
Thousands of tons of decaying
alewives clogged drinking water intakes
for weeks and made beaches unusable
a!l around the lake all summer. Public
fear was intensified when botulism
caused a massive dieoff of fish-eating
birds. When the State of Michigan
introduced coho and chinook salmon
from the Pacific northwest into Lake
Michigan in the mid-1960s, the chief
reason was to provide new predators to
reduce the number of alewives. Then the
plan was to reestablish the lake trout
population.
Now, twenty years later, there are only
about a tenth as many alewives, but the
lake trout is not yet reproducing well
enough to sustain itself naturally.
Researchers at the University of
Wisconsin have found evidence that
something, presumably a toxic chemical
that inhibits reproduction, is passed from
the adult fish to their eggs. The Fish and
Wildlife Service Great Lakes Laboratory
at Ann Arbor found that survival of
young fish seemed to be related to levels
of toxic substances.
To dredge or not to dredge? Another
dilemma is how to clean up places where
high concentrations of contaminants and
metals have settled out into sediments.
Most such "toxic hot spots" are in
harbors or near the mouths of tributaries.
The highest rates of fish tumors found so
far have been among bottom-feeding fish
like bullheads in the Buffalo River where
sediments have high levels of chemical
contaminants. The worst accumulations
resulted from past direct discharges, like
the high levels of PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenyls) in Waukegan Harbor, III., and
the dioxins in Saginaw Bay, Mich.
Because physical removal by dredging
can cause resuspension of some of the
contaminants in the water, it was
formerly thought better to leave the
sediments undisturbed once the
pollutants had settled into them.
With dredging for navigation, the
polluted sediments that were removed
were placed in secure landfills or diked
disposal areas. Now no landfill is thought
Malformations in fish and birds, such as thu
crossed bill of this Forester's tern chick,
have prompted concern about toxic
substances in the Great Lakes
to be permanently secure and pollutants
often escape from diked disposal sites.
Biological recycling of organic
contaminant sediments back into the
water also occurs. In the 1960s, mercury
discharges into Lake St. Clair and the
Detroit River had to be stopped because
bacteria converted the metal into
poisonous methylated mercury.
Now it has been shown that gases
excreted by bottom-feeding organisms
can pass into the atmosphere through
the water. In this way, and also by
evaporation from the surface, it is
conceivable that chemicals that may have
entered the water from the air can be
recycled back into the atmosphere.
Although hundreds of chemicals have
been found in the Great Lakes, in many
cases the levels in the water are so low
that they can be measured only by
sophisticated techniques such as gas
chromatography. There is much concern
about persistent organic chemicals that
concentrate in fatty tissues and
bioaccumulate up the food chain, like
PCBs.
Because treatment removes many
chemicals from drinking water, humans
receive the greatest exposure to chemical
contaminants from eating fish.
Concentrations of PCBs, dieldrin, mirex,
or chlordane exceed Food and Drug
Administration standards in trout and
salmon and are the reason fishing
licenses for all the lakes except Superior
advise limiting consumption of certain
fish. Because of the special vulnerability
of the young, several states advise that
women of childbearing age and children
under five should never eat these fish.
The economic contribution of sport
fishing in a region that has been losing
its industrial base adds to the dilemma.
The coho and chinook salmon introduced
to eliminate the alewife are now the most
prized sport fish. But epidemiological
studies have shown that levels of PCBs in
humans are related to the quantity of
Great Lakes fish they eat. Stocking fish
thus increases human exposure to
contaminants if the health warnings are
not heeded.
Concern about human exposure has
also been intensified by a high rate of
genetic defects in fish-eating cormorants
that nest on islands in Green Bay. It is
suspected that the cormorants now born
with crossed bills have been affected by
dioxins or dibenzofurans.
The Clean Water Act regulates the
quality of effluent in direct discharges
from municipal sewage treatment
systems and industrial sources. No such
discharges flow into Lake Siscowet on
Isle Royale (which has been a wilderness
national park since 1910). Yet high levels
of PCBs were detected in trout from the
isolated lake in 1975, and high toxaphene
levels were found in 1980. The toxics,
obviously, could only have come from
the air. Yet chemicals can only be
classified as hazardous under the Clean
Air Act if they pose a hazard from direct
exposure. Neither law takes
bioaccumulation in the food chain into
account, although this is the way human
health effects are most likely to be
caused by toxic contamination of the
Great Lakes. Another Great Lakes
environmental management dilemma!
In summary, the experience with the
Great Lakes is a lesson in how some
solutions to environmental problems
may make others worse. The crux of the
lesson is that solutions to single
problems must be considered in light of
their impact on the whole ecosystem.
Some of the most serious damage can
be caused indirectly. Moreover,
degradation that is caused indirectly can
be more difficult to reverse. Still, the
success in reducing phosphorus loadings
to the Great Lakes suggests that, with
enough research and determination, an
ecosystem approach to management that
would prevent continued toxic
contamination of the lakes is also
possible.
The classic definition of an ecosystem
is the complex of physical resources and
the living organisms that depend on
them. Humans have caused most of the
problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem,
but they also have a large stake in
solving them, d
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
^
Toxics: Today's
Great Lakes Challenge
by L. Keith Bulen
(Bulen is U.S. Commissioner of the
/m
-------
Mais of algae rotting on the shores o'
Ontario, one consequence of a lake
overnourished with nutrients, known as
eutmphication. The United States and
Canada have made major gai:
controlling this problem on the Great Lakes.
Eutmphication produces much more visible
pollution than the toxic substance
contamination now challenging the lakes
cleanup.
Eutrophication attracted considerable
scientific and public concern, and in
1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement was signed by the U.S. and
Canada. The two countries initiated a
coordinated international program to
restore and maintain the quality of Great
Lakes water, and spent billions of dollars
to reduce phosphorus loadings from
municipal and industrial discharges.
Unfortunately, the success story of
eutrophication control in the Great Lakes
is too often overlooked as attention shifts
to the problems of toxic contamination.
The Toxics Challenge
Toxic substances are mostly invisible, but
alarming tumorous growths on fishes in
polluted rivers and harbors and abnormal
development in eggs and chicks of
fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes are
ominous evidence of their presence. Our
awareness of the problem of toxic
substances has increased largely through
improvements in analytical technology
that allow scientists to measure a wider
array of compounds at smaller and
smaller concentrations.
Even diluted, these hazardous
substances may exert adverse biological
effects through bioaccumulation in
aquatic organisms in the food chain to
levels which are eventually toxic.
Ironically, the fishery in the Great Lakes
has been undergoing a phenomenal
recovery in recent years but the levels of
toxic contaminants in some species has
prompted cautionary health advisories on
consumption.
Specific regulatory measures have had
an impact on controlling levels of a few
toxic substances such as DDT and
mercury. Many more, however, remain
unregulated because of the lack of
information on identification, fate, and
effects. Regulation of the myriad of toxic
substances on the single chemical-by-
chemical assessment approach may not
be sufficient to deal with interactions
between chemicals.
Nor will local or regional
considerations alone suffice; the
problems are transboundary. Toxaphene,
used as an insecticide in the southern
United States, has been detected in the
Great Lakes basin, transported by air
currents across many political and
watershed boundaries. Concerns about
toxic substances in the lakes must now
extend beyond the Great Lakes basin.
Similarly, pollution cannot be viewed
as a single medium problem. For
example, industrial solvents buried in
landfills leach through the soil and
become toxic chemicals in ground water
and eventually can pollute nearby rivers
and lakes. In many respects, more
stringent surface water quality controls
enacted in the past several decades have
encouraged a shift of pollution from
direct surface water discharge to other
routes of entry such as the atmosphere
and ground water.
Conclusion
The transboundary and multimedia
features of the toxic substances problem
demand a more holistic, cooperative,
integrative, and multidisciplmary
approach than heretofore realized. Our
understanding of environmental
problems is inadequate, and existing
legislation and regulatory practices may
not fit the task before us. We need to
begin developing a comprehensive
control strategy for toxic substances.
Additional research is needed on
rendering toxic materials harmless before
their release into the environment.
Pre-treatment technologies for certain
industrial wastes received by municipal
wastewater treatment plants require
further expansion. Residual disposal
technologies such as land incineration
need additional research. Naive or
indiscriminate dumping of toxic wastes
over many years is causing harm to the
environment now. We must move
responsibly into the future with better
detoxification mechanisms, controls, and
monitoring tools. Better yet, we should
generate less toxic waste materials at the
outset, promoting effective, not token,
recycling efforts, and developing
non-toxic substitutes.
Great Lakes water quality problems
cannot be addressed adequately without
heightened citizen concern and
involvement. Toxic contaminants are not
nearly as visible as was eutrophication,
so citizen concerns must provide some
extra impetus for action. Improvements
in industrial practices to reduce toxic
substances must be encouraged.
Consumers must realize that they have
had far more impact on the generation of
toxic substances than ever imagined.
Without active community support, it is
probably beyond the reach of any agency
or government to achieve the objectives
of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The challenge is, therefore,
one to be met not only by governments,
industry, the scientific community, or
citizens, but by all four.
As President Reagan asked in his
second Inaugural Address, "If not us,
who? If not now, when?" D
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
xfe
Views from
Other Vantage Points
by Paul MacClennan
EPA Journal asked three JOL • .
from differenl parts of the Gi
m to wnte about the status of the
lakes' env:: • from than va
The writers are Paul
MacClennan, Buffalo News; (,'
Bukro, Chicago Tribune; and Dean
Hebuffoni, Minneapolis SUir and
Tribune. All three regularly write about
Great Lakes environmental natters.
Their views do not necessarily n
those of EPA. Here are their
comments:
Some Great Lakes oeaches are still closed
because of pollution.
LJt's look at the year 2000.
Will the Great Lakes be restored to
the international goal of waters that are
fully fishable, swimmable and drinkable?
Two decades ago, alarmed by rivers
that burned, beaches closed by bacteria,
and waters filled with rotting wastes, the
United States and Canada knew they
had to act.
