Hf.
Environmental Protection
•
f:
Office
Public
Washington
Taking
Environmental
Initiatives
-------
Snow-capped mountains dwarf the Anchorage. Alaska
skyline. Low level thermal inversions worsen air pollution
in the city. See story on page 9.
Taking Environmental Initiatives
A biff part of the environmental
protection job is being done by
stale and local governments.
This issue of EPA Journal
highlights some of their
significant and innovative
actions, which are often being
taken in cooperation with EPA.
Setting a perspective, EPA
Adminislralor 1-ee M. Thomas
describes the challenge that
environmental protection
presents (o all levels ot
government.
A series of stories follows with
each article reporting on an
environmental effort in a
particular area: controlling
insect pesls in California.
recycling wastewater in El Paso.
cleaning up Love Canal in New
York, and reducing automobile
pollution in Anchorage. Alaska.
Minnesota's roundup of old
arsenic is described. Nebraska's
steps to protect ground water
are explained. Wisconsin's effort
to proteei its waters with a
special sewage treatment fund is
spelled out. And New Jersey's
adoption of a new approach to
control hazardous waste is
described.
The Journal also asked five
leaders from different vantage
(joints to consider the fjiiestion:
how can state-federal
relationships in environmental
protection be improved? Their
answers are featured.
In addition, this issue of the
magazine includes an article on
EPA responsibilities in the
growing field of biotechnology, a
report on the agency's test of a
new way to make rules, and a
review of the situation regarding
pollution from wood-burning
stoves.
Part seven in a Journal series
on major environmental
problems being addressed by the
agency's regional offices is
Included. In this article. Region
6 describes how it lias worked
with the Osage Indians in
Oklahoma to protect their
underground sources of
drinking water.
Concluding (he issue are two
regular features—Update and
Appointments. [ ]
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 3
April 1985
AEPA 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 funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy.
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.
(NO
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.
Tackling the Job
Together
by Lee M. Thomas 2
California:
Battling Invasions of
Insect Pests
by Isi A. Siddiqui and
Gera Curry 3
El Paso:
Putting Wastewater to
Work
by Jonathan W. Rogers 5
New York:
The Cleanup of Love
Canal
by Norman Nosenchuck 7
Anchorage:
Auto Inspections in the
Far North
by Tony Knowles 9
Nebraska:
Acting to Protect a Vital
Resource
by Robert Kerrey 11
Minnesota:
Rounding Up a Dangerous
Chemical
by Tom Kalitowski 13
Wisconsin:
An Extra Effort Wins
Water Quality Payoffs
by Jeff Smoller 14
New Jersey:
A New Tactic Against
Hazardous Waste
by Robert E. Hughey and
Anthony J. McMahon 16
Ideas to Improve
State/Federal Relations:
A Forum 18
Old-Time Heat Source
Yields New Pollution
by Tom Super 21
Negotiation Instead of
Confrontation
by Cynthia Croce 23
EPA and Biotechnology
by Roy Popkin and Dave
Ryan 25
Oil, Water, and the Osage
Mineral Reserve
by Dick Whittington 27
Update: Recent Agency
Developments 29
Appointments at EPA 31
Front Cover: A valley in
Highland County, Va. Photo by
Everett C. Johnson, 1984,
s -Folio Inc.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Design Credits: Roiwrt Flanagan:
Ron h'cirrctli
Na
me -
Firs
t, L;
)St
PL
EAS
E P
RIN1
Co
Sir
Cit
•npa
eet /
/
ny N
=\ddr
arm
ess
; or
Add
tion
3\ AC
:dre
as Line
Sta
te
Zip
Coc
ie
I I Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
I I Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Tackling
the Job
Together
by Lee M. Thomas
environmental movement has
JL made a number of interesting twists
and turns over the past 15 years, but
any objective observer will recognize at
least one constant—strong, continuing
public support for a federal presence in
protecting public health and air. water,
and land resources.
It was an open question at the outset
what the nature of that presence might
be. But it is generally accepted today
that the federal government should limit
itself to setting and enforcing
environmental standards.
Concomitantly, the role of the states
should be to administer programs on a
day-to-day basis. In a complex,
continental society like ours there is, in
fact, no workable alternative to such a
division of labor.
And yet this bi-level effort cannot
proceed in a vacuum—it depends upon
honest communication, creativity, good
will, and a lot of give-and-take. We at EPA
are totally committed to build upon the
federal-state relationship in all its
diverse aspects—helping states to
implement pesticide regulations,
forestall the pollution of vital aquifers,
clean up Superfund sites, protect
recreational watersheds, and phase out
leaded gasoline, to cite only a few
cooperative activities.
We place our emphasis upon
encouraging a climate of opinion
favorable to environmental law
enforcement. We have found that we
gain a great deal by listening to evidence
and objections raised in public hearings.
We try to adapt our requirements to
state and local conditions insofar as the
laws permit. We welcome experiment.
For example, we helped organize the
campaign to restore the cleanliness and
biological productivity of Chesapeake
Bay. We provided limited funding for an
analysis of the problem—Just enough to
help the neighboring states launch their
own cooperative S50 million program to
control runoff, manage land use more
wisely, and protect tourism, fishing,
wildlife, and recreation. They have made
a superb beginning.
Occasionally, of course, seed money
and exhortation will not suffice. In many
communities, regular inspection and
maintenance of vehicles is the only
feasible way to reduce pollutants
generated by the internal combustion
engine, especially where there is
rampant fuel-switching and tampering
with control systems. Yet the public
often refuses to countenance even the
best-designed I&M programs. We have
not hesitated to confront this challenge
head-on, playing the role of the "heavy"
so that states and cities can take the
necessary steps in the face of entrenched
opposition.
Most of the time, however, EPA prefers
a more diplomatic role. We take special
pride in our joint efforts to improve state
and federal coordination, which help
straighten out the kinks that develop in
any large-scale government program.
We support, tor example, the National
Governors' Association Committee of
Ten, a delegation and oversight
coordinating committee, a
performance-based grants task force, a
working group on managing for
environmental results (what you might
call our "bottom line"), state/federal
enforcement agreements, various cost
analyses and pilot projects, and
continuing evaluation of state
information needs.
The panoply of laws we have created
since 1970 addresses most
environmental problems of national
significance. Indeed, we can no longer
imagine our society without these basic
protections. For that reason, they will
doubtless be reauthorized in one form or
another this year.
The basic task now is to fine-tune the
operation of environmental laws in such
a way as to make them fulfill their
purpose and work effectively in the real
world. The problems we confront are not
easily remedied. Solving them demands
prompt communication, candor, and
continuous feedback as we pursue the
ultimate desideratum—a smoothly
integrated, on-line response to pollution
that is fast, efficient, and appropriate.
There is no greater administrative
challenge in the federal system today.
Our respective roles and
responsibilities will probably continue to
evolve to meet unanticipated conditions.
But a solid foundation has been laid for
further progress, and we at EPA look
forward eagerly to our cooperative labors
with the 50 states. We have begun a long
process of environmental restoration
that will require not months or years,
but decades. ! 1
IThontas i.s Adrnfnisfrafor o/'K/WJ
EPA JOURNAL
-------
CALIFORNIA
Battling
Invasions
of Insect Pests
by Isi A. Siddiqui and Gera
Curry
Californians are noted for their
friendliness, but their geniality does
not extend to a certain class of guest. In
this heavily agricultural state, exotic
insect pests are most unwelcome
visitors.
Some of the Insects damage crops,
which drives up consumer food prices.
Others ruin residential lawns and
shrubs.
Application of pesticides may get rid of
the insects after they have moved in. But
pesticides can also spawn a vicious circle
of additional problems—continuing
environmental contamination and high
costs for taxpayers.
The California Department of Food
and Agriculture believes that prevention,
not pesticides, is the answer to many
pest problems. Putting this belief into
practice in its war against invading
insect pests, the Department uses a
three part defense strategy: exclusion,
detection, and. as a last resort,
eradication.
Exclusion
With 16 agricultural inspection stations
located along California's borders, the
Department tries to stop insect pests
before they enter the state. The job
requires constant vigilance.
The stations operate around the clock,
365 days a year. They employ nearly 150
full-time inspectors, plus about 30
assistants during summer months. Last
year the inspectors examined more than
20 million vehicles coming into
California, searching for animals.
insects, and diseased plants and weeds
which are not native to the state and
which pose a threat to the environment.
More than 130,000 of the vehicles
inspected carried materials that were
rejected!
(Tilt- authors arc trith the Ca/i/omia
Department of Food and Agriculture's
Division oj I'lant /ndu.slny. inhere
Siddiqui is A.ssisfnnt Director and Cum/
is Information Officer.)
On a California hio/urai/. inspectors at a roadblock search vehicles
for fruit that maij be carrying Mediterranean frail flics.
Department inspectors also work at
airports and harbors, checking incoming
planes and ships for unwanted insect
pests. They examine catering and meal
services, passenger cabins and cargo
holds, and even garbage. They review
cargo bills for ship freight to see if there
are problems regarding nursery stock.
They monitor cargo warehouses and
docks, looking for pests in wood and
grass products and in burlap bags.
To keep out destructive pests,
California has the most stringent laws in
the nation. A person who intentionally.
or negligently, brings an infested article
into the state that creates or expands an
infestation may be fined $25,000 for the
violation.
The Department is currently trying to
put its exclusion strategy to work
against one of the more notorious insect
villains, the gypsy moth.
This pest originated in the United
States in 1869. Confederate cotton was
unavailable during and shortly after the
Civil War. A naturalist seeking a new
source of textile fiber deliberately
brought the gypsy moth to
Massachusetts from Europe, intending
to cross it with the silkworm. When a
windstorm blew open the cage, the
caterpillars escaped, and have since
turned the naturalist's dream into a
nightmare.
The gypsy moth is the most
destructive insect attacking forest and
shade trees in (lie United States. In
1981. a particularly bad year. 13 million
acres of forest in 10 states were stripped
bare by gypsy moths. The same year, two
freight trains on the Boston and Maine
rail line faltered on a steep grade made
slick by the crushed bodies of gypsy
moth caterpillars. People allergic to the
caterpillar hairs filled emergency rooms
in Massachusetts. Connecticut, and
Rhode Island.
The female gypsy moth
indiscriminately lays her eggs just about
anywhere. When the eggs are deposited
on items that can be transported, the
gypsy moth can, and does, travel.
Today, for the first time. California is
laced with a huge gypsy moth
infestation near its border. Last year In
Lane County. Ore., only 180 miles north
of the California border, over 19,000
gypsy moths were captured in Insect
traps. In California, some 60,000 square
miles of forest and chaparral—more than
one-third of the state—could be
threatened by the gypsy moth.
Our policy of vigilant exclusion will be
our first line of defense: our inspectors
will try to "throw the bums out" before
they cross our borders. It's cheaper and
easier to keep unwanted pests out of
California than to eradicate them once
they've become established here.
APRIL 1985
-------
Detection
Unfortunately, however, no amount of
inspectors or inspections can catch every
unwanted insect pest. Inevitably, some
wilt find their way into the state. Thai is
when the Department's detection
strategy goes into effect.
The goal of detection is to spot insect
invasions early and stamp them out fast.
The means to this end is the trap.
In California, we use about a dozen
different types of traps, with sex
attraetant, food lure, or a combination of
both. The traps are usually three-sided
cardboard boxes, smeared inside with a
sticky substance to attract and hold the
bugs.