The international water quality
agreement that followed is a landmark
and was the envy of the 140 nations
attending the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment in
Stockholm. The Great Lakes pact of 1972
is a challenge that set a new world
standard for cooperative action on
pollution abatement. It gave new hope
for millions whose health, welfare, jobs,
and recreation depend on pure water.
States, provinces, and the two federal
governments set about to rectify the
mistakes, misdeeds, and malfeasance of
the past, pledging to spend billions on
new sewage treatment plants and
requiring industry to do the same.
The pace often lagged as commitments
waned and communities wavered. One
agency started boasting of "success
HIGH POtlffflQK MWiKS
fOfTEHfWW
THESE WATERS...
stories." In one such case, the claim was
made that a fish had survived the trip
from Lake Erie up the contaminated
industrial waters of the Buffalo River. The
boast was premature.
While not wholly satisfied with
progress and noting delays in Chicago,
Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Toronto,
the International Joint Commission said
that overall, the lakes' water quality was
improving and that eutrophication of
Lake Erie had stabilized.
But even as the tide began to turn on
"conventional pollutants," a new and
more sinister threat emerged. The
problem of toxic and hazardous wastes
had been there all along, but it took Lois
Gibbs and a handful of Niagara Falls
housewives who lived at Love Canal to
rivet international attention on the issue
of wastes from a post-war chemical
industry run amuck.
Overnight there was a new "Great
Lakes crisis," the specter of often
invisible, often undetected toxic and
hazardous wastes turning up in water
samples, bottom sediments, and, more
seriously, infiltrating the aquatic and
wildlife food chain.
The threat of human wastes
contaminating the lakes that dominated
the 1970s quickly gave way to the threat
of chemical wastes as the challenge of
the 1980s.
Scientists had long cautioned that the
two nations must deal with the issue of
nonpoint pollution. Almost reluctantly,
agreement was reached on a pact to limit
the discharge of oxygen robbing
phosphorus discharges in a mutual effort
to curb eutrophication that had despoiled
Lake Erie and led some to predict its
"death."
Toxic discharges proved more
complex, harder to get at, less
understood. Some of the environmental
fervor of Earth Day was gone.
Government funding for research
shriveled up. Superfund languished and
at best would deal with only a handful of
sites threatening the lakes. Cleanup even
at Love Canal remains incomplete seven
years later.
Beaches are still being closed on the
Great Lakes, fish caught in their waters
carry health warning labels, and many
persons perceive the drinking water as
posing long-term threats to health.
Jack Vallentyne, a courageous and
outspoken Canadian scientist, warns that
until we look at the entire ecosystem.
MARCH 1985
\1
-------
by Casey Bukro
until we dea! with and treat all the forces
that comprise the Great Lakes system in
its entirety, we will fail in the mission of
restoration.
Today our methods for dealing with
the hundreds of toxic dump sites that
ring the lakes are primitive—analogous
to the first flight of Wilbur and Orville
Wright at Kitty Hawk in an age of space
flight.
Can we meet this latest challenge by
2000?
At the present speed it appears unlikely
without major commitments for research,
without strong emphasis on high
technology applied to existing dumps
and disposal of new wastes and without
high-level commitment to meeting terms
of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. None are in place.
Why the pessimism?
More than a decade ago, the
International Joint Commission (IJC), the
watchdog over government cleanup
efforts, identified 47 U.S. and Canadian
problem areas from Thunder Bay on Lake
Superior to the Oswego on Lake Ontario.
The list and those problems are little
changed today.
In 1982 to focus on the most serious
situations, the IJC cited 18 "Class A"
areas of concern from Saginaw Bay in
Michigan to Hamilton Harbor in Ontario.
For the most part commission experts
say that remedial measures planned or in
place will not end contamination.
New York, Ontario, and the two federal
governments had an ad hoc Niagara
River Toxics Committee focus on one of
the problem areas, spending four years
and $6 million to come up with 24
recommendations. Even if—and it's a
big "if"—the money and manpower were
allocated, these recommended actions
might not achieve results for another
generation. And the Niagara River is just
one of 18 such areas.
Seven years after Love Canal, not a
single major chemical dump site along
the Niagara River has been contained,
much less cleaned up, nor do we have
basic information on the extent of toxic
migration or the extent of ground-water
contamination and its impact on the river
and on Lake Ontario.
However, a Niagara River Toxics
Committee reports that 61 dumps of
some 164 within three miles of the river
"have Ibeen] or are contributing
contaminants to the Niagara River,"
Dioxin-contarninated sludges believed to
originate at Love Canal have been found
both in tributary creeks and at sewer
outfalls in the Niagara River adjacent to
Love Canal.
One fails to see the methodical,
day-by-day, month-by-month,
year-by-year accounting, charting a path
out of the toxic wilderness; nor, in the
deluge of government paperwork, a box
score or tomorrow's lineup telling what's
been accomplished and where the
players are going.
One would like to be proven wrong,
but then one looks at the record of Love
Canal—a fiery boil likely to fester through
this decade—and wonders if 15 years will
begin to erase or even diminish the
degradation of one of the world's great
freshwater wonders.
Later this year the International Joint
Commission will issue its report card on
progress under the most recent Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
formulated in 1978.
The National Academy of Sciences and
the Royal Academy of Canada aiong with
the Center for the Great Lakes are
already examining the Agreement to
determine if changes are necessary to
expedite the task of restoring and
preserving the lakes.
There are new brooms both at
Environment Canada and the
Environmental Protection Agency, but
both agencies face budget constraints
that exacerbate the allocation of limited
resources.
There are a multitude of related issues:
from diversion of Great Lakes waters to
the west and south, to the impact of
deposition of airborne contaminants on
the pristine upper lakes.
Yet day by day the clock ticks on
towards the twenty-first century—a
century that could open on a high note of
concern for nature as evidenced in clean
lakes and pure waters.
Each day we wait, each day we waste,
puts a clean environment in the year
2000 further out of reach. And while we
look at the year 2000, we must
remember that if we fail the Great Lakes,
that generation will look back at 1985 and
ask why. \
It was back in 1978 when one of
Washington's top environment officials
happened to see a shimmering blue
"ocean" from a downtown skyscraper
while visiting Chicago.
"What's all that water out there?"
asked the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency official, who was told it was Lake
Michigan.
The headline over a story recounting
that tale said: "Bureaucrats note: That
blue stuff is the Great Lakes."
That gaffe is still remembered in
Chicago as evidence of the ignorance or
the indifference toward the Great Lakes
that often prevails in Washington.
At the time, Dr. Edith Tebo, director of
the EPA's Great Lakes program, said:
"There is still the sentiment [in her
agency] that the Great Lakes are just little
puddles across the northern border of
the country" and merely a "regional
problem."
Seemingly unable to decide what to do
with the Great Lakes program, EPA
moved the program's headquarters from
Chicago, to Washington, and back to
Chicago.
More recently, midwesterners have
watched with interest as the Reagan
administration pledged $10 million in
1985 toward the Chesapeake Bay
cleanup, and maybe another $10 million
in 1986.
By contrast, the Great Lakes program
budget for 1985 is $4.1 million.
Since a number of Washingtonians are
known to sail boats on the Chesapeake,
that body of water does not suffer from
an identity crisis—or a budget crisis.
That is not to say midwesterners
begrudge Chesapeake Bay a helping
hand. They recognize major waterways
as national treasures.
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
by Dean Rebuffoni
The Great Lakes were described in the
late 1960s as dead or dying, although it
is popular these days to say such dire
predictions proved false, it is important
to remember that pollution trends at the
time indicated the Great Lakes were in
serious trouble, and the worst was
predicted if trends continued.
It was not hard to believe something
terrible was happening if you stood on
the banks of Cleveland's Cuyahoga River,
a river that burst into flames
occasionally, and saw thick mats of oil
and grease ooze past like a gooey
glacier.
Or the Indiana Harbor canal that flowed
like a melted chocolate bar past the oil
refineries and steel mills near Gary, Ind.
Or the Rouge River in Detroit that was
as red as some of the fire-engine colored
cars that rolled off the assembly lines at
Ford Motor Co., which dumped 100,000
gallons of sulfuric acid pickle liquor into
the river each day.
It was impossible to look upon such
environmental ruin without wondering:
"How did this happen?" Only to realize it
was the American way in 1967.
These scenes, and the odors that
drifted from them, were overpowering.
This was the setting in which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was
born, along with the so-called
environmental crusade.
In those early days, the environmental
crusade clearly had a mission that could
be seen and sometimes smelled. The
record of environmental improvement in
the Great Lakes is impressive in many
ways.
From 1971 through 1983, the United
States spent $6.3 billion to construct
municipal sewage treatment plants in the
Great Lakes basin alone.
This effort and others led to major
reductions in some Great Lakes pollution,
such as phosphorus and DDT.
But on the heels of that victory came a
tougher battle against toxic chemicals, an
environmental foe that cannot be seen or
smelled, and could hardly be measured
until a short time ago.
The International Joint Commission
reports that over 800 chemicals have
been detected in the Great Lakes.
EPA is barely addressing the major
Heavy industrial development lines the
banks of the Cuyahoga River at Collision
Bend in Cleveland, Ohio. The oil and grease
that used to float in the river actually caught
tim in 1969, the year this photo was taken.
issues that now confront the Great Lakes.
They include:
• Toxic chemical levels in Great Lakes
fish, and what those concentrations
mean to people eating the fish.
Midwesterners are alarmed by a study
showing that women eating Lake
Michigan fish contaminated with PCBs
gave birth to infants with behavioral
abnormalities.
• Toxic chemical content of Great Lakes
harbor sediments, which could be leaking
like slow poison into the water and
contaminating aquatic life.
• The extent of atmospheric deposition in
polluting the Great Lakes with toxics.
• Industrial pretreatment of
toxic chemicals which are flushed into
sewer systems that empty into the Great
Lakes.
With its $4.1 million budget for 1985,
the EPA Great Lakes program is largely
confined to meeting its obligations under
the 1972 Great Lakes agreement with
Canada and monitoring the open waters
of the lakes for phosphorus, the indicator
for nutrient pollution and eutrophication.
EPA is dwelling on the first generation
of Great Lakes pollution, meaning
sewage and certain industrial wastes.