The traps hang in trees and bushes all
over the state. With the permission of
home owners, some are hung in
residential front yards (never backyards.
since family dogs do not always take
kindly to inspectors). Others are hung in
orchards, forests, and parks. Although
numbers of (raps vary according to the
season, type of trap, and geographical
location, the highest weekly number of
insect pest traps vised in California is
somewhere over 143.000.
The Department employs its own
inspectors or contracts with county
agricultural commissioners to check
these traps every week or two. If the
trappers find a new insect pest, they
send it immediately, via the next plane,
to Sacramento, where Department
entomologists provide positive
identification.
The detection program then springs
into action, with hundreds of additional
traps placed at the site where the insect
was [ound. Because these extra traps
help pinpoint the location and extent of
an infestation, they are monitored much
more frequently than usual, sometimes
even daily.
Last year in California. 25 gypsy
moths were caught in such traps. They
had been carried here on vehicles
coming from infested areas. As a result.
two localized Infestations are scheduled
for spray treatment this spring, to
coincide with the caterpillar hatch.
Gypsy moth
,.,
In a residential area near Los Angeles.
a state agricultural inspector places a
glass insect trap irith jnod lure in a
citrus tree. Another kind r>/ imp u-iih an
insect sex lure hangs in the same iree.
Eradication
Eradication, the third element of
California's pest prevention strategy, is
the most visible.
In order to use the least amount of
insecticides necessary, the Department
tries to start pesticide applications early,
while infestations are still small. Delay of
treatment would only require heavier use
of insecticides later, while the insects
continued to multiply. Such delays
would put tons of extra pesticides into
the environment, on lawns, nurseries.
parks, golf courses, commercial
campgrounds, farms, and forests.
A good example of California's
last-strike eradication technique is the
Mexican Fruit Fly Eradication Project.
The Mexican fruit fly. slightly larger
than a housefly, is a strong flier, capable
of a series of long distance flights of up
to 75 miles. Adult flies can live up to 16
months under favorable conditions.
California's climate and vegetation
provide such conditions.
In California's citrus and avocado
industries alone, it has been estimated
that the Mexican fruit fly could cause
economic loss of some 850 million
annually. Total costs of a statewide
infestation could run over S200 million
the first year, with recurring annual
costs near $175 million.
In October 1983. a Mexican fruit fly
was found in Los Angeles. Within 24
hours, ground applications of pesticides
had begun. Aerial applications began 10
days later. Within five months, in a
maximum treatment area of only 62
square miles, this "superpest" had been
beaten.
The project dramatized the advantages
of moving swiftly and decisively against
serious insect pests. If infestations are
stopped quickly, while they are still
small, pesticide use and expenses are
kept to a minimum. Taxpayers,
consumers, growers, and all inhabitants
of the environment benefit.
California had to learn this lesson the
hard way. When eradication efforts
against the Mediterranean fruit fly, or
Medfly, were delayed in 1980, the insect
got out of control. As a result, it took
more than two years to wipe out the
Medfly.The treatment area extended to
almost 1400 square miles. And the cost
of eradication came to $100 million. By
contrast, early and effective eradication
of the Mexican fruit fly kept project costs
down to approximately $2.7 million.
Putting the Medfly lesson into
practice, last year the Department moved
swiftly to eradicate the Caribbean fruit
fly in San Diego, the peach fruit fly in
Los Angeles, and the oriental fruit fly in
southern California. The Department
also declared war against the Japanese
beetle in Sacramento County and the
boll weevil in southern California.
If they were ever to become
established, these insect pests could
cause severe economic hardship for
farmers, consumers, and home owners.
Prolonged eradication efforts could also
cause serious environmental damage.
The Department works to avoid these
consequences with an increase in public
awareness and cooperation, and with its
policy of "Prevention, Not Pesticides." D
..,
-Vftw Mediterranean Jruitjly
'N. 7"
Mexfcan/rutrJIy YXfS-"-^ y
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EL PASO
Putting
Wastewater
to Work
by Jonathan W. Rogers
A night view of El Paso's new water recycling plant. In the tower at the Jar left.
operators staff the computer control system and laboratory around the clock.
El Paso will celebrate the 100th
anniversary of its water system this
May by dedicating a new 10 million
gallon a day water recycling plant. In so
doing, the city will become what is
believed to be the first large community
in our nation to stretch its dwindling
water resources by pumping reprocessed
sewage into its major underground
aquifer.
The possibility of drinking water that
was once called "sewage" might frighten
most urban communities. In fact, when
Coalinga. Calif., began using
reprocessed sewer effluent in its water
supply system more than two decades
ago, residents initially refused to drink it
and the city wound up using what was
actually super-pure water for fighting
fires, washing cars, and watering lawns
and golf course fairways. But among the
480,000 El Paso residents, little
dissent was raised in response
to several days of front-page publicity
about the proposal for a new water
treatment plant.
The proposal climaxed a 12-month
study by a committee of 17 people
(Rogers is Mayor oj El Paso. Tex.)
representing all interests in our
community. At the study's conclusion,
the committee voted unanimously to
recommend that El Paso begin
reclaiming its sewer effluent to recharge
the major, but depleting aquifer from
which over 65 percent of El Paso's water
is taken. Ironically, the only controversy
arose over the concerns of the Rod
and Gun Clubs and the Audubon Society
that construction of the plant would
eliminate manmade sewage lakes that
had become habitats for water fowl.
When the issue arose in the committee,
a majority voted for people rather than
birds.
In a desert area like El Paso, where
rainfall is usually less than eight inches
a year, an adequate water supply has
always been a problem.
A century ago this city's first water
system delivered water filtered through
the natural sands of the Rio Grande
riverbed. Even at a time when there were
no nationwide water quality standards.
most residents found that water less
than desirable. They preferred to haul
well water in from a New Mexico
community almost a hundred miles
away.
Before the turn of the century,
however, experimental wells were drilled
to the north of the Rio Grande. These
produced relatively good quality
water. Gradually, more wells were drilled
further away from the river to supply the
city's expanding needs.
By the 1940s, indications that the
water level in these wells was declining
rapidly caused the city to take water
once again from the Rio Grande. A
conventional water treatment plant was
built for this purpose in 1943.
But the amount of water El Paso could
take from the river was relatively small.
Farms and the federal government had
already appropriated all of the water for
agricultural use and were not inclined to
give up a significant part of the water
rights to the City of El Paso.
Continued decline of the water level in
the well fields as more and more wells
were drilled caused a constant struggle
between the urban and agricultural
communities over the waters of the Rio
Grande, the only replenishable surface
water supply in the El Paso area.
Finally, in the mid-1950s the question
went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
Court determined that El Paso had no
rights to the waters of the Rio Grande
except those the farmers were willing to
APRIL 1985
-------
In these ranks in ilic El Paso plant.
lime treatment and recarbonatton
re.rnoi'c hewn/ metals and phosphorus
from ivater, kill riru.sc.s. raid neutralize
acids.
grant, but that the city did have the
right to use its sewage effluent until it
was discharged into the river.
However, negotiations to exchange
sewage effluent for Rio Grande water
failed. This failure led to the ultimate
decision to construct the Northeast
Water Reclamation Plant and to use its
output to recharge the dwindling aquifer
resources. It is anticipated that
additional plants of this type will be
constructed if the experience in
operating the Northeast Plant is
favorable.
EPA supported El Paso's proposal to
build this plant from the beginning. The
agency, through the Texas Department
of Water Resources, approved a grant of
S20.5 million to pay part of the $32
million total cost of plant construction.
The plant is owned by the City of El Paso
Public Service Board.
The treatment system uses biological
and activated carbon processes to
remove all organic and nitrogen
compounds. Operating costs are
projected at 85 cents per thousand
gallons which is well within the range of
water charges under El Paso's graduated
water rate system. Although water usage
in the El Paso area varies considerably at
different times of the year, the 10
million gallon per day output would
provide enough water to meet the needs
of about 10 percent of the area's
population based on average year-round
individual usage.
In addition to El Paso's water resource
management program, the city also has
an effective program to reduce individual
water consumption. The water rate
structure includes a five-step increasing
rate for residential customers and a
three-step increasing rate for all other
customers. One hundred percent of the
customers are melered: even the city
pays at the increasing rates for all of the
water used for parks and golf courses.
Concrete ground storage reservoirs are
lined with plastic to reduce the water
loss and eight to 10 miles ol deteriorated
water lines are replaced each year. About
18 percent of the single family
residences are landscaped with native
vegetation that uses less water than
other plants and ground covers; the city
has been encouraging such landscaping
since 1970.
These and other conservation actions
have reduced water use from 216 gallons
per person per day in 1977 to 185
gallons in 1984.
Even with the water reclamation
program and the efforts to reduce per
capita use. El Paso is still actively
seeking additional water resources.
The city currently has access to only
five percent of the water resources that
are within a 50 mile radius on the U.S.
side of the border with Mexico. But 75
percent of the people in the region live or
work in the city.
Within 50 miles of El Paso's city
limits, but in the State of New Mexico,
the U.S. Geological Survey estimates
there is over five times as much good
quality ground water as there is within
100 miles in Texas. Most of this water is
under federally owned lands, and there
are no significant present or proposed
plans for its use. The federal courts, at
El Paso's request, have overturned New
Mexico's ground-water embargo statute,
giving El Paso the right to pursue its
request to drill wells on federally owned
land to provide a significant part of the
city's future water requirements.
This source, plus our new system of
using treated sewer effluent to recharge
closer-in ground-water resources, may
well guarantee an adequate water supply
for the El Paso metropolitan area even as
other parts of the Southwest face
growing water shortage problems. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NEW YORK
The Cleanup
of Love Canal
by Norman Nosenchuck
In 1978. Love Canal, a community
in the southeast end oj Niagara
Falls. N.Y., exploded into the news
and entered the nation's daily
vocabulary as a grim symbol of
improper hazardous waste disposal
practices. Reports of chemicals
entering the basements oj homes
nearest to the original Love Canal
channel, along with reports oj high
numbers oj illnesses in those
homes, led to an investigation by
New York State and set off a chain
of actions and reactions that
frightened the residents, forced
many of them to move, and
involved a number of state and
federal agencies and even the
President of the United States.
Today, as government scientists
still seek more answers, the central
area of the community stands
deserted. Many homes and a
school that once stood there are
gone. The 140families who chose
to stay in the horseshoe-shaped
secondary but potentially
dangerous area wait nervously to
see if the area can ever be freed of
the danger of toxic wastes still in
nearby soil and streams.
In the .summer of 1982. a hulldmcr denio!Lshes one of ihc abandoned,
boarded up homes tKljaccni to the Lore CdiKtl si'fe in :Veic York.
(Noscncluuk is tin-Dirt-dor of thi'
Dii'ision of Solid and Hazardous
in i/ie A'cn- York D<';xirlnu'nl of
Environmental ("on.serrnn'nn.)
The Love Canal story began in the late
1800s when entrepreneur William T.
Love began digging a channel from the
Upper Niagara River escarpment. He was
trying to create a canal with a 280-foot
drop that would be a secondary source of
cheap direct-current hydroelectric power.
His dream was to divert some of the
Niagara River's potential water power to
new areas in the hope that new
industries and towns would spring up
nearby.
But before the project was completed,
alternating electrical current was
developed so industry no longer needed
to be near the source of power. The
canal project was abandoned, leaving
behind, according to newspaper reports,
approximately one mile of 30-foot deep.
80-foot wide excavation.
From 1942 to 1953, the Hooker
Electrochemical Company dumped about
21.800 tons of chemical wastes from its
nearby plants—which produced
pesticides and plasticizers—into the
abandoned canal.