The Great Lakes research program is
geared toward large-lake research.
It needs to focus also on the new
generation of Great Lakes pollution,
which includes toxics and might even
branch out to include likely
environmental impact of major Great
Lakes water diversion projects that are
being discussed these days.
Though difficult, it would be helpful to
discover a toxic chemical indicator for
the Great Lakes, as phosphorus is a
nutrient indicator, to measure toxic
pollution trends in the lakes.
Even within EPA's ranks, there is a
growing cry for a better understanding in
Washington of what the Great Lakes
really are—95 per cent of the fresh
water in the United States and home to
45 million Americans and Canadians.
There is a call for using the Great
Lakes as a national research laboratory,
since environmental problems that
eventually affect the nation often are
recognized for the first time in the Great
Lakes. Chemical pollution and
atmospheric deposition (later to be
known as acid rain) are examples.
Washingtonians who are interested in
expanding their understanding of the
Great Lakes are welcome to visit any of
the eight states that border lakes Huron,
Ontario, Michigan, Erie, and Superior,
Bring your boat. Catch some salmon or
gamefish, but consult your local
conservation department on whether
they are safe to eat. [
It has been five years since a trickle of
Reserve Mining Company's taconite
wastes flowed down a steel sluice, froze
in the chilly air, and formed a long, gray
icicle that tapered downward to the
steel-gray water of Lake Superior.
That was the last discharge into the
lake from Reserve's ore-processing plant
at Silver Bay, Minn., 55 miles northeast
of Duluth. For almost 25 years the plant
had dumped 67,000 tons of wastes into
the lake each day.
The halting of the discharge on March
18, 1980, was a milestone in one of the
nation's premier environmental disputes,
known formally as United States of
America vs. Reserve Mining Company.
For more than a decade, it had
overshadowed other environmental
issues along the rim of Lake Superior:
the cleanup of the Duluth-Superior
Harbor, a proposed all-winter shipping
program, the airborne deposition of
chemical contaminants in the lake's cold
waters, etc.
Starting in 1969, conservationists and a
plethora of government agencies,
including the EPA, had fought to halt
Reserve's discharge. They prevailed
when the federal courts ruled that the
taconite wastes, which contain
microscopic asbestos-type fibers, were
creating a potential health hazard. The
courts said the discharge had to be
halted.
Reserve complied and, as part of a
$370 million program, built a
5.6-square-mile disposal basin five miles
inland from the lake. In June 1980 it
began dumping its ore wastes in the
basin. Environmentalists and government
agencies turned much of their attention
to other matters.
But the Reserve issue has not been
completely resolved. The latest twist in
the long trail involves a new Reserve
discharge, this time into the Beaver
River, a tributary of Lake Superior. But
this discharge has been at least
tentatively approved by the EPA and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The discharge is necessary because of
a complicated series of events that were
unforeseen in 1980. At that time. Reserve
anticipated using its disposal basin for 40
years, the projected life of its operations
in Minnesota.
To build the dams that enclose the
basin, Reserve uses coarse taconite
wastes, called tailings. They are hauled
to the basin by rail from the Silver Bay
plant. Fine tailings, about the size of silt
particles, are pumped into the basin from
the plant through large pipelines.
The fine tailings are carried in a water
slurry, and the water comes from runoff
and precipitation that collect in the basin.
The water also covers the tailings,
preventing the asbestos-like fibers from
becoming airborne.
MARCH 1985
19
-------
What neither Reserve nor government
officials had clearly anticipated in 1980
were the severe economic woes now
afflicting the taconite industry. Reserve's
plant has been either shut down or
operating at very low production levels
for more than two years,
Because of that, the plant has
generated fewer of the coarse tailings
needed to continue raising the height of
the dams. Compounding the problem has
been two years of abundant snow and
rain in northern Minnesota and, in turn,
more water entering the disposal basin.
The upshot has been that water in the
basin is rising faster than the height of
the dams, creating a potentially unsafe
situation. If the water in the huge basin
should wash over the top of the dams, it
would carry taconite tailings—and those
tiny asbestos-like fibers—into the Beaver
River and downstream, to Lake Superior.
To prevent such an occurrence,
Reserve has to lower the water level in
the basin, and last year it sought state
permits to discharge up to 3,500 gallons
of water each minute into the small river.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
approved the permits, but only after
requiring Reserve to filter the fibers from
its wastewater.
And that resulted in another lawsuit.
Although Reserve has built a plant to
filter the fibers, it says the limit of one
million fibers per liter of wastewater
appears too stringent. The company also
contends that the state agency modified
the permit at the last minute to include
that rigid fiber limitation. The Minnesota
Court of Appeals has heard the case and
has taken it under advisement.
A more reassuring event last year was
the preliminary findings of a study done
on the huge delta that stretches into Lake
Superior from Reserve's plant. The delta,
made up of taconite wastes, is similar to
those found at the mouths of rivers. It
contains millions of tons of the wastes,
having been gradually formed during the
years when Reserve was discharging
directly into the lake.
When Reserve halted that discharge,
EPA and other agencies raised concerns
that the constant wave action along the
delta's outer edge would wash the
asbestos-like fibers into the lake and
resuspend them in its waters. William
Busch, an assistant professor of geology
at the University of Minnesota, began a
study of the matter.
Although not yet complete, Busch's
research strongly indicates that the delta
is stable, and the huge masses of the
fibers are not being washed into the lake.
Another success story was the cleanup
of the Duluth-Superior Harbor and St.
Louis Bay, which make up the large
estuary at the southwestern tip of Lake
. * v
.,
^
'»
Superior. For decades the estuary
received a steady influx of raw or
inadequately treated municipal waste
from Duluth, Superior, and several
smaller cities in both Minnesota and
Wisconsin. Industrial wastes also poured
into the estuary from steel plants and
paper mills in both states.
Starting in 1971, when the Minnesota
Legislature created the Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District, more than
$115 million has been spent on municipal
treatment plants to clean up the effluent
of cities around the estuary. The area's
industrial firms also have spent
considerable amounts to improve
treatment of their wastes.
The result has been a remarkable
improvement in water quality and sport
fishing opportunities. A remaining
problem is the persistence of chemical
contaminants in silt at the bottom of the
harbor and bay. ,
Taconite wastes front Reserve Mining Co.
near Duluth, Minn., once flowed down a
long sluice into Lake Superior, a practice
that has since been halted.
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Cleaning up the
Grand Calumet River
by Kathleen Osborne Clute
This is the sixth in a series of articles
by EPA's regional offices concerning
ma/or environmental problems they are
addressing. The topics of articles have
ranged from Puget Sound pollution to
the use of EPA's mobile incinerator to
burn dioxin-contaminated soil in
Missouri. Clute is a writer for the Office
of Public Affairs in EPA Region 5.
John Winters was a young sanitarian
for the Indiana State Board of Health
when he went out to sample the Grand
Calumet River for the first time. It was
late in the 1950s, and the industries
along the northwest Indiana river formed
one of the most concentrated steel and
chemical complexes in America.
"The upper end of the Grand Calumet
by U.S. Steel was red with iron from the
steel mill," Winters recalled. "The Indiana
Harbor Canal connecting the river to Lake
Michigan was heavily covered with oils.
By the time we sampled the river, we'd
gotten this oil on us—a couple of inches
thick in some places—and our clothes
were so bad I didn't think there was any
possibility of cleaning them up. I just
burned them."
That was more than two decades ago.
Conditions have improved since then,
largely because of EPA's efforts.
However, the Grand Calumet/Indiana
Harbor Canal area still has serious
environmental problems and contributes
to the pollution of southern Lake
Michigan. It still poses a major cleanup
challenge.
Most recently, EPA's Region 5 office in
Chicago has developed a master plan to
clean up the two waterways. Community
groups and a special Grand Calumet Task
Force have applauded the effort and
hope the plan can become a prototype
for action in other Great Lakes trouble
spots.
The Grand Calumet is a small river fed
largely by industrial discharges as it
flows 13 miles westward from modest
headwaters in the Marquette Park
Lagoon near Gary, Ind. Three miles from
the Illinois state line, the river is joined
by its west branch and empties into Lake
Michigan through the Indiana Harbor
Canal.
A trio of steel mills, two chemical
companies, three major sewage
treatment plants, an oil refinery, and
numerous other industries discharge
treated wastewater into the Grand
Calumet system. In fact, 90 percent of its
flow consists of treated municipal and
industrial wastewater, industrial cooling
and process water, and stormwater
runoff. In addition, 38 waste sites are
located within the river basin; several of
them are right on the river's banks.
Concern over the Calumet River basin
crystallized in 1965, when the Secretary
of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare convened a conference to
define and attempt to solve the problem.
At the conference, baseline data were
defined and cleanup plans were begun.
But evaluations in 1967 and 1968
revealed no significant water quality
improvements, even though sewage
treatment plants and factories were
generally complying with the existing
water quality regulations.
It was obvious to a newly appointed
Grand Calumet water quality committee
that a tougher and broader approach
was needed. This began after EPA was
created in 1970, and the focus shifted
from Calumet-specific actions to broader,
more generic, EPA water pollution
control programs. Industries were
required to install best practicable
technology in order to treat their
wastewater before discharging it to the
river system. The three major sewage
treatment plants in the area—Hammond,
Gary, and East Chicago—were given EPA
construction grants totaling $108 million
to upgrade existing facilities and build
new ones.
EPA moved aggressively against major
polluters in the northwest Indiana area
despite legal challenges. U.S. Steel Corp.
took the agency to court in a case which
affirmed EPA's authority to issue
discharge permits and require
wastewater treatment. The company
ended up paying the largest fine ever
levied for wastewater treatment
violations—$4.25 million.
These initial efforts led to substantial
improvements in the water quality of the
river and canal. Levels of conventional
pollutants dropped, dissolved oxygen
levels increased dramatically by 1982,
and 16 species of fish were found in the
river system last year. While the fish
weren't considered safe to eat, they were
able to survive in water which just years
before couldn't support any aquatic life,
Nevertheless, serious problems
remained.
The master plan efforts got underway
in 1983, after Region 5 Administrator
Valdas Adamkus committed the agency
to the project.
To develop the master plan, EPA has
worked with the State of Indiana, public
interest groups, and a Grand Caiumet
Task Force made up of representatives
from citizen groups, unions, industry, and
local municipalities. The plan calls for:
• Modifying discharge permits to
minimize toxic and biological
contaminants.
• Tough enforcement of existing
discharge permits.
• Achieving currently required pollutant
load reductions at sewage treatment
plants.
• Revising and upgrading water quality
standards. The existing standards were
adopted in 1978 but have not yet been
upgraded.
• Reducing pollutant loads contributed
by combined sewer overflows.
• Initiating long-term monitoring to
evaluate the effectiveness of control
programs and to discover any remaining
contaminants.
Released in draft form last fall, the
master plan has been well received.
Dennis Terry, Chairman of the Grand
Calumet Task Force, says it is essential to
the future of Lake Michigan. Dave
Fogarty, a project manager for the Lake
Michigan Federation, said the plan could
become an international model for
pollution control. Eventually, it is hoped,
the combined efforts of EPA and the
State of Indiana could result in the
removal of the river and harbor from the
International Joint Commission's list of
pollution hot spots in the Great Lakes
area.
In the meantime, EPA will emphasize
its existing pollution control programs in
the Grand Calumet basin and will design
and undertake new ones if necessary. All
of the agency's regulatory tools will be
marshalled to help solve the area's
remaining problems. [ I
MARCH 1985
-------
Thomas States Goals for EPA
Lee M. Thomas was confirmed
unanimously by the U.S. Senate on
February 8 as Administrator of EPA.
Here are excerpts from his statement
to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works at his
confirmation hearing:
.
' >e M !!:. '
en Strom Tliui-
•
C , who tepresani
It has been a decade and a half since
EPA came into being. In those early
days, this agency concentrated its
energies on the most obvious forms of
pollution — smoggy air and rivers so
choked with substances that some
actually erupted into fiame. While we
have made substantial progress in these
areas during the intervening years, today
we must also address much more subtle
hazards.
To a certain extent, it is ironic that
some of today's environmental problems
reflect our successes with earlier
priorities. For example, massive air and
water cleanup programs implemented
during the 1970s created unexpected new
challenges involving the safe handling of
toxic substances and hazardous wastes.
Our efforts over the past decade also
fostered quantum leaps in the technology
used to detect and measure pollution.
That technology has made us realize just
how extensively minute concentrations of
many hazardous substances are
distributed throughout our environment.
To illustrate this point, we need only
look back to the early 1970s, when we
could not accurately measure substances
beyond the parts-per-million range.
Today, we fear that our ground water
may contain exotic chemicals in levels of
parts per trillion or even parts per
quadrillion. I note this to accentuate a
point. We do not live in a risk-free
environment.
We are an industrialized society, and
we will always be faced with risks. It is
simply one of the prices we pay for the
overall quality of life we enjoy. Thus, we
must learn to manage the risks we face.
This has been the thrust of EPA during
the past year and a half under Bill
Ruckelshaus, and it will continue to be
the basis for many of our regulatory
decisions.
Some would argue our task is
impossible. During a public meeting I
attended recently in Boston, a citizen
confronted me with a revealing question.
;v
EPA JOURNAL
-------
He asked me why I would be willing to
take on the job of EPA Administrator
when I could not possibly succeed. The
laws are complex and unworkable, he
insisted. The problems are
insurmountable.
Although I agree with him that the
challenges before us are demanding, I
assured him they are not
insurmountable. Our environmental laws
are largely on track to address the
spectrum of hazards threatening
America. It will be a top priority of mine
to carry out these laws the way Congress
intended. Where we find inadequacies in
our statutory foundation, we will work
with you to remedy them.
I am a professional manager.
Throughout my career, I have managed
complex, people-oriented programs. I am
dedicated to fulfilling the realistic
expectations of the American people. I
respect our environmental statutes, and I
will carry them out to the best of my
ability.
I bring to the job of Administrator
experience at every level of government.
And I bring a sense of reality with
respect to EPA that is the product of two
years directing some of this agency's
most challenging programs — the
hazardous waste regulatory effort under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act and the cleanup program under
Superfund.
I am proud of the results we have
achieved under these two statutes since
early 1983. As Administrator, I will work
to build the same record of progress
under all of EPA's basic environmental
laws.
I want to share with you several
management goals I have set for my
term as EPA Administrator.
Firstly, I will emphasize continued
implementation of the basic programs
EPA is responsible for. EPA will do the
best possible job with the statutes given
us by Congress. I will manage the agency
the same way I managed its hazardous
waste programs—for results.
To assist in setting goals and achieving
them, we will maintain and enhance the
management systems developed in
recent years to identify problems,
monitor progress, and measure success.
Where necessary, we will develop new
ones to fill management gaps as we
identify them. I will also work with state
officials to assist in the development of
similar systems at the state level. For I
believe that commitment at all levels of
government must be to measurable
progress in all areas of environmental
protection.
A second goal will be to ensure a
strong enforcement presence in all
agency programs. It is extremely
important that our enforcement efforts be
fully integrated into each program.
Enforcement need not dominate our
implementation of environmental laws.
But the regulated community must know
that we will not accept recalcitrance
when it comes to compliance. We will be
ready to take aggressive enforcement
steps wherever necessary as part of our
commitment to protecting human health
and the environment.
Thirdly, I believe in decentralizing the
management process where it makes
sense. Much of my government
experience has been at the state and
local levels. I have a natural bias toward
managing programs close to the source
of the problem. In Superfund, I have
worked to decentralize decision-making
to the regions and the states. That
process will continue, and I will explore
opportunities to further decentralize other
EPA programs.
It is important to recognize that,
properly implemented, decentralization
does not diminish the federal role.
Rather, it enhances that role. Effective
decentralization allows for a clear
definition of the roles to be played by
federal and state authorities. It promotes
efficiency and a system of mutual
support.
A fourth goal that I will pursue will be
to ensure that EPA has the strong
scientific and technical base it needs to
support program decisions. This is a key
component in assessing risks and
managing them. A solid technical
capability must be at the heart of our
judgment. It will be a critical element of
al! public health decisions we at EPA will
make under my administration.
A fifth goal will be public
accessibility to EPA through an effective
community relations/public involvement
program. This agency will continue to
operate in a fishbowl. Openness will be a
hallmark of our agency as long as I am
here. I welcome varied opinions and
viewpoints. I see them as useful
contributions to the decisions we must
make.
The American people have made it
clear they want to be involved in critical
environmental debates, especially those
that affect their health and their property.
The challenge before us is to provide
citizens with access to our deliberations
and a meaningful role in our decisions. I
have found that the community relations
program we instituted under Superfund
helped people to understand our
decisions and helped us to understand
their concerns.
Finally, I will work hard to make EPA
the kind of agency that attracts and
retains quality people. We have a fine
professional staff now, and I am
committed to maintaining it.
I believe very strongly in government
work and government workers. EPA
employees are professionals and I
respect them. I will do all I can to
improve and enhance individual growth
and career opportunities for those who
serve EPA through commitments to
professional development, individual
mobility, and opportunities to participate
in the decision-making process. D
MARCH 1985
23
-------
EPA's Budget: An Analysis
by Jack Lewis
$4,668
Operating
Programs
Superfund
Construction
Grants
$4,329
$1 ,309
$620
$2,400
CO
0
E
c
$1,368
$900
$2,400
FY 1985 FY1986
President's
Budget
The Environmental Protection Agency
has fared well in President Reagan's
budget for the 1986 fiscal year. If
Congress approves the proposed budget,
EPA's overall funding will increase eight
percent during the coming fiscal year,
rising from $4.3 billion in fiscal 1985 to
nearly $4.7 billion in fiscal 1986.
Highlights of the fiscal 1986 budget
include:
• Substantial increases in EPA's
programs for hazardous waste:
Superfund, up 45 percent; and RCRA, up
26 percent.
• Significant increases in EPA's funding
for enforcement, up 21 percent; and
extramural research and development,
up 12 percent.
Of EPA's programs, Superfund will
benefit the most dramatically in the
President's new budget. Funding for this
hazardous waste cleanup program is
slated to rise from $620 million to $900
million.
Most of Superfund's added
funding—$250 million of the $280 million
total—will be used to increase the
number of Superfund sites at which
remedial design or construction actions
will begin in fiscal 1986. The purpose of
these actions is to clean up hazardous
waste sites on Superfund's National
Priorities List. Actual contracting of
Superfund design and construction
actions, although EPA-funded, is handled
either by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or by state governments.
Remedial engineering design work will
begin at 89 Superfund sites in fiscal 1986,
an increase of 25 over fiscal 1985.
Remedial construction actions, the final
and most expensive phase in the cleanup
process, are expected to start at 56
Superfund sites during fiscal 1986, 31
more than were begun in fiscal 1985.
Thus, by the end of fiscal 1986, the
number of Superfund sites where the
final cleanup phase has begun will be
double the present total.
Superfund will also continue to
strengthen its emergency response
capabilities in fiscal 1986. Through
Superfund, EPA performs aggressive
removal actions to address immediate
threats to public health and the
environment. Additional resources are
being provided in fiscal 1986 to augment
the EPA Environmental Response Team.
This will improve the agency's ability to
provide timely technical advice to federal,
state, and local officials during Superfund
removal and remedial actions.
The proposed budget increases
Superfund's enforcement funding by $23
million. This is a 48 percent increase over
fiscal 1985 enforcement levels. The
agency will also have $2 million in
additional funds to increase the number
of Superfund cases referred for
prosecution to the Department of Justice.
EPA construction grants to the states
for improvements in wastewater
treatment will remain at the same level
as last year—$2.4 billion. However,
plans have been announced to phase out
these construction grants gradually over
the next four years.
Under the President's budget proposal,
funding for all components of EPA's
budget other than Superfund and
construction grants will increase 4
percent in fiscal 1986. Net gains will
offset net losses by $59 million.
Agency programs slated to receive the
most significant increases in funding are:
RCRA: A $54 million increase will give
EPA 26 percent more funds in fiscal 1986
for implementation of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. RCRA
was amended and reauthorized by
Congress late last year.