In 1953, the Niagara Falls Hoard of
Education purchased the property from
Hooker and built the 99th Street School
on the site. Because of (he school, the
number of young families moving into
the surrounding area increased. During
the next 25 years, chemical odors and
black oily substances oozing into the
nearby basements became more
noticeable, and as the dirt fill settled.
barrels and chemical wastes were
exposed.
In August of 1978, after some
investigation by the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), the state's
Commissioner of Health declared the
area around the old dump site to be a
health hazard. The 99th Street School
was closed immediately, and over 230
families were permanently relocated from
the first two rings of houses around
Love Canal. The area was fenced off. A
Presidential emergency declaration let
the federal government provide funds to
assist the state in its relocation efforts.
The state purchased homes located
along 97th and 99th Streets, at full
replacement value.
In May 1980. President Carter issued
the second emergency declaration for
Love Canal. New boundaries which
established the horseshoe-shaped
Emergency Declaration Area (EDA)
affected approximately 800 additional
families. Again, extensive federal
funding supplemented the state's
resources.
Remedial Actions Taken
Prior to the 1980 developments, EPA
and NYSDEC had signed a cooperative
agreement to develop a program to
contain the chemicals at Love Canal.
The first step by NYSDEC was
installation of a collection system around
the dump site and the construction of a
facility to treat the collected
contaminated ground water (leachate). A
16-acre, three-foot thick clay cap was
placed over the Love Canal dump.
Leachate moving through the ground
was caught and carried to a drain pipe.
APRIL 1985
-------
This collection system lowers the level of
the water inside the dump site and
causes water in the ground—outside the
canal itself—to flow inward toward the
pipes. The system is a barrier.
preventing leachate from moving into
the ground water. The leachate
collection system and treatment plant
began operating in December 1979.
The clay cap acts as an umbrella.
preventing rainwater and melting snow
from mixing with the toxic and
hazardous chemicals underneath It. The
cap decreased the amount of water
entering the dump site; prevented the
runoff of contaminated rainfall:
prevented human contact with the waste
in the dumpsite: and stopped
atmospheric emissions from the buried
chemicals.
The abandoned homes in the area
immediately adjacent to Love Canal were
bulldo/ed into (heir basements and
covered with earth. The 99th Street
School was demolished.
Now the way was clear for completing
the expanded remedial program by
extending the 16-acre cap to about 40
acres. These additional remedial
measures further reduced the amount of
water entering the leachate collection
system.
Eighteen inches of soil materials were
put on top of the plastic liner and seeded
with a mix of grasses and fertilizer.
Before I984's first snowfall, healthy
grass covered the dumpsite. The
eight-foot high chain link fence still
limits access to the area.
In 1983. NYSDEC investigations in the
EDA indicated that Love Canal
chemicals had moved from the dump
site into the storm and sanitary sewers.
Dloxin-contamlnated sediments were
found in Black and Bergholtz Creeks.
EPA and NYSDEC are currently
developing plans to clean the sewers and
creeks. It is hoped that (his will be
completed by 1986. One concern,
however, is where and how to dispose of
the dloxln-contamlnated sediments
when they are removed. This issue is
still unresolved as this article is written.
Additional work will include an
extended perimeter survey achieved by
drilling into the ground to determine the
extent of chemical contamination from
the Love Canal dumpsite. Any needed
additional work will be done as soon as
possible.
Love Canal Habitability Revisited
EPA conducted a study of the Love Canal
EDA in 1980 to provide an
environmental data base for decisions
related to the sale of the homes there.
The study results, released in May 1982,
showed no clear evidence of
environmental contamination in these
residential areas which could be directly
attributed to the movement of chemicals
from Love Canal.
In June 1983. the Congressional
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
issued a report. "Habitability of the Love
Canal Area—An Analysis of the
Technical Basis for the Decision on the
Habitability of the Emergency
Declaration Area." The principal OTA
finding is that "with available
information, it is not possible to
conclude either that unsafe levels of
toxic contamination exist or that they do
not exist in the EDA."
The OTA says: "There is still a
need to demonstrate more unequivocally
that the EDA is safe for human
habitation now and in the future....If
that cannot be done, it may be necessary
to accept the original presumption that
the area is not habitable."
Since the OTA report was released, a
new government committee has been
formed to re-study the habitability
question. This Love Canal Technical
Review Committee (TRC) includes
representatives of EPA, NYSDEC, the
New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH), and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS).
This group acts as a managerial body,
coordinating the many interrelated
In September 1984. a plastic cap corcr.s
a 40-atTf area at Lore Canal.
governmental activities necessary to
resolve the complex issues related to
habitation of the Love Canal EDA and
cleanup and protection of the site.
A second group of non-governmental
expert scientists from a variety of
disciplines was formed by DHHS and the
NYSDOH to develop the criteria upon
which the habitability of the EDA could
be judged. These scientists have met on
several occasions in a public forum in
the City of Niagara Falls to discuss the
development of these habitability
criteria.
Their task is not a simple one. New
technologies capable of detecting the
most minute amounts of chemicals are
being developed and perfected each day.
But despite these technological
advances, we're still left with the
extremely difficult question of assessing
risk to humans and establishing
habitability policies based upon that risk
assessment.
The Human Impact
As for the people of the Love Canal area,
their lives have been altered irreparably.
Those living closest to the Canal had
to create new lives elsewhere. For those
in the EDA, the situation is more
complex. Given the choice of selling or
remaining, based on available
information, the majority left. Each day
brings new questions for those who
stayed, but the underlying one is: Will
this become a residential community
again or will it remain an eerie, desolate
monument to improper hazardous waste
disposal practices? Both those who left
and those who remain have become
knowledgeable and capable community
organizers and lobbyists. They
understand the importance of working
with the news media to find new ways to
express their viewpoints.
For those who stayed, the search for a
solution is endless, demanding, and
frustrating. They are caught up in a
problem without choices as to solutions.
Owners of commercial properties in
particular feel this lack of choice because
they were never given an opportunity to
sell (heir properties to the government.
As more families left, churches moved
away, businesses closed down, and
rental properties sat vacant.
Even those who still believe that living
in the EDA poses no additional risk to
their health are losing the will to
remain. They long for the friendship of a
community and the sounds of children
playing in the streets. And they need an
end to the plaguing question: Did I
make the right choice? D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
ANCHORAGE
Auto Inspections in the Far North
by Tony Knowles
As the first step in a concerted effort
to stop the deterioration of its air
quality, Anchorage is now implementing
a vehicle inspection and maintenance
program. The residents of Alaska's
largest city want the assurance that the
air they breathe is safe and will continue
to be safe in the future.
Particularly in the winter months, the
carbon monoxide level in our air too
often exceeds levels of acceptable public
safety. The harmful health effects during
these periods are clear, particularly for
those with lung ailments, pregnant
women, the elderly, and for the very
young.
Anchorage's immediate goal is to stop
any further deterioration of air quality
and begin improving the quality during
fKmnntes is Mruyor of Anchorage
Alaska. J
those times of particular health hazard.
Key programs are intended to:
• Implement an acceptable inspection
and maintenance program for vehicles:
• Complete planned road projects to
increase basic traffic speeds (within
safety limits) so engines operate
efficiently;
• Increase transit ridership in rush
hours to 15 percent of all riders through
park-and-ride lots and improved
scheduling and routing:
• Promote alternative transportation in
congested areas through the use of
shuttle buses and improved pedestrian
and bicycle facilities;
• Promote railroad commuter service
using the state-owned Alaska Railroad;
• Reduce rush-hour congestion by
staggering work hours in both public
and private sectors; and
• Promote good land use planning to
minimize needless transportation.
Under a rooftop thermometer reading o/
_/M!f (leijiees helou' 7.ero. tntflic inches
along a wain street in dotrnloirn
Anchuracie. The nfi/'s rfir/xni moMo.vidr
problem from vehicles is inosi .scrrrc in
cold weather.
Concern about air quality in
Anchorage and throughout Alaska dales
back to 1975 when much of the nation
began looking to vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs to reduce carbon
monoxide emissions. At that time the
two largest cities in the state. Anchorage
and Fairbanks, were reluctant to
participate in such a program in the
absence of data indicating benefits
under cold weather conditions.
Between 1975 and 1979, various
studies were undertaken by the
University of Alaska at Fairbanks to
quantify the difference, if any, between
hot and cold start emissions and to
identify the benefits of a vehicle
inspection and maintenance program in
the far north. The studies were not
APRIL 1985
-------
conclusive, but they seemed to indicate
that Alaska, with its long cold winters,
would benefit little from an inspection
and maintenance program. It was in
light of these inconclusive studies that
EPA gave the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation the
equipment and funds necessary to
continue studies and, possibly, disprove
the initial findings by the university.
This second wave of cold-start
research followed EPA procedures to the
letter and included over 400 valid tests
in Fairbanks.
Owners were offered $100 bonds, free
rental cars and a free fill-up upon return
for the use of their vehicles. Because of
the extensive testing necessary vehicles
were kept for a period of one to four
weeks.
The research, which was conducted
from 1981 to 1983, determined that
there were benefits to a vehicle
inspection and maintenance program
under cold weather conditions. However,
in order to achieve results comparable to
inspection programs in warmer climates,
the standard tailpipe inspection needed
to be supplemented with a check under
the hood.
It was also determined that low-level
thermal inversions (lids of warm air that
trap cold air below) create severe
atmospheric conditions in Alaska, the
likes of which are not found in many
other places. The effect of the inversions,
combined with natural geography,
created adverse meteorological
conditions beyond anyone's control. The
inversions are a real problem in
Anchorage, which sits in a bowl created
by the Chugach Mountains and the
Cook Inlet.
In 1983, with the results of the
EPA-sanctioned study in hand,
Anchorage air quality personnel began to
design a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program specific to our
city. In developing our program, we had
the enormous benefit of learning from
the experiences of all the programs that
had already come on line in other cities,
and were able to design a program based
on what worked around the nation.
The Anchorage program will utilize the
most advanced instrumentation,
ipfrared analysis of exhaust gas, tight
controls on testing, and an extensive
mechanics manual for use in
conjunction with a 40-hour mechanic
training course. The internal system of
each infrared exhaust gas analyzer is
designed to minimize tampering so
customer and station attendant alike are
assured of unbiased test results. We
have integrated our program with the
Alaska State Division of Motor Vehicles
to assure timely notification to all
motorists and refusal of re-registration
without inspection certification.
Our favored option for testing was a
centralized program with three or four
contracted high-speed test facilities for
convenience to the consumer, efficiency
of operation, and reduced cost. The
Anchorage Assembly opted instead for a
decentralized format to allow any
interested business or individual the
opportunity to participate.
The program is scheduled to go on line
July 1, 1985. Approximately 184,000
vehicles registered with the Division of
Motor Vehicles in Anchorage will require
testing. Between now and July 1, our
inspection and maintenance program
personnel will be working to guarantee
that start-up is as trouble-free as
possible. Receiving particular attention
at this time are our computer system
and its relationship with the State
Division of Motor Vehicles; software for
our test analyzer must be programmed
to meet Alaska standards.
Testing will include all vehicles
registered for street use which are 15
years old or newer, gasoline powered,
and weigh 12,000 pounds or less
unladen. Model year 1975 and newer
vehicles will receive both tailpipe and
under-hood checks, whereas 1974 and
older vehicles will receive a tailpipe
inspection only.
In addition, all inspections will be
piggybacked with Alaska's first
mandatory safety inspection. The safety
check will be walk-around only and focus
on visible safety defects such as broken
headlights and missing wiper blades.
Repairs for safety infractions will be
voluntary. In the first six months of the
program, we will compile data as to the
number of unsafe vehicles on our
highways and streets, and then consider
what action is appropriate.
Public response to the concept of a
vehicle inspection and maintenance
program has been mixed. Fortunately,
Alaska has a significant number of
people who work hard to protect the
natural beauty and condition of their
state. A large number of people feel that
an inspection and maintenance program
is not enough and that other, more
stringent strategies should be applied.
They have also offered the
administration some excellent ideas in
the areas of mass transit, benefits to
non-polluters, and incentives to car pool.
On the other hand, there are those
individuals who are having a difficult
time accepting the invisible carbon
monoxide problem as "real" and even a
harder time having government dictate a
new program to them. The three primary
resistant factors are government
intervention, cost, and perceived
efficiency of vehicle operation.
Public education is vital to the success
of the program. An informed public, one
that understands the severity of the
carbon monoxide problem (44
exceedances and three alerts during
1984), will be a more supportive public.
Our information approach is two-fold.
First, we will educate the public
regarding carbon monoxide in the air,
the associated health risks, and the
long-term effects. Second, we will
introduce the vehicle inspection and
maintenance program as the first
element in a planned solution to the
problem. We want program compliance.
but we also want program
understanding and support.
Unfortunately, costs for the Anchorage
program are higher than elsewhere. This
is due to the generally higher cost for
services faced by Alaskans, and the
decentralized program format. In order
to protect the consumer and in fairness
to service station operators, the
Assembly placed a $40 ceiling on the
amount a station could charge for
inspection. Stations may charge as little
as they like, but no more than $40. A
$10 charge for the actual certificate of
inspection must be added. The yearly
repair expense ceiling for an unaltered
vehicle is $150. The owner of a vehicle
that has been tampered with or altered
must pay up to $150 the first year, $300
the second year, and $500 the third year
and each year thereafter towards
restoration. There is consideration
pending of a hardship fund for those
that truly cannot afford inspection or
repairs.
As we plan the implementation of this
program, we're moving forward with the
development of an updated Air Quality
Plan that will be a call to action. Vehicle
inspection and maintenance is only the
first step. We are determined to improve
our air, protect our health, and
maintain the quality of life that is so
important to all Alaskans. D
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NEBRASKA
Acting
to Protect a
Vital Resource
by Robert Kerrey
(Kerrey is Ciorcntor of Nebraska.)
I've often been surprised by the number
of people from other states who think
Nebraska, located in the heartland of the
United States, is blessed with the most
abundant, pristine ground-water
resource of any state. In part, that belief
is true. The quantity of ground water
that underlies Nebraska—perhaps as
much as 547 trillion gallons—may be
unequaled. That's enough water to
create a 34-foot deep lake that would
cover the whole state.
Unfortunately, however, those who still
believe that Nebraska's ground water is
as pristine as it was 20 years ago are
mistaken. It is true that the vast
majority of our ground water is as pure
as it was in our forefather's time, but
there are signs that mankind is
beginning to take a toll on its quality.
Our state relies heavily on this
abundant resource. It supplies drinking
water to nearly all our farms and to all
but two communities. We use it heavily
in livestock production, to irrigate
millions of acres of cropland, and for a
variety of industrial uses. In fact,
Nebraska ranks third in total
ground-water usage of all states. No
wonder then, that we feel we've got a big
stake in protecting that resource from
pollution.
In Nebraska, a growing trend in
ground-water contamination is
associated with nitrates. In a recently
completed study by the Blue River
Association of Ground Water
Conservation Districts, about 270 rural
domestic wells were sampled in June
and September of each year from 1980
through 1984. Although most wells were
found to be in the safe range (10 parts
per million of nitrates or less), a number
of areas with higher levels were found.
Similar studies conducted by other
natural resource districts show that
nitrate contamination is fast becoming a
major concern in the state. And the
Nebraska Department of Health has
identified 86 community water supply
systems that have had or are currently
suffering from high nitrate levels.
However, in recent years, with growing
industrialization and more
sophisticated, in-depth ground-water
testing, other types of contamination are
becoming more apparent in Nebraska.
One of the most highly publicized
contamination sites is the old
Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plain
A center pivot irrigation system waters a cornjield in southwestern Nebraska. Agricultural chemicals applied through a
system like this can contaminate ground water.
APRIL 1985
11
-------
near Grand Island. KDX, an explosive
compound from the plant, leached into
ground water and contaminated 246
wells in the Capita! Heights area of the
city. Last fall, the city managed to install
enough water lines to serve 149 of the
affected homes. A temporary dewatering
system may be set up this spring so that
construction of the remaining water
lines can proceed.
At one time, the Army was supplying
bottled water to 860 homes. It is still
supplying water to those homes that
have not been hooked up to the city
water supply.
Other ground-water contamination
problems involving industrial chemicals
have been identified in Nebraska.
Carbon tetrachloride has been
discovered in four municipal wells that
serve the City of Waverly. Municipal wells
In the Hastings area have been found to
be contaminated with carbon
tetrachloride. TCE. and other manmade
chemicals. A galvanizing operation at a
plant near Lindsay, Neb., has resulted in
sulfuric acid leaching from holding pits.
Again, a municipal water supply system
was contaminated.
All of the sites I've mentioned have
been placed on the EPA Superfund
National Priorities List.
Situations such as these have helped
to focus the attention of the people of
Nebraska on the issue of ground-water
quality protection. Our state is fortunate
not only to have escaped so far the
majority of the kinds of ground-water
problems that many other states have
faced, but to have had the foresight to
begin ground-water protection efforts
before the problem in Nebraska reaches
the magnitude it has in some other
parts of the United States.
Over four years ago, the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control
began working on the Nebraska
Ground-Water Quality Protection
Strategy. The plan has already been
called a prototype by the EPA and is
expected to be used as a tool in the
development of strategies for other
states.
The Nebraska strategy identifies six
major potential sources of pollution:
chemical and fuel storage; agricultural
chemical use; waste treatment and
disposal areas: improper design,
installation, and abandonment of wells
and test holes; industrial facilities; and
accidental spills and leaks during
transport of hazardous or contaminating
materials.
The ground-water strategy takes a
close look at each of the major potential
pollution sources and recommends a
series of protective measures for each
source. The intent of working up these
recommended protective measures is to
Cattle graze in an irrigated Nebraska
pasture. The stale makes hcai'y use of
ground water for livestock production,
irrigation, and drinking u-uter.
give us a framework for developing
future Nebraska legislation.
There are two major recommendations
in the Nebraska strategy. The first is
that the state set up an emergency and
remedial response fund for use in
situations where no responsible party
can be identified and made to pay for
cleanup. The second recommendation
would create intensive ground-water
quality protection areas, or areas where
local government agencies would have
the ability to help draft more strict
ground-water protection requirements.
Such special protection areas would be
identified by a set of criteria that would
take into account an area's dependence
upon a specific ground-water source, soil
permeability, and other factors that
would indicate the area had special need
for extra protection.
The Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control is working up a
timetable for implementation of the
various portions of the strategy and
expects that full implementation will
take about five years.
The efforts of Nebraska have not gone
unnoticed by EPA. In January, Nebraska
became the first state to receive a federal
grant to help protect ground water. The
$100,000 grant will be used to develop
programs identified in the strategy. In
addition, the University of Nebraska,
which has long been involved in ground-
water research, was recently awarded a
$1 million grant from the Burlington-
Northern Railroad to aid in its work.
In the current session of the Nebraska
Unicameral. the state legislature, a
variety of bills aimed at ground-water
protection have been introduced. Many
of the bills stand a good chance of
passage, due to increased public
awareness of the numerous ways we
could potentially pollute ground water.
Two of the bills deal with chemigation.
the practice of applying agricultural
chemicals through center-pivot
irrigation systems. One is intended to
reduce the possibility of ground-water
contamination through well back-flow by
requiring the proper installation and
maintenance of check valves. The second
bill would completely eliminate the
possibility of so-called back-siphoning,
by requiring total separation of the well
pump and the flow conduit used for the
application of farm chemicals.
Another bill introduced this session
deals with the ever-increasing problem of
leaking underground storage tanks. If
adopted, this bill would provide the
authority for a program regulating the
underground storage of petroleum and
hazardous substances. The bill is
written to be consistent with the 1984
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act by
providing for future state program
assumption. This is considered to be an
especially important bill in view of the
fact that instances of leaking
underground storage tanks in Nebraska
have doubled in 1984, compared to the
previous year.
As Governor of the State of Nebraska.
I've targeted water quality as one of the
major items of concern in 1985. The
budget I recently sent to the state
legislature earmarked 8300,000 to aid
the efforts of the Nebraska Department
of Environmental Control (NDEC). I've
also been working with members of the
Department to secure additional federal
funding lor research and for the
accumulation of ground-water data and
data on potential polluters.
Of course, ground-water quality is also
becoming a nationwide concern. The
efforts of Nebraska may be somewhat
ahead in some respects of those of other
states, but the work needed to protect
our nation's ground water is certainly
well underway across the United States.
It is up to all of us, each person in
every state, to think about the water
that lies beneath our feet, about the
endless ways we are dependent upon
that water. We must work collectively to
find the measures necessary to protect
one of our most valuable resources for
ourselves and for generations to come. D
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
MINNESOTA
Rounding Up a Dangerous Chemical
by Tom Kalitowski
Thousands of pounds of arsenic and
arsenic mixtures have been
discovered in hundreds of half-forgotten,
unsafe locations throughout Minnesota.
This well-known poison can be toxic
even in small quantities, and is believed
to be carcinogenic as well.
Before the advent of synthetic
chemical pesticides, generations of
Americans used arsenic for pest control.
Now, 40 years later, the leftovers pose a
toxic threat. Fortunately, after passage
of a state hazardous waste cleanup law
similar to the federal Superfund, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) has been able to begin
eliminating this danger that has been
overlooked or underestimated for far too
long.
Evidence of a problem had been
accnmulating since 1972, when
construction workers drilling a new well
in Otter Tail County in western
Minnesota began to suffer from a
strange kind of "flu." Stomach
complaints would develop during the
work week but disappear on weekends,
only to recur on Monday. Eventually, a
doctor diagnosed the "flu" as arsenic
poisoning, but not before several
workers had been permanently injured.
The new well was tested and hastily
capped after analysis showed it to be
severely contaminated with arsenic.
In 1975, a Clay County farmer lost five
head of cattle from a mysterious illness.
His detective work revealed that a scrap
iron pile contained an old wooden keg
from which the cattle had been licking
up pure lead arsenate. When, in 1980,
12 cows on a farm near Two Harbors
died after getting into an old shed used
to store arsenic-laced grasshopper bait.
people began realizing that the isolated
incidents might be a small part of a
much larger problem. The MPCA began
to collect reports of buried or stored
arsenic, but the agency at that time had
no money or mechanism to deal with the
emerging problem.
The arsenic had come from a U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
program conducted in the late 1930s
and early 1940s. In those Depression
years, grasshoppers were a serious pest
in the Midwest, causing disastrous
damage to crops. The USDA provided
(Kalitowski is Executive Director of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.)
arsenic (SI.9 million worth in
Minnesota) for local governments to
distribute to farmers. The arsenic was
then mixed with water and molasses and
either bran or sawdust, making a sort of
poison granola which was used as a
grasshopper poison.
Eventually the grasshopper plague
subsided, and better insecticides came
into use. No one knew what to do with
the leftover arsenic and bait. Some
people buried it. Others stored it in a
shed or barn, or in the attic, and then
forgot about it. Some people even
recycled it as insulation, spreading it in
the walls or on the ceilings of buildings.