Under the new RCRA law, EPA has
received added responsibility for banning
hazardous wastes, developing alternative
treatment technologies, and regulating
small quantity generators and
underground storage tanks. The agency
will hire 146 new RCRA staffers to handle
this increased workload.
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Also, to address the new RCRA
requirements in a timely manner, the
agency has redistributed resources within
the fiscal 1985 budget. An additional $22
million has been allocated to RCRA in the
current fiscal year. When factored in with
the increases planned for fiscal 1986, this
money would nearly double RCRA
resources over fiscal 1984 funding levels.
The fiscal 1986 increases for the RCRA
program include $25 million for new
regulations and implementation guidance
to meet the requirements of the
amended RCRA law. A $3 million funding
increase will enable EPA to carry out the
special compliance monitoring and
enforcement requirements of the new
RCRA law. A $9 million increase will
support the salaries and related expenses
of the 146 additional employees RCRA
will have in fiscal 1986. The President's
budget also raises funding of
RCRA-related research by $9 million.
Under the proposed budget, EPA will
increase RCRA grant assistance to state
and local governments by $8 million.
This increase in grant funds will support
the states in development of regulatory
programs for underground storage tanks
and small-quantity generators as well as
continued implementation of the National
Permits Strategy.
Acid Rain Program: EPA will have $23
million more to spend on its acid rain
program in fiscal 1986. This is a 61
percent increase over the current fiscal
year and brings EPA's total fiscal 1986
budget for acid rain to $60.5 million. The
agency will use the additional money to
emphasize research into the effects of
acid rain on aquatic resources and
forests, and to accelerate the installation
of an acid rain monitoring network.
Toxics and Pesticides Research: In fiscal
1986 EPA will have $14 million in
increased funding for toxics and
pesticides research. The agency plans to
use this money to improve the quality
and the range of its health and
environmental risk assessments for
various toxic substances. Part of the
increase will be used to step up the
agency's research into biotechnology.
Other EPA programs that will benefit
from funding increases in fiscal 1986
include: water quality compliance, with a
$3 million increase, as well as pesticides
generic chemical review and existing
chemical review, which will each have $2
million in increased funding.
The most significant funding cuts in
the fiscal 1986 budget will occur in the
following areas:
Administrative Costs: EPA's funding for
administrative costs will go down a total
of $25 million in fiscal 1986. A large part
of this decrease—$16 million—will come
from cutting the salaries of EPA
employees by 5 percent. All federal
employees will share in this pay cut,
which the President has recommended
as a special austerity measure.
Unlike many federal agencies,
however, EPA will be hiring during fiscal
1986. Increased staffing will be
concentrated in two priority areas:
Superfund will have 359 new employees
in the coming fiscal year, while RCRA will
have 146.
The remainder of administrative
budget cuts—$9 million—will come in
areas such as contracts, travel, printing,
and equipment. Expenditures for these
items will be trimmed 10 percent from
fiscal 1985 levels as part of a
government-wide proposal for reducing
administrative costs.
Limestone Injection Multistage Burner
(LIMB) Technology: A large-scale,
one-time demonstration of this burner
was funded in fiscal 1985. EPA plans to
cut funding for LIMB by $12 million in
fiscal 1986, but $4.6 million will remain in
the budget to complete efforts at
improving LIMB technology.
Other budget items slated for cuts in
fiscal 1986 include: exploratory research,
and buildings and facilities, each
earmarked for a $7 million decrease;
also, indoor air research and
radiation/health effects, which will be
eliminated in fiscal 1986 at a total
savings of $3 million.
EPA's fiscal 1986 budget continues the
upward trend in agency spending that
began in fiscal 1984 and proceeded at a
more rapid rate in fiscal 1985. EPA
Administrator Lee Thomas has expressed
confidence that the latest increases in
EPA funding will enable the agency to
continue meeting its old responsibilities
while at the same time taking on new
ones in the area of hazardous waste.
"This budget not only builds upon the
foundation laid in the last two years,"
Thomas remarked at a press briefing on
February 4, "it also represents a
significant expansion in areas where our
responsibilities must be met with
increased resources. EPA's 1986 budget
gives us the resources we need to
continue our momentum and to
effectively address the challenges in
every environmental medium." O
MARCH 1985
25
-------
Environmental Outlook
in the New Congress
by John H. Chafee
The EPA Journal asked U.S. Senator
John H. Chafee, R-R.i, for his views on
the outlook for environmental policy
issues in this Congress. Senator Chafee
is Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution, which
oversees EPA-related legislative
matters.
Senator Chafee has been chairman of
the environmental subcommittee,
which is part of the Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee, since 1981. He is a/so a
member of the Senate Finance
Committee and is Chairman of the
Senate Republican Conference.
Chafee has been representing Rhode
Island in the U.S. Senate since 1977.
Prior to his election to the Senate,
Chafee was Secretary of the Navy in
the Nixon Administration. He was
Governor of Rhode Island from 1962 to
1968. Earlier, he served six years in the
Rhode Island House of Representatives.
The Rhode Island Senator is a
graduate of Yale University and the
Harvard Law School. He left Yale during
World War II to enlist in the Marine
Corps. In 1951, he was recalled to
active duty to serve in Korea.
Born in Providence, R.I., Chafee is
married and the father of five children.
As we begin the 99th Congress, the list
of environmental issues facing us
evokes a sense of ddja vu. During the
98th Congress, the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee grappled
with legislation to reauthorize Superfund,
the Clean Air Act, the regulatory portion
of the Clean Water Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We
tackled issues such as acid rain,
nonpoint sources of water pollution,
ground-water protection, and wetlands
preservation. We also dealt with budget
recommendations and two rounds of
Presidential appointments regarding
EPA's leadership.
With the exception of our bill to amend
RCRA, all the environmental issues that
were unresolved at the end of the 98th
Congress—and a few new matters as
well—will be with the Committee again in
this Congress. The new items include
reauthorization of that portion of the
Clean Water Act relating to grants for
sewage treatment plant construction, the
Endangered Species Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, and ocean
dumping. Another issue that might come
up is the possible regulation of genetic
engineering.
Can the committee and Congress deal
with such a full agenda in the next two
years? Perhaps not, but we will certainly
try.
Although Congress originally expected
that major environmental laws would be
reviewed and, if necessary, modified
every three to five years, experience has
taught us that the process of revising
existing laws often takes an additional
three years or more. This is not a new
phenomenon. The 1977 Clean Air
amendments, for example, took three
years of debate; the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, modifying
RCRA, required a similar amount of time.
Enactment of the 1984 RCRA
amendments—which constitute one of
the toughest environmental laws passed
in years—demonstrates that Congress
considers protection of human health
and the environment a national priority
of the highest order and that such
protection will not be sacrificed for the
sake of saving a few dollars or relieving
the "burden" of regulation.
The need to strengthen environmental
legislation, rather than to weaken
existing law, will continue to cause sharp
debate within Congress, but I am
convinced that better and stronger laws
will result from our deliberations, no
matter how long they may take.
Let me go through some of the issues
we face in the 99th Congress, beginning
with Superfund.
Although Superfund was originally
funded in 1980 at a level of $1.6 billion
over five years, it was recognized then
that this figure was too low, given the
scope of the problem. That level of
funding was set as part of a compromise
to get the program underway, even
though it now appears the United States
will ultimately be forced to spend tens of
billions of dollars over the course of
many years to clean up the hazardous
waste that has been strewn across the
landscape of America.
Similarly, the need to respond to spills
and the release of hazardous substances
of all types will be with us forever. For
example, the recent disaster at Bhopal,
India, where 2,000 persons lost their lives
after a leak of poisonous gas in a
chemical plant, has raised the question of
whether new controls might be needed
in the United States to prevent the
release of substances posing an
immediate threat to life.
In dealing with Superfund, there are
two major issues that must be
addressed: first, how much money can
EPA productively and effectively spend
on the problem each year; and second,
where will the money come from to pay
for an expanded program.
To demonstrate the priority attached to
these issues, the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee has agreed
to consider extension of Superfund at the
full committee level, bypassing
subcommittee consideration. On January
3, the chairman of the committee,
Senator Robert Stafford—with my
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
support and that of others—introduced
legislation similar to a bill approved by
the committee last year.
Although the bill envisions a spending
level of $7.5 billion over the next five
years, the details of how to raise such
funds must be decided by the Senate
Finance Committee, which will spark a
new round of debate. Furthermore, while
there seems to be a good deal of support
for a Senate bill setting a funding level of
$7.5 million over five years, there will
undoubtedly be other Superfund
reauthorization bills put forward, some of
them calling for more money and others
for less.
Our objective on the Environment and
Public Works Committee is to expedite
the bill. We hope to have our hearings
completed and a reauthorization bill
approved by the committee no later than
mid-March, which will give the Finance
Committee time to consider the funding
aspects of the program so that a
completed Superfund package can reach
the Senate itself well before the present
program expires September 30.
Another legislative issue which will be
handled at the full committee level will
be reauthorization of the Clean Air Act.
As in years past, reauthorization of this
bil! will turn on the debate over an acid
rain control program. In both the 97th
and 98th Congress, the Senate
Environment and Public Works
Committee approved legislation
containing strong provisions to curb acid
rain, only to see the issue blocked by
regional dissension. This year, the full
committee will again be addressing the
issue, once we have dealt with
Superfund. Undoubtedly, the debate will
be just as controversial this year as it has
been in the past.
While the full committee will be
considering Superfund and the Clean Air
Act, a top priority of the Environmental
Pollution Subcommittee, which I chair, is
the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act. We must consider not only the
regulatory side of the law, but also the
reauthorization of wastewater treatment
construction grants.
The Subcommittee's starting point will
be the Clean Water amendments
approved by the full committee last year.
That legislation, which died in the rush to
adjournment last October, calls for
increased control of toxic pollutants,
stricter enforcement and increased
penalties for polluters, and a new
program to control nonpoint sources of
pollution. I suspect that we will generally
follow last year's bill and that the major
debate this year will be reauthorization of
the construction grants program.