In the late 1970s, people became
generally aware of the serious
consequences of toxic leftovers, and the
federal Superfund was enacted in 1980.
However, it was apparent that some
hazardous waste sites in Minnesota.
including many of the arsenic caches,
would never qualify for federal funds,
and few responsible private parties
would be willing or able to deal with the
problem. (The arsenic was. after all. left
over from a government distribution
program.)
Then, in 1983, Minnesota legislators
enacted a state Superfund law, making
it possible for the MPCA to ctean up the
arsenic and other "orphan" hazardous
waste disposal sites.
At that time, the old arsenic disposal
sites were known to number more than
70. Three burial sites had been studied
and became individual state and federal
Superfund projects, but the remaining
burial sites and the arsenic stored above
ground could not be handled in the
same way. They became known as the
"generic" arsenic sites. Certain that
many sites had not been reported, the
MPCA developed a large-scale publicity
campaign to encourage state residents to
report burial or storage sites to the
agency.
The MPCA printed posters that were
placed in libraries, seed and feed stores,
and city and township halls. Articles
were distributed to newspapers, county
agricultural agents, farm journals, and
the newsletters of electrical co-ops and
other organizations. The electronic
media picked up the story and reported
it throughout the state.
The calls began to pour in. A farmer
recalled his father burying some bags of
grasshopper poison. The purchaser of
farm property found burlap bags of
sawdust spilling out onto the dirt floor
of a shed. A dusty box of unmixed
arsenic was noticed resting on a shelf.
By the end of the year, the MPCA had
a list of more than 220 above-ground
storage sites and 60 burial locations.
Numerous callers also reported the
unexplained deaths of pets or livestock.
Several larger sites also were reported
and were cleaned up by responsible
parties.
By late in the summer of 1984. the
agency's contractor began visiting each
location to evaluate the nature and
quantity of the arsenic or bait mixture.
Small, easily identifiable quantities were
collected on the spot.
Where boxes or bags had deteriorated
in the many years of storage, workers
repackaged the arsenic or bait in safe
containers. Dressed in protective
clothing, they found it difficult to keep
citizens from helping them by carrying
the poison in their bare hands. "Why. we
played on those bags when we were
kids," they were told.
Workers vacuumed arsenic-sawdust
bait out of the walls and off the ceilings
where it had been used for insulation. At
one site, an insulated building was
being used as a chicken coop.
Apparently healthy chickens pecked the
ground within inches of the toxic
materials.
By the end of 1984, the agency's
contractor had collected approximately
3,000 pounds of "pure" arsenic. An
estimated 20.000 pounds remains to be
collected and the MPCA believes another
20.000 pounds of arsenic bait mixtures
must be safely disposed of. The MPCA is
investigating alternatives for recycling.
treatment, or disposal. Review of the
reported burial sites indicates that
nearly 10 merit detailed site
investigations, based on the amount of
arsenic believed to be buried or its
proximity to drinking water wells.
So far, the MPCA has spent nearly
$500,000 of state Superfund money on
the generic arsenic sites. Whether all the
stored or buried arsenic has now been
reported is unknown, and more action
will be needed in the future, certainly, to
deal with other hazardous materials
quietly accumulating in homes across
Minnesota. Still, the arsenic removal
project has been an important and
satisfying step in resolving problems
resulting from past disposal practices.
iThe MPCA was able to directly help
individual Minnesotans who literally
were left holding the bag. D
APRIL 1985
13
-------
WISCONSIN
,
An Extra Effort
Wins Water
Quality Payoffs
by Jeff Smoller
TT Tisconsin's license plates announce
W to all that the state is "America's
Dairyland." It's a popular myth that cows
outnumber people.
It's no myth, however, that in addition
to milk and cheese, water is an
important commodity in both rural and
urban Wisconsin. The waters of the
Great Lakes and great rivers like the
Mississippi. Wisconsin, and Fox have
had much to do with the social, cultural
and economic development of the state.
In part because of water's importance
to Wisconsin's recreational, agricultural
and industrial economies, the state saw
its responsibility to clean up pollution at
a relatively early date. In the late 1950s
and early 1960s, governors like Warren
Knowles, a Republican, and Gaylord
Nelson, a Democrat, focused public-
attention on conservation and
environmental issues.
With water pollution cleanup often
linked to enhanced recreational
opportunities, governor-sponsored
(Swof(
-------
Canoers paddle alony the St. Croi.v
River, designated as a national scenic
rircnrm/. The nivr/ronr toirn o/'
Hudson. Wise., improrrd its teasteu-ater
treatment with helpjrom a special state
fund.
"Wisconsin has had a remarkable
environmental record because of the
collective will of its people to keep our
state a special place in which to live and
work," recalls Wisconsin Governor
Anthony Earl.
But back in 1978, when Earl was the
chief officer of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR). he "wondered
how close even Wisconsin could come to
the commendable clean water goals
Congress established for the states."
Earl needn't have doubted. On June
30, 1983. Earl's DNR successor. C.I).
Besadny, announced that nearly all of
the state's communities would meet the
wastewater discharge limits of the
federal Clean Water Act. Of 570
municipal wastewater treatment plants,
about 90 percent were in compliance
with their permits. The same could be
said of about 95 percent of the 1,040
industrial dischargers, most of whom
met an earlier 1977 deadline.
The handful of communities not in
compliance—many through no fault of
their own because of construction and
other delays—were given extended
deadlines of December 31, 1985,
although only about 15 will need that
long. In the case of Milwaukee—the
state's largest city—a court-ordered
schedule will result in compliance long
before the 1995 termination date of a
$2.1 billion water pollution construction
program.
There is general agreement that the
progress toward the 1983 goals made by
most Wisconsin communities—and the
progress Milwaukee is now
making—would not have been possible
without the Wisconsin Fund.
Public leaders realized, at an early
date, that funding of water pollution
control improvements required strong
public support. Initially, they drew upon
the state's historic conservation ethic,
advanced by writers such as Ernie Swift
and Aldo Leopold. But they soon realized
that gaining support for a costly cleanup
effort would take more than
conservation rhetoric.
So the leaders did the obvious: they
pointed out that in Wisconsin, clean
water and jobs go together, that when
water quality was protected in
Wisconsin's North Woods, the state's
tourism was protected, too; that in the
hilly southwest, proper wastewater
treatment meant security for dairy foods
and milk processors; and that in the
rich soils of the central and eastern
counties, clean water was essential to
vegetable processing.
With public support, the Wisconsin
Fund Point Source Program was enacted
with little difficulty. The program
parallels the federal grant program and
covers up to 60 percent of the cost of
constructing or upgrading wastewater
treatment facilities. Eligible
communities receive grants in three
steps.
Step 1 grants finance the planning of
the facility; Step 2 grants supplement
the cost of designing the facility; and
Step 3 grants finance a major portion of
the actual construction. Since 1980,
Wisconsin Fund appropriations have
exceeded appropriations from the federal
grants program. More than 200
municipalities have received Step 3
grants since the Fund was created. More
than $786 million of state funds have
been committed to wastewater treatment
since 1978.
' The state is looking beyond the
Wisconsin Fund, assessing ways to
maintain the wastewater treatment
facility investment that has already been
made and to address other important
water quality problems, like nonpoint
source pollution.
There was increasing concern about
maximizing sewage treatment plant
operations not only to maintain the
facility but also to achieve water quality
goals. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources initiated an operation
and maintenance technical assistance
approach that saved municipalities
money and yielded higher quality
discharges. This approach is part of a
program to maintain compliance so as to
prevent a recurrence of the widespread
inadequate or degraded treatment
systems that once existed.
In another example, the legislature in
its 1983-5 session passed ground-water
protection legislation. Because of the
relationship between sludge disposal
methods and ground-water quality, the
state is promoting and facilitating the
safest possible land disposal
methods.
Since the Wisconsin Fund is slated to
expire in three years, the legislature is
expected to give in-depth consideration
to the state's continued role in
wastewater facility construction and
financing.
As in many other states, the demands
of numerous legitimate interests are
forcing difficult and oftentimes unhappy
choices. Yet, because Wisconsin has
been there before—and confronted its
responsibility head-on—there is
optimism that solutions will be found.
The realization that water is important
to the state's economic future is part of
it. Another part might be the ghosts of
luminaries like "Fighting Bob" La
Follette, whose values and respect for the
citizens' collective rights continue to be
embraced on both sides of Wisconsin's
political aisle. LJ
APRIL 1985
15
-------
NEW JERSEY
A New Tactic
Against
Hazardous
Waste
by Robert E. Hughey and
Anthony J. McMahon
Negotiations with representatives of
the Ford Motor Company were
progressing slowly.
In 1982. ground-water contamination
had been found at the company's
defunct manufacturing facility in
Mahwah, N.J. Additional monitoring the
following year had confirmed the
existence of a problem. Further sampling
would be needed to pinpoint the source
and extent of the contamination. It
looked like actual cleanup could not
begin for a! least several ye'ars.
Then, in April 1984, New Jersey's
newest environmental protection tool
was put to its first full test. By
mid-September, Ford had completed
several rounds of soil and ground-water
sampling, and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEI') had approved a full cleanup plan.
In addition. Ford had provided the
Department with financial assurance
equaling the estimated cost of cleanup,
$4.3 million.
The surge of activity and sudden
willingness of the company to provide
the monitoring and cleanup can be
directly attributed to the implementation
of New Jersey's Environmental Cleanup
Responsibility Act (ECKA).
Law Requires Environmental Audits
ECRA entered the New Jersey lawbooks
in September 1983, with an effective
date of December 31. 1983. Its purpose:
to determine the environmental
acceptability of properlies, establish
responsibility for remedial actions at
contaminated sites, and assure potential
buyers that the property they are
purchasing is free of significant
contamination.
(llnuheii in Commissioner of the New
Jetsei) Department of Environmental
/Voiccfinn. and McMahon is Chief' <>f the
's HiiM'cni <>/ Industrial Sire
Tin- /iu/rciu was created to
i/ir prof/runt descril}ed in
this article.)
L^esSa?
Under the new law, industrial
establishments must provide the
Department with what is essentially an
environmental audit of their facility
before ownership of the plant or property
can change hands or the plant can cease
operations.
If. on the basis of this environmental
review, the company finds that its
industrial establishment is free of
hazardous wastes arid substances, it
may submit a "negative declaration,"
stating either that there have been no
discharges of hazardous wastes or
substances on the site or, if there have
been such discharges, that they have
been dealt with in a manner consistent
with environmental concerns.
The Department then conducts a
review of the facility, including an
on-site inspection. If it agrees with the
company's findings, the negative
declaration will be approved and the
transaction which triggered the review
may be finalized. If, however, it finds
An aerial view of the Texaco Eagle
Point plant in Westville. N.J.. where
petroleum has contaminated soil and
ground water. Before Texaco can sell
the site, it must get state approval of a
cleanup plan.
that the site is not environmentally
acceptable, the company must develop
and implement a Department-approved
cleanup plan. The company must also
provide financial assurance for the full
estimated cost of the cleanup plan.
Strict Penalties
The unique driving element of ECRA is
its penalty section. The law provides
three possible penalties.
First, fines up to $25,000 per day per
violation may be collected, and anyone
who knowingly gives false information
under ECRA may be held personally
liable for the penalty.
Second, the Department is authorized
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
to void any sale where the selling party
fails to submit a negative declaration or
cleanup plan.
Finally, the purchaser may void a sale
for any violation of ECRA and may
recover any damages.