Since Congress enacted the Clean
Water Act in 1972, the federal
government has spent over $40 billion to
construct wastewater treatment facilities
in communities large and small across
America. With the burgeoning budget
deficit, however, it is doubtful whether
we can afford to continue spending at
the current annual rate of $2.4 billion.
Many federal, state, and local officials
recognize that the federal government
cannot—and should not—subsidize
construction of these facilities on a
perpetual basis. During our deliberations,
we will be exploring ways to increase
state and local responsibility for funding
these plants.
One suggestion which merits
consideration is a revolving loan fund.
Under this approach, the federal
government would gradually reduce
straight categorical grants for wastewater
projects and, in their place, provide
money for states to establish a loan fund.
Using this federal "seed money," the
states could then make low-interest loans
available to communities for construction
of treatment plants.
In developing any proposal to phase
out direct federal involvement in
financing such facilities, we must ensure
that construction of necessary plants
moves ahead unhindered. A smooth
transition is essential if we are to
continue the impressive gains in water
quality that have taken place in the past
13 years.
I would mention three other issues
which are high on the priority list for the
Environmental Pollution Subcommittee in
the 99th Congress:
Ocean dumping: The Marine Protection
Research and Sanctuaries Act which
regulates the disposal of municipal and
industrial waste in ocean waters is
scheduled for reauthorization. In view of
the increasing desire of some coastal
cities and industries to expand ocean
dumping practices, a review of this law is
timely and necessary.
Endangered species: In 1982, Congress
strengthened this important law, which
prohibits buying, selling, possessing,
exporting, or jeopardizing endangered or
threatened species. I expect that once
again, we will face a debate on conflicts
between protection of endangered or
threatened species and the desire to
develop water and other natural
resources. Nevertheless, I believe we will
ultimately extend and enhance the law.
Wetlands: There is a concern on the part
of many that the Corps of Engineers is
systematically dismantling the nation's
basic wetlands protection law, Section
404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act, which
regulates dredging and filling. Wetlands
are disappearing at an alarming rate. The
Subcommittee has taken a strong interest
in this program, and I hope to hold
oversight hearings on its management by
the Corps. On a separate track, I expect
the Subcommittee to move forward with
legislation authorizing a wetlands
acquisition and preservation program.
Clearly, both the full Environment and
Public Works Committee and the
Subcommittee on Environmental
Pollution face a busy agenda in the next
two years. Without doubt, many of the
issues we face will spark controversy and
heated debate. But controversy has
always been the hallmark of
environmental legislation. It should not
prevent us from fulfilling our obligation
to protect the health of the American
people and to defend and preserve our
natural resources. D
MARCH 1985
27
-------
Safe Diving
in Polluted
Waters
by Susan Tejada
In the EPA regional office in Seattle,
there is a mask. It is a diver's mask, and
it is a mess, its rubber seal eaten away.
The rubber dissolved when a diver from
the Seattle Police Department's harbor
patrol unknowingly dove into water
polluted with hazardous chemicals.
That mask is a graphic symbol of the
dangers that divers face when they enter
contaminated waters. Unfortunately, the
need for this kind of diving is on the rise
because underwater pollution is on the
rise. Between 1977 and 1981, more than
64,000 major waterway spills of
petroleum products and hazardous
materials were reported to the U.S. Coast
Guard. The total number of chemical
spills into the nation's waterways, both
reported and unreported, is estimated to
be about 15,000 per year.
A new type of equipment promises to
provide greater protection to polluted
water divers than they have ever had
before. The SUS suit (suit-under-suit),
developed cooperatively by EPA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), safeguards
divers in waters highly polluted with
chemicals or pathogens. Tests have
shown that the SUS suit can protect a
diver from up to 90 percent of the toxic
chemicals transported on, or found at,
underwater dump and spill sites.
Dangers Recognized
As recently as 10 years ago, neither the
scientific nor the diving communities had
given much thought to the effect of
contaminants on divers. It was generally
believed, for example, that standard gear
offered adequate protection to divers
working at ocean dumping sites.
That perception began to change in
1976, when NOAA launched a study of
the effects of pathogenic microorganisms
on divers in ocean dumping areas.
Results showed that "microbial
pathogens—bacteria, viruses, and
parasites—present in polluted waters
clearly pose potential hazards for divers."
The results were confirmed by incidents
like the one in 1982, when several New
York City firefighters and police officers
contracted amoebiasis after taking part in
•
diving training exercises off a pier in the
Hudson River, a discharge area for raw
sewage. It was reported that a city
sewage treatment plant worker had died
of the same disease a year earlier.
Amoebiasis is an infection caused by an
intestinal parasite found in polluted
water.
The NOAA study was examined at a
1982 workshop hosted by the Undersea
Medical Society and sponsored by EPA
and NOAA. In an introduction to the
proceedings of that workshop, Rita
Colwell of the University of Maryland
wrote: "The risks [of entering a
contaminated aquatic environment] are
not known and perhaps not even
appreciated...Individual working divers
are today, more or less, in the category
of 'experimental animal' when they enter
polluted waters to work."
EPA Takes the Plunge
Across the country, in regional offices,
laboratories, and on board research
vessels, about 50 divers work for EPA.
The number has remained fairly steady
for the past decade. None of them is a
full-time diver. One is a mechanic; others
are chemists, biologists, and technicians.
They go underwater to carry out their
scientific missions—diving, for example,
to collect water and sediment samples or
organisms for toxicology studies and
enforcement investigations. More and
more, they are also being asked to dive
on Superfund investigations, to confirm
cleanup results or identify the presence
of chemical drums.
The type of diving they do can put
them in some pretty murky waters.
"People think we do a lot of
Cousteau-type diving, in crystal-clear
water," says Don Lawhorn of EPA's
Athens, Ga., lab. "But it's not true. I'd say
that on about 70 to 80 percent of our
dives, we have zero to very low
visibility."
In 1978, EPA surveyed agency field
personnel about their jobs. "We
realized," says EPA safety programs
manager Tony Brown, "that our divers
were doing their own thing. Some had
been trained in the Navy or Coast Guard,
some by the YMCA. Each had a different
set of diving do's and don'ts. The need
for an agencywide program was
evident."
This need led Brown to NOAA, whose
diving program, he says, "was highly
accepted in the scientific community.
Basically we adopted the NOAA
program." EPA now requires its divers to
be federally certified, a status obtained
by successfully completing a one-week
course run by NOAA at the EPA lab in
Gulf Breeze, Fla.
The certification program helped
ensure diver proficiency, but diver
protection remained a serious problem.
So in 1982, EPA put more than 5500,000
into an interagency agreement (IAG) with
NOAA. According to Richard P. Traver,
staff engineer at EPA's Releases Control
Branch in Edison, N.J., the agreement
covers "the assessment, testing,
evaluation, and demonstration of
modified commercial underwater
protective suits, clothing, support
equipment, and breathing apparatus in
waters contaminated with hazardous
substances that may be injurious to a
diver's health." Traver, who has been
moonlighting as a professional YMCA
scuba diving instructor for more than 10
years, was selected as EPA project
officer. His counterpart at NOAA was Dr.
J. Morgan Wells, Jr., director of that
agency's diving program.
Test Dives
"You can't walk into a local dive shop,"
explains Don Lawhorn, "and buy what
you need to work in polluted water." The
truth of that statement led workers under
the interagency agreement to a
three-year series of test dives to modify
available equipment.
The tests began at the Naval Surface
Weapons Center in White Oak, Md.
Seven diving suits and five helmets were
evaluated and subsequently modified to
eliminate leaks. This first series of tests
took nearly a year, from April 1982
through March 1983.
A 50-foot diameter platform within the
100-foot deep water tower at White Oak
that could be raised or lowered to vary
the diver's depth gave experimenters
tight control over dive conditions. "We
did dive after dive after dive there," says
NOAA diver Paul Pegnato. The work did
not always progress smoothly. "We
didn't follow a straight and narrow path,"
Pegnato explains, "ft was more like a
wide, zigzagging road."
But the work paid off. It led to the
development of what is, to date, the
ultimate in diver protection from
contaminants: the suit-under-suit (SUS)
system.
Basically, the SUS suit is a tight, 1 8
inch foam neoprene inner suit and a
baggy, heavy-duty, natural rubber outer
suit which are clamped together at the
neck to form a closed cavity between the
suits. Clean, temperature-controlled
water from the surface is pumped into
the cavity through the diver's umbilical
hose at the rate of two gallons a minute
to warm or cool the diver, and exits
through one-way ankle and shoulder
exhaust valves in the outer suit. Wells
explains: "Since the entire volume of the
suit is filled with water under a pressure
slightly greater than the outside water, a
puncture or leak in the suit results in
clean water leaking out, rather than
outside water coming in." The suit, says
Wells, "is an innovative solution to two
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
problems associated with contaminated
water diving—thermo-regulation and
leakage."
Next Step
The test divers at White Oak had shown
that the SUS suit and certain
commercially available equipment that
they had modified did function
underwater. The next step was to show
that the equipment could really keep out
contaminants.
In March 1983, Traver and five NOAA
divers tested the modified diving systems
at EPA's 5,000 gallon chemical dive tank
in Leonardo, N.J. Fluorescein dye tracers
and a simulated spili chemical—ammonia
at 500 parts per million—were added to
the water in the tank. Underneath their
outer diving dress the divers wore a
special, one-piece cotton body suit and
carried cotton swabs within the helmet. If
contaminants penetrated their gear, the
body suit material would adsorb the dye
tracer, which would then be revealed
under ultra-violet or "black" light, and
the cotton would become saturated with
ammonia, which could be immediately
analyzed in the lab.
Result: None of the systems tested
leaked.
During the Leonardo dives, the project
crew began considering other issues
related to diving in polluted waters. They
developed procedures to protect surface
support crews who serve as umbilical
tenders and decontaminate emerging
divers. They also developed methods to
communicate with divers underwater via
special microphones placed in the
helmets.
The heating and cooling range of the
SUS suit was the next item on the testing
agenda. At the NOAA Diving Hyperbaric
Training Center in Miami, Fla., in
December 1983 and February 1984,
divers descended into a tank of water
that was gradually heated up to 112°F.