This means in effect that no industrial
establishment can be sold without first
complying with the law. Given the
possible voiding of the sale, title
companies will not insure titles and
banks will not lend funds unless
Department approval has been gained.
The new law does not apply in all
cases. According to its three-part
applicability test, there must first be a
transaction: a sale, transfer, or
closing. Second, the facility must be
classified in one of a number of major
manufacturing categories listed in
ECRA. And third, the company must be
engaged in operations which involve
hazardous wastes or substances.
In all, approximately 23,000
companies in New Jersey are subject to
ECRA. Each year between 700 and 1.000
of these facilities are expected to be sold
and .therefore reviewed under the law.
There was initial concern that the law
would disrupt industrial real estate
transactions and discourage investment
developers in the state. Clearly, this has
not happened. In fact, we are seeing the
reverse. In at least two cases, the ECRA
program was responsible for laying the
foundation for major economic
development and reinvestment efforts in
otherwise vacant and abandoned
industrial complexes.
One such case involved the Singer
Company facility in Elizabeth, N.J. The
company had formerly manufactured
industrial sewing machines at the
106 acre site. Then, in 1983, the New
Jersey Economic Development Authority
became interested in redeveloping the
complex as an urban industrial business
facility.
The Authority's plan was nearly
scrapped when it was discovered that
the site and buildings were
contaminated with high levels of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
petroleum hydrocarbons, and volatile
organ ics.
Under the ECRA program, Singer
moved quickly to develop a detailed
cleanup plan, which the Department
approved last July. The cleanup, which
will cost over $1.2 million, includes the
following remedial actions:
• Excavation of soil contaminated with
up to 350 parts per million (ppm) of
PCBs:
• Excavation and disposal of
underground storage tanks;
• Cleaning PCBs (up to 8,000 pprn)
from building floors, walls, and ceilings.
Pre-Crisis Intervention
New Jersey has been blessed with some
of the most progressive environmental
legislation in the United States. But
traditional environmental legislation
focuses primarily on two areas.
Permitting programs typically lead to
scrutiny of new or modified discharges
or emissions before they begin, while
traditional environmental law leads to
enforcement after environmental
problems have become visible or public
health has been threatened.
ECRA differs from these situations by
providing pre-crisis examination of
industrial property prior to the
emergence of significant problems. In
case after case, environmental problems
have been detected and corrected on-site
before they developed into threatening
situations, before unwitting buyers
worsened a problem, before economic
development efforts turned into
economic disasters, before innocent
employees of the new owners of an
industrial property suffered health
effects, and before public monies were
required for cleanup.
For example, at the Midland-Ross
facility in Somerset County, N.J.. an
underground waste oil and solvent tank
was checked for leakage only because the
property was involved in the ECRA
process. The tank failed the test. It was
excavated and the company discovered
that the fill pipe had never been properly
connected to the tank. Soil sampling
confirmed that the oil and solvent
contamination had reached bedrock.
Ultimately, ground-water monitoring
wells were installed and the
contamination detected in the aquifer
matched the tank contents and soil
contamination on site.
Finding and remedying this dynamic
pollution plume was critical to rural
A 20,000 gallon underground storage
tank leaking fuel oil was remouedjrom
the Stokes Molded Products facility in
Trenton. N.J. Under a new slate law,
industrial establishments cannot be
sold unless they meet certain
environmental standards.
Somerset County, where many residents
get their drinking water from private
wells. Under the ECRA program, the
expanding subsurface contamination
plume was identified and a cleanup plan
quickly implemented, preventing
contamination of local water supplies.
In the first year under the new law,
over 100 properties were involved in
ECRA-generated cleanup actions. These
ranged from removal of a few drums or a
small amount of soil to such major
efforts as those required at the Ford and
Singer sites.
ECRA was the next logical step in New
Jerseys continuing efforts to protect
public health and the environment from
hazardous materials. It fixes
accountability for environmental
contamination on the responsible
parties at a time when they can be easily
encouraged or. if need be, compelled to
eliminate the problem. The legal powers
provided to the state under ECRA are
powerful. The ability of either tin-
Department or an unsuspecting buyer lo
void the sale of real estate has left no
doubt about this state government's
commitment to proper hazardous
materials management and to the rapid
correction of problems. [ ]
APRIL 1985
17
-------
Ideas
to Improve
State/Federal
Relations:
A Forum
How could state/federal
relationships in environmental
protection be improved? This is a
question of key concern as federal,
state, and local governments try to
solve environmental problems that
often involve many agencies,
legislatures, and a wide spectrum
of the public. EPA Journal asked
this question of five leaders who
observe environmental affairs and
intergovernmental relations from
different vantage points. Here are
their answers:
William K. Reilly
President
The Conservation Foundation
The past fifteen years have witnessed a
grand experiment in environmental
cleanup involving numerous
federal-state-loral partnerships and
billions oi dollars earmarked for abating
pollution. Although the nation can point
to some significant achievements,
progress has not come easily. As federal.
state, and local governments have sorted
through their appropriate roles,
environmental programs have operated
will) an ever-present tension—a tension
between the need for Intergovernmental
cooperation to get the job done and the
conflicting interests of different levels of
government. At times this has been
constructive, with parties challenging
each other to perform better. Other
times it has been destructive, with fights
over turf and money consuming
everyone's energy.
Within recent years, there have been
encouraging signs of intergovernmental
dialogue on long-festering problems.
Task forces of federal and state officials,
for example, have drafted guidelines for
federal auditing of state air quality
programs and have discussed protocols
for sharing enforcement responsibilities.
EPA's nascent experiments in negotiated
rulemaking have passed some early
hurdles.
The initial success of these and other
experiments in cooperative
problem-solving suggest the time is right
to try new roles for partnerships in
responding to ever-more challenging
environmental problems. While in the
1970s, the federal government often
dictated requirements to state and local
governments, in the '80s and '90s we are
likely to see far more give-and-take in
determining policy. We are recognizing
the value of "policy dialogues" in
bringing together diverse interests,
including government at all levels, to
frame mutually acceptable responses to
policy questions before positions become
too sharply defined or polarized.
An example is the new National
Groundwater Policy Forum, organized by
The Consewation Foundation and the
National Governors' Association, and
chaired by Governor Babbitt of Arizona.
Ground-water contamination is a
challenge of the first order for
intergovernmental relations. Some states
and localities have enacted ground-water
protection statutes, but most
communities remain uncertain about
their role, their authority, and the
ultimate federal and state leadership. In
this Forum, leaders in industry,
environmental groups, science, law. and
engineering are working with three
governors and other state and local
officials to build consensus on a strategy
for addressing the country's increasingly
serious ground-water problems. These
discussions include the division of
responsibilities among different levels of
government.
Partnerships will not solve all the
tensions inherent in a system of
environmental policy-making that
necessarily involves different levels of
government and different sectors of
society. But with a stalemate in
Congress on reauthorixation of key
environmental laws, due in large part to
the standoff between environmental and
industry groups, new ways of framing
policy options seem not only desirable
but necessary to further environmental
progress.
Anthony Earl (D-Wis.)
Governor of Wisconsin
Chair, Energy and Environment
Committee
National Governors' Association
Subtly and slowly, the relationship
between EPA and the states has been
changing from one of contention to one
of program coordination and
cooperation. It is in everybody's best
interest to continue the trend.
Nevertheless, some concepts are difficult
to overcome and some perceptions and
practices still inhibit orderly
cooperation.
To a large extent, the early
relationships between individual states
and EPA was shaped by a mixture of fact
and mythology. Laws and administrative
practice were adopted encompassing
these perceived values and beliefs. Early
on. states were perceived as being not as
attuned to environmental necessities as
was the federal government and not
having competent personnel to run the
difficult program assignments, and it
was believed that stales, especially as
represented by governors and legislators,
would compromise the integrity of
environmental laws if local political
considerations intervened.
In a like manner, states believed that
federal agencies were out of touch with
reality, that Congress was not serious
about the laws that it passed, and that
standards established in federal agencies
could not be managed in the field. Today
some of the descendants of these myths
remain, but in order to continue the
development of cooperative management,
they must be laid to rest.
As a partial prescription for improving
the health of the EPA/state relationships,
a number of ailments still need attention
and a set of roles should be considered.
Federal agencies need to acknowledge
that they do not necessarily have the
inside track on the total body of
knowledge on a subject. States need to
understand that they are not the sole
preservers of federalism. To this end,
increased joint management
understanding should be promoted with
contacts occurring at all staff levels, well
before final policies are approved. True
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
cooperation in management requires
continual communications at all levels.
Federal and state personnel need to be
reminded that they did not create
environmental awareness and that their
actions alone will not save our
environment. Both federal and state
actors in the management process must
exhibit trust in the professional integrity
of their counterparts so as to allow
fruitful discussions and debates on
policy and management. All should
remember that solutions conceived are
not necessarily divinely inspired.
In any advanced bureaucracy.
reporting and accountability are always
present. Frequently the level of reporting
becomes out of proportion to its worth
and value to program administration.
Personnel at all levels must guard
against the natural tendency to load up
accountability with heavy doses of
meaningless statistics. Federal agencies
in particular need to restrain themselves
from using their natural desire to always
have information to answer any
conceivable congressional inquiry as a
license for requiring massive amounts of
statistical reporting by the states.
Management information is useful when
it aids in the management of a program.
In a joint, cooperative management
setting, both the states and EPA should
examine the value of data before
requiring its collection.
With these ailments addressed, the
course of EPA/state relations can
continue to improve. But a few role
models seem appropriate as a guide.
• EPA should assume responsibility and
aggressive leadership in major research
areas and in the identification of new
environmental problems.
• EPA should lead standard setting, but
should involve the managing states in
technical discussions and policy
analysis.
• EPA should provide financial and
technical assistance to state and local
agencies, especially where issues are of
overriding national interest.
• Federal agencies should seek to
assure uniform national enforcement.
State agencies should take primary
responsibility for general enforcement.
• EPA should carry out general program
operations only when state or local
administration is not possible or
feasible.
• States ought to manage the vast
majority of all environmental programs.
coordinating these operations with
specific state laws and regulations.
• New and revised environmental
legislation should more fully recognize
the management partnership between
the states and EPA so that both are
assigned specific responsibility and
authority, and are held appropriately
accountable.
Betty J. Diener
Secretary of Commerce and
Resources
State of Virginia
TTV3r the most part, the Virginia-EPA
r relationship is working well. Several
major improvements are still necessary,
however, if we are to achieve the kind of
partnership needed to truly protect our
environment.
One of the most serious roadblocks to
achieving this partnership results from
critical delays by EPA in establishing key
national environmental regulations. For
example, repeated delay in the issuance
of guidelines for organic chemicals in
industrial effluents and final chlorine
standards hampers our efforts to develop
an effective comprehensive program to
manage state water quality. These delays
also make fiscal planning difficult under
Virginia's biennial, balanced budget
system. These delays are not entirely
EPA's fault; however, EPA could
significantly reduce this problem by
being more flexible in using
results-oriented standards rather than
detailed process-oriented regulations.
Tell us the specific goals we want to
achieve, not every detail of how to
achieve them.
Another strain on our relationship is
the approach EPA takes to ensure state
compliance with federal regulations. In
some major programs, EPA seems
reluctant to show real trust. I believe
that on any given program, EPA should
first work with states to reach a
common understanding of objectives
and to ensure that the states' programs
are established in accord with
appropriate federal statutes, including
proper procedures and adequate
funding. Then, except for periodic and
meaningful audits, EPA should allow
states to tailor programs to meet their
individual needs.