Each diver's condition was constantly
monitored by electrocardiogram and core
temperature probes; helmet conditions
were monitored by additional
temperature probes. At each increase in
the water's temperature, the divers were
to execute a 20-minute series of
exercises.
In the first series of tests, the three
volunteers—Wells, Pegnato, and a third
NOAA diver from Woods Hole,
Mass.—dove without benefit of the SUS
suit's cooling system. After performing
one 20-minute exercise cycle in 107°
water, Wells' heart rate increased from
70 to 180 beats per minute, and his body
core temperature jumped from 98.6° to
102°. "It wiped me out," he says. The
other two divers experienced similar
dramatic effects of heat stress.
The next day, however, wearing a SUS
suit with surface-supplied cool water,
To test the cooling capacity of the SUS suit,
a diver enters a tank of hot IA
Miami, Fla., facility of the Nat
Oceanic and Atmosphorn
(NOAA).
Wells was able to stay underwater over
an hour and complete three 20-minute
exercise routines with no evidence of
heat stress. What's more, he did so in
112" water, even hotter than the day
before, and still emerged "feeling fine,"
By this time, the SUS suit and
modified versions of two commercially
available suits and two helmets had been
identified as effective for diving in
contaminated waters. In September 1984,
at NOAA's Western Regional Center in
Seattle, Wash., this equipment was
tested under simulated operational
conditions. In four-day exercises, divers
from NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard
Strike Team who were outfitted in the
special gear moved 55 gallon
chemicai drums underwater, vacuumed
up simulated contaminated sediment,
used isolation domes, and carried out
welding and cutting operations
underwater. "It was a pretty big shindig,"
says Pegnato, "and everything went off
without a hitch."
Observing the Seattle demonstration
were test engineers from the U.S. Navy's
Experimental Diving Unit, which
develops and tests the latest diving dress
and equipment used by the military.
After witnessing the performance of the
modified helmets, diving dress, and
especially the SUS suit, the engineers
commented that the work done by EPA
and NOAA under the interagency
agreement had catapulted diving
technology 10 years into the future.
EPA, NOAA, and the Coast Guard are
now looking for a "spill of opportunity"
to test the SUS suit under actual field
conditions. A lower level of diving dress
protection was used last December,
when the three agencies cooperated in a
search for leaking drums of toxic wastes
at Big Gorilla, an abandoned, open pit
coal quarry near McAdoo, Pennsylvania.
Other Uses
The SUS suit has potentially important
applications beyond its use in polluted
water diving. For example, the water in
the cooling pools that surround nuclear
reactors and in the canals at nuclear
generating facilities that are used for
cooling process waters is extremely hot,
between 110° and 120°. Commercial
divers in cold water SUS suits could
perform underwater repairs in this
superheated water, eliminating the need
to drain the facilities first. Interested
in this possible use, the Department of
Energy supplemented the interagency
agreement with an additional 525,000.
SUS suits could be used for dives in
extremely cold as well as extremely hot
water. For example, rescue workers in
warm water SUS suits could stay in icy
water for extended periods of time if
necessary. In fact, says Wells, the SUS
suit will have a working range of 100
degrees: it will warm divers in below
freezing water as cold as 30° and water
as hot as 130J.
Based on their work under the
interagency agreement, EPA and NOAA
will publish a manual of practice on
operations in contaminated water,
hopefully by the end of the year.
Industry has picked up on some of the
innovations pioneered by EPA and
NOAA. Four manufacturers are now
offering polluted water diving suits and
helmets. Modifications of other
equipment are available if custom
ordered.
Don Lawhorn echoes the views of
many divers when he talks about the
development of protective equipment. "A
lot of times you don't know what is being
put out upstream," he says, "and you
can't find out. When you don't know the
conditions, you need maximum
protection." !
MARCH 1985
-------
Fighting Waste
from Gold Mining
by Roy Popkin
Using methods that date back to the
days when grizzled sourdough
prospectors first found gold in the Yukon
almost a century ago, Alaska's placer
mining operations have long been the
number one polluter of that state's rivers
and streams. For decades, their heavily
silt-laden wastewater discharges have
seriously affected fishery resources,
native village drinking water supplies,
and recreational activities.
But now that is changing. The way
Alaska's gold is found stil! conjures up
memories of Jack London's Call of the
Wild and Robert W. Service's poetry, but
the impact on Alaska's environment is
being significantly lessened.
Much of the credit for this achievement
goes to Leroy "Bub" Loiselle, Jr., a
38-year-old scientist from EPA's Region
10 in Seattle. In recognition of his
success as coordinator of EPA's placer
mining compliance activities in Alaska,
Bub last year received an agency gold
medal award.
The coordination was no easy job.
Loiselle spent the summer of 1984
meeting with the miners and with state,
local, and EPA officials, in locations
ranging from up near the Arctic Circle to
deep in the interior of Alaska, selling the
virtues of cooperation and environmental
protection. He had to gentle down
deep-seated animosities directed at
"government interference."
Unlike the complex, high-tech
industries towards which much of EPA's
anti-poilution enforcement effort is
directed, placer mining is relatively
simpie. In most operations, soil and
gravel are dumped into 40-foot-long
sluices where water carries them over a
series of riffles that shake the gold
nuggets so they can be picked out by the
miners. The water, and everything else in
it, is discharged into the nearest available
river or stream. "Everything else" may
include arsenic and may also create a
level of silt-laden turbidity that harms the
salmon, whitefish, and other species and
fouls the streams from which the
hundreds of tiny native villages take their
water for cooking and drinking.
Since 1966, when the effort to clean up
Alaska's rivers began, EPA and its
predecessors have had what the papers
accompanying Loiselle's gold medal
nomination describe as an "adversary"
relationship with Alaska's mining
(Popkin is a writer for the EPA Of>>>
Public Affairs.)
At a placer mine
outside Circle, Alaska.
an operator mixes
muddy recycled water
with soil that is being
mined lor gold.
The water forces
the dirt through a sluice
into a settling pond.
industry. Efforts by the federal and state
governments to improve mining
processes by establishing standards and
requiring permits ran into continuing
resistance.
Most of Alaska's placer miners are not
large commercial operators. The ventures
usually involve three to four people using
one or two old bulldozers and a sluice
box. Of the 700 permit applications last
year, only two to three hundred are
considered by EPA to be for outfits of
commercial size. Federal permits are
required for those that move 20 cubic
yards of soil and gravel—the equivalent
of two dump truck loads—a day.
Some of the small-scale placer mines
are run by people who for one reason or
another come to Alaska from down
below each summer to try their luck at
finding gold. In contrast, the "regulars"
may stretch out the time, fighting bitter
cold and the rugged Alaska terrain in the
hunt for gold. Many see government
regulation as an assault on their
constitutional rights.
Faced with the continuing struggle to
decrease pollution of rivers and streams
by the mining operations, Region 10
assigned Loiselle to temporary duty in
Fairbanks for the summer of 1984.
Although he graduated from college with
a degree in biology, Loiselle had become
an expert first in water quality problems,
then in mining and its impact on such
pollution. Prior to the Fairbanks
assignment, he had been heavily
involved with the environmental
problems created by big mining
operations in Idaho and other
northwestern states.
Loiselle had also been a general laborer
for the Alaskan Railroad and worked
part-time for a bush pilot in the state. He
"knew the language," the people, and the
free spirit Alaskan psychology.
To carry out his mining cleanup task,
Loiselle travelled hundreds of miles to
district miners' meetings, by car in the
few areas where there were roads, and
by helicopter into remote places far from
his headquarters in Fairbanks, Alaska's
second largest city. He coordinated the
assignment of EPA staff from the
headquarters Effluent Guidelines
Division, the Denver National
Enforcement and Investigation Center
(sent there because of public threats
against government agents), and Region
10 compliance inspection and permit
data gathering teams. He also met with
the miners to explain, wheedle, and
stand firm for environmental protection.
What he was telling the miners they
needed to do was to dig settling ponds
where the sluice water would flow
instead of into the rivers, and to take the
waste treatment steps necessary to meet
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit conditions. For some, this
would be quite expensive when related
to the potential income from a small
mining operation, but Loiselle was
successful. As one letter received by
Region 10 said of his efforts, "he struck
just the right balance between
friendliness, respect and firmness and
has earned their respect."
This hard-won respect is mentioned in
the citation that accompanied Loiselle's
gold medal, for "outstanding
achievement in the reduction of pollutant
discharges from gold placer mining
activities resulting in improvement in the
water quality of Alaskan streams and
rivers."
Loiselle hopes to return to Alaska next
summer and expects to find that the
miners are continuing to comply with the
EPA and state regulations.
"Alaska miners have a little bit of
Missouri in them," Loiselle said.
"They've got a 'show-me' attitude, and if
they can be shown the benefits of
complying with federal and state
regulations, they'll comply." f ;
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Update:
A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control areas.
AIR
New Lead Phasedown Option
EPA has announced that it is
proposing a new method that
would give gasoline refiners and
importers added flexibility in
meeting the agency's standards
for allowable lead content in
gasoline. EPA proposed the new
standards in July 1984.
Under EPA's new proposal, the
agency would give refiners the
option of reducing their leaded
gasoline production over the
next year below federal lead
standards. Refiners would be
allowed to accumulate credits for
the difference.
The credits could be applied
toward future gasoline
production as stricter federal
standards go into effect. This
banking mechanism would give
refiners added flexibility without
slowing progress toward EPA's
lead reduction goals.
Central Illinois "Bubble"
Proposal
EPA has proposed allowing a
Central Illinois Public Service
(CIPS) power plant to reduce
sulfur dioxide emissions from
two of its boilers by imposing a
tighter than necessary emission
limit on one unit to offset a less
strict limit on the other, instead
of placing the same restrictions
on both.
This is the first time EPA has
used this "bubble" approach to
the new source performance
standards (NSPS) of the Clean
Air Act. It will reduce the overall
sulfur dioxide emissions from
the two boilers by 3,100 tons a
year while allowing CIPS the
flexibility to use less costly fuel.