This is well illustrated by the
Chesapeake Bay Program, a joint effort
by EPA. Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. A
conflict surfaced in negotiations over
how states should use EPA funds. EPA
insisted that the funds be used primarily
for reducing nonpoint source pollution.
That may have been appropriate from an
overall multi-state point of view;
however, in Virginia we had adequately
funded nonpoint source programs. Our
need was in dealing with pollution from
specific point sources. Unnecessary
delays and aggravations could have been
avoided if EPA had concentrated on
coordinating states' efforts to ensure
progress toward a common goal, while
leaving the specific use of funds to be
decided based on each state's
understanding of its needs.
Virginia and EPA can also enhance the
development of an environmental
partnership by constant attention to
day-to-day working relationships at all
levels. A lack of consistency In responses
from different departments, slow
response times, and delays in answering
requests are problems that occur in any
bureaucracy, whether at the federal or
state level. Individually these may be
minor, but they are a source of
frustration when they persist. There is a
need for constant managerial vigilance
and for a commitment on both sides to
minimize such problems.
The states and EPA have, generally, a
good relationship which can be made
even better; but improvement will
require the attention, in all the areas
mentioned, of top officials and staff
alike, on both sides.
[ ve
Phoebe A. Chardon (R-N.H.)
Assistant Majority Leader
New Hampshire House of
Representatives
Vice Chair, Natural Resources and
Environment Committee
National Conference of State Legislatures
Asa member of the New Hampshire
XlJHouse of Representatives, I believe
there must be more involvement of state
APRIL 1985
19
-------
legislators in EPA programs: the key to
expanded legislative involvement is
improved communications. State
legislators are the first on the firing line
with the general public. We are often
required to interpret state and federal
laws and programs to the citizenry.
We're the ones called upon at town
meetings to explain state and federal
policy on air standards and solid waste.
In addition, state legislatures must
pass specific legislation in order to
implement federal policies, or must
appropriate state funds to continue
programs begun with federal seed
money. For example, if a state revolving
fund concept is adopted when the Clean
Water Act Is reauthorized, a number of
states will require additional legislative
action, and many may need to modify
state laws to implement requirements
related to leaking underground storage
tanks. Despite the importance of
keeping state legislators informed on
such EPA programs, the agency seems to
be making no major effort to involve
them. Yet. participation by state
legislators in environmental
problem solving is vital; successful,
long-term implementation of federal
programs may depend upon it.
In the last annual report of
EPA-Rfgion 1 (New England),
Administrator Michael Deland mentions
the importance of re-establishing
relationships with EPA constituencies:
the- congressional delegation, governors,
state environmental directors,
environmental and business
organizations, the media, and citizens.
In the report of the Director of
Government Relations in Region 1,
members of Congress, governors, and
other senior officials are mentioned.
Nowhere could I find mention of
relationships with state legislatures.
EPA has initiated some attempts to
involve state legislatures, such as, for
example, a grant to the National
Conference of State Legislatures for
providing information on the 1984
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, but as
the total lack of mention in the Region 1
report makes evident, far more needs to
be done.
In New Hampshire, a Legislative Water
Resources Management Committee is
studying the intrastatc institutional
arrangements for managing water
supply. In the absence of a
comprehensive management plan. New
Hampshire has an incomplete approach
to the water programs which have
evolved to a great extent through
participation in federally funded
activities. The legislature has been slow
in delineating policy and exercising its
oversight responsibilities, and meager in
its financial support, and the situation
has been exacerbated by lack of
knowledge about federal program grants.
If New Hampshire legislators had been
briefed in detail as federal environmental
grant programs developed over the years,
the gaps in our existing programs might
well have been avoided. Improving
communications would bring
improvement in complementary state
and federal environmental programs.
In summary, states and the EPA are
working well and productively to achieve
their mutual goals of protecting public
health and the environment, but there
are still areas in which relations can be
improved, improved two-way
communication between EPA and state
legislatures will bring greater legislative
involvement. This, in turn, should
improve prospects for full state support
of EPA programs.
Peter Galbraith
Chief, Bureau of Health Promotion
Connecticut Department of Health
Services
The relationship between EPA and
state health departments is
improving, but still has a long way to go.
EPA Administrator Lee Thomas, in
recent meetings with state health
officials, has given us good reason to be
optimistic about the future of this
relationship. His support of the liaison
group involving EPA and state health
officials is evidence that this optimism is
well-founded.
In the past, EPA and state health
departments have not tended to
collaborate in a meaningful way. From
my perspective, the EDB in food episode
highlighted this gap. EPA performed the
risk assessment and the process of
developing guidelines with minimal
input from risk assessment experts in
the various states. As a result, some
states found themselves publicly
pressing for stricter standards than
those imposed by EPA.
The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC), on the other hand, has a long
tradition of working closely with state
health departments. Under
extraordinarily few circumstances would
CDC implement investigations or
programs without prior consultation
with the state epidemiologist or state
health officer. This is a model to be
emulated.
Even though the Association of State
and Territorial Health Officers has an
ongoing committee that addresses
critical issues with EPA, serious
communication problems continue to
surface. For example. EPA has a pilot air
toxics strategy being implemented in
fourteen states. Potentially, they could
come up with fourteen different
mechanisms for dealing with
acrylonitrile, the carcinogen currently
under discussion. How then do you
explain the health effects and different
approaches to the citizens of each state,
especially if they read about the varying
approaches in national media or hear
about them through the broadcast news
media?
Addressing concerns related to
asbestos is another area where EPA acts
independently with results that are less
then ideal. It is not uncommon for EPA
to do asbestos investigations without
any prior notice to a state health official.
Not only can this sometimes cause
unwarranted anxiety, but the failure to
work with local officials negates the
opportunity for meaningful followup by
those officials where the investigations
find that a problem exists.
Regardless of one's philosophy of
government, it makes no sense for state
health departments to be doing the
research required for setting individual
drinking water standards. Clearly, this
should be the function of a central
government agency while the states
should focus on identification of
contaminants and appropriate solutions.
Reasonable people can disagree as to
who should set the final standards:
nevertheless 50 different states ought
not to be doing the data collection and
analysis. Without adequate technical
support (lacking in a number of states)
and in the absence of federal standards,
you indeed could have a different kind of
standard in some states—one which
accepts whatever level of a particular
contaminant is present.
The prospects for improved relations
are, however, excellent. But it will take
an ongoing commitment from state
health officers—which has been made
through the establishment of the
Association's permanent Committee on
the Environment—and an equal
commitment on the part of the EPA
management to get the word out about
this needed working relationship to their
various programs and regional offices. D
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Old-Time
Heat Source
Yields New
Pollution
by Tom Super
Ask any child roasting a marshmallow
in front of a fireplace on a cold
winter's night. Ask Sigmund Freud, who
believed that staring at fires is one
common human response to the mystery
of the unconscious. Ask the thousands
of outdoorsmen who cut their own wood
and thus are twice warmed. Or ask the
millions of American families who
bought wood stoves over the past decade
in order to free themselves from the
tyranny of skyrocketing oil, gas, and
electricity prices. There is a special
magic in that wood fire burning in the
den or living room.
But those same wood stoves and
fireplaces heating so many American
homes are also heating up tempers in
some parts of the country. As more and
more people turn to wood as an
alternative source of residential heat.
their neighbors are beginning to
complain about smoke and the smell.
They are pointing to scientific evidence
linking wood smoke to human health
problems such as emphysema, chronic
bronchitis, asthma, and cancer. In some
communities, nuisance complaints and
health concerns have led local
governments to survey the extent of local
wood-burning, estimate its effect on
local air quality, and pass ordinances to
reduce the air emissions from wood
stoves. Despite all the apparent benefits.
the combustion of wood in American
homes is being scrutinized and—in
some places—regulated as a potential
threat to public health.
The current popularity of wood stoves
and fireplaces in fact reflects only
partially their former predominance as
sources of residential heat. During the
18th and 19th centuries, wood was the
main—and in some places the
only—source of heat for American
homes. Toward the end of the 19th
century, wood began to be replaced by
coal, gas, and oil, but even as late as
1940, over 20 percent of U.S.
households used wood as their primary
source of heat.
(Super is a writer and consultant to
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.)
# **»
Smoke from wood burning stoves rises from the chimneys
of a house in New Hampshire.
After World War II the combustion of
wood in U.S. homes declined
dramatically. By 1950, only eight percent
of U.S. households burned wood as their
primary source of heat. By 1960,
that number had dropped to four
percent, and by 1970 to two percent.
Over the course of 100 years, wood's
contribution to U.S. residential heating
had fallen from virtually 100 percent to
virtually nothing.
Then in 1973 the flow of oil from the
Middle East to the United States was
embargoed temporarily. World oil prices
started to climb; by 1980 the price of a
barrel of oil had increased by a factor of
ten. Americans were shocked to find
that the prices of fuel oil, gas, and
electricity—the major sources of
residential heat—were rising almost as
fast. Some people dusted off their old
wood stoves, and many more bought
new ones. By 1980 wood stove sales in
the United States exceeded two million
units per year, and the number of U.S.
households using wood as a primary
source of heat was again approaching
four percent of all homes.
APRIL 1985
-------
Over the last few years the world price
of oil has leveled off, and so have sales of
wood stoves—down to about one million
units per year. Yet because of their long
useful lives (fifteen years or more), more
and more air pollution will be emitted by
wood stoves in the years ahead. And that
air pollution is raising serious health
questions in many parts of the country.
Wood stoves emit three main kinds of
air pollutants: particulate matter or total
suspended particulates (TSP), carbon
monoxide (CO), and polycyclic organic
matter (POM). Because the first
two—TSP and CO—are criteria
pollutants for which National Ambient
Air Quality Standards have been set,
EPA tracks total national emissions of
those pollutants by various sources.
Those national emissions data tell much
the same story as the fluctuations in the
world price of oil.
Particulate emissions from residential
wood combustion declined from 0.38 to
0.33 tons per year (TPY) between 1970
and 1973. and then climbed to 0.89 TPY
by 1982. In other words, TSP emissions
from residential wood combustion
increased by over 250 percent from 1973
to 1982. Whereas in 1970 residential
wood combustion contributed only two
percent of total national particulate
emissions, in 1982 it contributed 12
percent. By 1982 residential wood
combustion was the cause of almost as
much airborne particulate matter as all
U.S. coal-fired power plants, and more
particulate matter than the coal mining.
metallic ore mining, iron and steel,
cement, and pulpwood industries
combined.
The recent trend in national CO
loadings is almost as striking. In 1970,
residential wood combustion contributed
only about two percent to total national
CO emissions, while in 1982 it
contributed more than seven percent. By
1982 wood stoves and fireplaces were
emitting more CO than all U.S.
industrial processes combined.
There are no similar trends data for
POM. However, EPA estimates that wood
stoves now contribute about 40 percent
of total national POM emissions.
Because of the sharp rise in the number
of wood stoves in operation, POM
emissions from those sources
undoubtedly have increased over the
past decade.
National data on wood stove emissions
do not illuminate the most serious
health concerns related to wood smoke,
concerns which are being raised in a
number of cities and towns across the
country. Where large numbers of
wood stoves have been installed in
mountain valleys subject to periodic air
inversions, wintertime wood smoke has
caused local governments to take actions
which the community at large has
considered to be necessary to protect
public health.