Fuel Additive Penalties
EPA has proposed civil penalties
of over $4 million against three
fuel additive manufacturers in
Phoenix and Seattle for
improperly blending alcohol with
gasoline.
Notices of Violation have been
issued to United Energy
Company of Phoenix, Ariz.,
proposing a penalty of
$1,310,000; UEC, Inc., of
Phoenix, proposing a penalty of
$880,000; and Sound Energy,
Inc., of SeattSe, Wash., proposing
a penalty of $1,950,000.
EPA said that it began
investigating the firms after an
anonymous source alleged they
were improperly manufacturing
and blending alcohol additives
for use in unleaded gasoline. A
search of company records
found evidence to support these
allegations.
Methanol Unleaded Gas Blend
Approved
EPA has announced that it will
grant a conditional waiver to E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
to begin marketing a new blend
of unleaded gasoline containing
methanol and other cosolvents.
The agency took this action in
response to a request from
DuPont to waive a Clean Air Act
prohibition against certain fuels
and fuel additives.
EPA has determined that
DuPont's methanol blend is
entitled to a waiver because it
will not cause or contribute to
the failure of any vehicle to meet
federal emission control
standards.
GM Recall
The General Motors Corporation
is voluntarily recalling
approximately 225,000 1981 and
1982 vehicles to repair catalytic
converters that may be defective.
California vehicles are included
in the recall.
The recall affects vehicles
equipped with 4.1 liter V-6
gasoline engines. Models
included are the 1981 and 1982
Buick Electra, LeSabre, and
Riviera; Cadillac DeVille,
Fleetwood Brougham, Eldorado,
and Seville; and the Oldsmobile
Ninety-Eight and Toronado. Also
included are the 1982 Buick
Regal and Regal Estate Wagon;
and the Pontiac Bonneville,
Bonneville Wagon, and Grand
Prix.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Largest Superfund Cleanup
Approved
EPA has approved the largest
cleanup yet undertaken under
EPA's Superfund program.
Estimated to cost more than $55
million, the project is designed
to eliminate the threat to public
health and the environment
posed by the Bridgeport Oil and
Rental Services site in Logan
Township, Gloucester County,
NJ.
The Bridgeport site, which
ranks 35th on the National
Priorities List of Superfund sites,
is a former waste oil reclamation
operation on a 30-acre plot once
used for sand and gravel
excavation. It includes about 90
tanks and process vessels,
drums, tank trucks, and a
12.7-acre waste oil and
wastewater lagoon.
Contaminants from the lagoon
have been found in local wells
and ground water.
Accelerated Superfund Cleanups
EPA has proposed to help
improve and accelerate private
and government responses to
hazardous waste contamination
by amending the national
guidelines for cleaning up waste
sites or spills of hazardous
substances.
The guidelines, known as the
National Contingency Plan (NCP),
set down the procedures private
companies and federal and state
agencies must follow in any
cleanup operations under the
Superfund law.
EPA would revise the National
Contingency Plan procedures for
Superfund actions by such steps
as:
• Removing certain restrictions
which did not permit quick
response at sites in certain
situations;
• Removing the prohibition on
listing federal facilities on the
Superfund's National Priorities
List (NPL) and requesting
comments on other ways to
identify federal facility priorities;
• Requiring EPA to use
applicable and relevant federal
public health standards when
determining the appropriate
remedy for hazardous waste
cleanups; and
• Clarifying when and how
private parties responsible for
hazardous waste problems must
clean up these sites or pay for
Superfund cleanup actions.
New Waste Recycling
Regulations
EPA has issued new regulations
controlling a number of
hazardous waste recycling
practices not now covered by the
agency's hazardous waste
management regulations.
The new rule gives EPA the
authority to control the
management of waste burned as
fuel, waste spread on land as a
dust suppressant, accumulated
waste that no one expects to
recycle, and certain wastes that
are reclaimed.
EPA estimates that the new
rule will bring 2,600 companies
which generate hazardous waste
into line with the more stringent
waste management
requirements of the amended
RCRA law.
Ban on Contaminated Used Oil
EPA has proposed a new
regulation to prohibit the
burning of contaminated used
oils in residential, institutional,
and commercial boilers. It has
also taken action to prohibit the
burning of hazardous wastes in
these boilers.
EPA's prohibition against the
use of contaminated used oil
would affect all residential,
institutional, and commercial
boiler operators across the
country who purchase used oil
for fuel, as well as collectors,
blenders, and seders of the used
oil fuel.
Dioxin Disposal Regulation
EPA has announced that it will
regulate the management of
dioxin-containing wastes. The
dioxin wastes will be added to
the list of wastes subject to the
hazardous waste management
standards of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
This regulation is a key part of
EPA's dioxin strategy, which is
designed to prevent
mismanagement of
dioxin-contaminated wastes. By
listing these wastes under RCRA,
EPA is taking broader control
over the disposal of dioxins than
it has previously exercised under
the provisions of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCAK
PESTICIDES
EPA Actions on Five Pesticides
EPA has announced separate
actions for five pesticides:
dibromochloropropane (DBCP),
alachlor, triphenyltin hydroxide
(TPTH), captafol, and dinocap.
Four of the actions involve the
initiation of special reviews; the
other action cancels the
remaining registration of DBCP.
This latter action results from the
completion of the special review
of DBCP and applies to DBCP
only.
Continued to next page
MARCH 1985
-------
Temporary EDB Tolerance Level
for Imported Mangoes
EPA is setting a temporary
tolerance level of 30 parts per
billion (ppb) for the pesticide
ethylene dibromide (EDB) on
imported mangoes.
this is the last remaining use
of EDB on foods destined for
U.S. consumers. EPA's action
sharply curtails the use of EDB
on mangoes destined for U.S.
consumption in the near future.
The 30 ppb EDB maximum
residue level will be effective
until September 1, 1985. After
that date, no mangoes with any
detectable EDB residues will
allowed into the United States.
AGENCYWIDE
Engineering and Technology
Office Reorganized
EPA has announced the
reorganization of its Office of
Environmental Engineering and
Technology (OEET). The change
will affect the agency's
Washington headquarters office
as well as laboratories in
Cincinnati and Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
EPA's research activities in the
areas of air, water, Superfund,
toxics, and hazardous waste
control technology will be
realigned into three laboratories
under the direction of Carl R.
Gerber.
These laboratories are
responsible for developing
pollution abatement technology
in support of EPA policies and
regulations. The research is
conducted both in-house and
through contracts and
cooperative agreements. | ]
Appointments
at EPA
John Stanton
Peter Cook
John J. Stanton, whose appointment as
Director of the Emergency Response
Division of EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) was
reported in the September 1984 issue of
the Journal, has recently been named
Director of the Superfund Enforcement
Division. Stanton held the former
position from June 1984 until February
1985 when he took on his new
responsibilities within OSWER.
Peter L. Cook has been appointed Deputy
Director of Waste Programs Enforcement
in OSWER. Cook has returned to EPA after
five and a half years as Deputy Federal
Inspector in the Office of the Federal
Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation System, an independent
agency responsible for overseeing
construction of the Alaska Natural Gas
Pipeline, one of the largest and most
expensive construction projects ever
undertaken.
Cook worked at EPA between 1971 and
1979. From 1971 to 1975 he was an
Environmental Protection Specialist in
the Office of Federal Activities. From
1975 to 1979 he served as Assistant
Director of the same office.
Prior to joining EPA, Cook worked for
three years as an aerospace engineer at
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Between 1966
and 1968 he served as an officer in the
Commissioned Corps of NOAA.
Cook studied engineering at the
Clarkson College of Technology in
Potsdam, N.Y. He received his B.S. in
Electrical Engineering in 1966. Cook
earned an M.B.A. at American University
in 1971.
Book Review
From time to time, EPA Journal will include
brief reviews of current books of popular
environmental interest. Suggested books
are welcome. Here is a review by Jack
Lewis of the Journal staff:
Anne W. Simon, Neptune's Revenge: The
Ocean of Tomorrow (N. Y.: Franklin
Watts, 1984; $15.95)
Neptune's Revenge offers a pessimistic
prognosis for the future health of the
world's oceans. Unless present patterns
are reversed, Anne Simon foresees
environmental disaster on the high seas.
In fact, she deploys a wide array of
evidence to support the idea that disaster
of various types is already upon us.
Simon is both a skillful scientific
popularizer and an idealistic
environmental purist. Her writing is less
eloquent and coherent than Rachel
Carson's, but she shares many of
Carson's concerns. Three decades have
passed since Rachel Carson's last book
about the world's oceans, so—despite its
flaws—Anne Simon's updated analysis
does fill a real and present need in
environmental literature written for
popular consumption.
Simon is particularly eloquent in
describing the perils of oil spills and
ocean disposal of radioactive wastes.
However, she also devotes careful
attention to the hazards posed by ocean
dumping of toxic chemicals and sewage
sludge as well as indiscriminate salmon
fishing and whale hunting. Perhaps her
most fascinating chapter, "The Sea Also
Rises," describes how the "Greenhouse
Effect" could lead to flooding problems
on a scale never before encountered in
recorded history.
Neptune's Revenge ends with a
disillusioning survey of political and legal
issues bearing on the future of the
world's oceans. She describes the
modern land rush for underwater drilling
rights as a bizarre form of imperialism
that can only lead to further ecological
degradation. Simon's warnings are so
dire that her depiction of Antarctica as
"the one almost pure place left on earth"
takes on desperate rather than hopeful
undertones.
Many experts will dispute the
practicality of Simon's premise that only
"zero" degradation can prevent
"unreasonable" risk to ocean ecology.
However, few would question Simon's
insistence on the importance of healthy
oceans to the survival of the planet and
the urgency of the problems confronting
our oceans today. "A killing sea," Simon
warns, "will be Neptune's revenge for
our misuse of his domain—unless we act
with determination, fast." D
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Winter comes to Lake Superior.
Back cover: Flowers bloom along the
shoreline of Lake Michigan, in Leelanau
County, Mich. Photo courtesy Michigan
Travel Bureau.
-------
V '
X:
r •
r
/
11/
\
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G 35
------- |