For example, in Missoula, Mont., wood
burners are asked to shut down their
stoves and fireplaces when winter air
quality begins to deteriorate. A city
ordinance prohibits wood fires when air
quality standards are exceeded, or when
meteorological conditions are likely to
cause exceedances. Similar voluntary
and mandatory wood-burning
curtailment ordinances have been
passed in Juneau, Alaska; Medford,
Ore.; and Reno, Nev. Albuquerque, N.M.,
has instituted a voluntary wood-burning
curtailment program that is triggered
when high levels of CO are measured.
In Aspen, Colo., all fireplaces must be
equipped with glass doors and an outside
source of combustion air, and only one
stove or fireplace may be installed in a
new structure. New residences In
Vail, Colo., are limited to one wood stove.
In Beavercreek, Colo., wood stoves are
prohibited altogether.
Some communities have recognized
that to the extent that home heating
requirements can be reduced, wood
stoves will burn less wood and thus emit
less pollution. For instance, in Crested
Butte, Colo., homes with wood stoves
are subject to stringent insulation
requirements. In Medford, Ore.,
residents installing new wood-burning
stoves must meet minimum
weatherization requirements, and all
wood-heated homes must meet the same
requirements prior to sale or rental.
States with widespread wood smoke
problems also are beginning to act.
Oregon's legislature has passed a
wood stove certification program
requiring that all stoves sold in the state
after July 1986 meet a state-defined
particulate emissions limit. The
Colorado State Environmental
Commission has been authorized to
establish the same kind of wood stove
certification program. Colorado's
program is scheduled to go into effect in
July 1987.
At the federal level, EPA has just
begun a process to determine the
feasibility of setting emission limits on
all new wood stoves manufactured or
sold in the United States. If a New
Source Performance Standard eventually
is applied to wood stoves, by the 1990s
wood stove emissions of TSP, CO, and
POM will begin to decline. Depending on
the stringency of the standard,
particulate emissions from wood stoves
may be cut almost 90 percent by the
turn of the century.
When the history of environmental
regulations is written, the control of
wood stove emissions will not be a
typical chapter. For one thing, local.
state, and federal governments have
never before tried to regulate air
pollutants emitted from private
residences. It is one thing for
government to impose controls on large
industrial or utility smokestacks; it is
quite another to tell families to douse
the fires that are heating their homes.
As the experience in some U.S.
communities has already demonstrated.
there are people who do not take kindly
to a perceived invasion of home and
hearth.
But as local communities grapple with
their wood smoke problems, they are
coming up with unique solutions
responsive to local circumstances. They
have seen the value in educating
wood-burners about the environmental
costs of their stoves and the benefits
that accrue from sensible operating
practices. They have seen the value in
trying different approaches. Voluntary
and mandatory shutdowns, insulation
requirements, and design and
equipment specifications are all
examples of the different kinds of
ordinances that different communities
have passed to address basically the
same problem.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of
wood smoke pollution control is
economic. Virtually every technique used
to control wood stove emissions saves
money for the wood-burner. Wood smoke
is essentially uncombusted
hydrocarbons; so is creosote, which is
caused when wood smoke condenses in
the chimney. Both are made up of
carbon that could have been burned to
help heat the home. To the extent that
wood smoke is reduced—through the
use of catalytic converters or more
efficient wood stoves, for example—less
wood has to be burned for the same
amount of heat, and less creosote builds
up in the chimney. Similarly, to the
extent that a home's heating
requirements can be reduced through
insulation, weatherization, or solar gain,
less wood will be needed. Thus the costs
absorbed by the wood-burner to reduce
air emissions repay themselves through
reduced energy and chimney
maintenance costs. Pollution control in
this case may be "free," a happy
circumstance government regulators
rarely experience. D
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Negotiation
Instead of
Confrontation
by Cynthia Croce
Imagine that it was the end of the
public comment period for a proposed
new rule being handled by Chuck Freed
of the air program's Office'of Mobile
Sources at EPA. Freed stared at his
silent phone, his empty wooden in-box,
and desk top free of protests and urgent
pleas for reconsideration. The proposed
rule, which sets penalties for heavy-duty
vehicles unable to conform with Clean
Air Act emissions standards, had been
out for over a month, and there were
still no outcries from the "parties of
interest"—manufacturers, trucking
companies, and construction people.
That morning he'd been down to the
Central Docket Office to check the
microfiche comments received in
response to the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), and drawn a blank.
And, just minutes earlier, he'd checked
the file drawer marked
"NONCONFORMANCE PENALTIES:
PUBLIC RESPONSE" expecting to find
stacks of the ubiquitous computer runs
(Croce has worked as a management
consultant for various EPA offices for
the past six years. She Is the author of
the agency's Regulatory Management
Handbook and the new tuio-uolume
Survey Management Handbook.)
and other bulky substantiating
documents that affected parties typically
submit to support their positions. The
paper file, too, was bare.
By this time he had expected to be
involved in constant meetings with
domestic or foreign truck
manufacturers, attorneys.
environmentalists, trade association
reps who wanted to present their
positions to him in person. But his
calendar was clean. It's lonely, Chuck
thought...lonely being a regulatory
negotiator....
In reality. Chuck and his colleagues
had not been lonely long. Nor were any
of the parties of interest who were
concerned with this particular
rulemaking and the penalty negotiations
indifferent to the NPRM. For four
months, the EPA representative and
representatives of all the parties worked
with great fervor to achieve consensus
on the proposal EPA expected to publish
soon in the Federal Register.
The fact that EPA and the "parties of
interest" had worked together to develop
a rule was unique. The effort was the
first of two pilot attempts EPA is
conducting to evaluate the effectiveness
of a supplemental procedure for
proposing rules. The new procedure,
called "regulatory negotiations," brings
the parties together to air their concerns
and resolve conflicts in face-to-face
negotiations before the proposed rules
are published. The desired end-product
is consensus on all key issues. EPA then
uses the consensus agreement as a basis
for writing the NPRM.
The motivation to reach consensus is
high. If the negotiations fail, EPA has to
resort to the traditional "notice and
comment" rulemaking process—an
adversarial process, which, more often
than not. is marked by long delays,
Members o/'E/'/V.s Pesticide
Advisory Committee (it u
session last November,
excessive costs for all parties involved,
uncertainty, and litigation. Moreover, 80
percent of the time, EPA's final rules are
challenged in court!
Former Administrator William D.
Ruckelshaus, a lawyer himself, was one
of the project's staunches! supporters. In
his keynote address last year to The
Conservation Foundation's Second
Annual Conference on Environmental
Dispute Resolution, Ruckelshaus said:
"Conducting environmental business
through attack and counter-attack, suit
and counter-suit, is wasteful, expensive,
and exhausting."
The huge waste of time and resources
that so often results when the
traditional process is used, in fact, is the
principal reason EPA initiated the
project. Under a regulatory negotiation
system, the parties will be encouraged to
share information and to collaborate in
finding creative solutions. The goal of
the negotiations is to determine the
requirements and restrictions that make
up the substance of the rule EPA will
propose.
History of the Project
In April 1982, the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS)
recommended that agencies consider
assembling the interested parties to
negotiate the text of proposed rules. To
date, three regulatory agencies—the
Federal Aviation Administration, the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, and EPA—have
undertaken such negotiations.
In January 1983, Joseph Cannon.
then Associate Administrator for Policy
APRIL 1985
23
-------
and Resource Management, launched
EPA's project because he believed it had
the potential "to produce substantially
superior rules, acceptable to a wide
range of interests, more quickly, and
without the need for litigation."
One of the main hurdles that had to
be addressed was how EPA could have
representatives at the bargaining table
and, at the same time, maintain a sense
of impartiality and fairness. EPA took
two organizational steps to deal with
this:
• The Office of Standards and
Regulations (OSR) in the Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation was given
authority for "managing" the project.
Chris Kirtz of OSR's Regulation
Management Branch was named project
director.
• The senior official of the program
office responsible for the rulemaking was
designated as EPA's representative. That
official spoke for EPA during the
negotiations and was responsible for
presenting and selling the agency's
viewpoints both at the negotiations and
within the agency itself.
A second major question was how to
ensure that the initial rulemakings
selected to test the concept were
"appropriate" for a negotiated approach
involving representatives of both public
and private Interests. Perhaps 10
percent of the 200 to 250 rules under
development at any one time are suitable
for such an approach. A rigorous
selection procedure was devised. The
regulations that were considered were
those offering "typical" yet "negotiable"
opportunities. They included ones with a
reasonable number of affected interests
(15 to 25 was considered "ideal"}; those
where there was some existing
agreement about the technical basis of
the rule; those with a firm timetable for
EPA action; and those that had a
reasonable number of related issues on
which parties might have common
positions from which to begin. The
regulations aiso must involve rules
under which negotiated agreement could
be implemented under current
legislation, and where the parties have a
genuine interest in producing a
consensus Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
Making the selection took time. On
February 22, 1983. EPA published a
notice in the Federal Register asking
the public to suggest rules that might be
suitable for a pilot test. EPA also
solicited suggestions from the program
offices, and 66 environmental groups,
trade associations, and other
organizations.
Over 50 regulations were nominated.
Two were selected:
• Nonconformance penalties under
Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act. The
purpose of such penalties is to provide
temporary relief for manufacturers of
heavy-duty trucks or vehicles until they
can tool up to meet the standard.
Manufacturers will be allowed to certify,
produce, and sell engines that don't
meet the standards provided they pay
the appropriate penalty. The penalty is
intended to cost the manufacturer of a
nonconforming vehicle or engine at least
as much as compliance with the
standard would have cost, as well as to
create an economic disincentive for
future noncompliance. The negotiating
group identified some 11 issues for
resolution.
• Pesticide emergency exemptions
under Section 18 oj the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act. FIFRA authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to exempt federal or state
agencies under appropriate emergency
conditions. Current EPA regulations,
established in 1973, identify three
classes of exemption (specific,
quarantine, and crisis). The original
purpose of the rule was to allow for
prompt, effective processing of
exemption requests. An internal
audit, reinforced by a Congressional
review, suggested that the agency might
improve the current system. The
negotiation committee's task was to
suggest what changes, if any, were called
for.
In April 1984, Milton Russell, the new
Assistant Administrator for Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, announced
EPA's intention to negotiate the Clean
Air Act nonconformance penalties as one
of the demonstration projects. The first
meeting of the committee was held in
June last year, with Charles Freed
serving as EPA's representative. The 22
members included representatives of
small and large domestic, European, and
Japanese manufacturers, environmental
organizations, state pollution control
officials, and trade associations.
In October, the committee reached
tentative consensus, which was
transformed into a consensus statement
signed by all 22 parties in December.
The proposed rule appeared in the
March 6, 1985, Federal Register.
As for the status of the pesticide
exemption negotiations, EPA published
a notice of intent on August 3, 1984,
and the committee held its first meeting
in late September of that year. Members
include representatives of environmental
organizations, pesticide users, state
agricultural and health departments.
trade associations, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Consensus
on this second rule was achieved early
in 1985. Publication of the NPRM is
imminent.
Preliminary Conclusions
It is too early to draw any hard
conclusions about the project to date.
However, based on preliminary
comments from Larry Susskind,
Executive Director of Harvard Law
School's Program on Negotiation, which
is documenting the project, and EPA
staff, former Administrator Ruckelshaus
reported:
• It does seem possible to obtain the
meaningful participation of all those
known to have a stake in the outcome of
a regulatory negotiation. Despite the
heavy workload, it is encouraging that
virtually every participant seems to feel
that the time spent was worthwhile.
• Laying the proper groundwork for the
process is essential. Using a convener to
identify interested parties for each
rulemaking and to determine whether
they are willing to negotiate in good
faith, seems a key factor in promoting a
harmonious process.
• The give-and-take of negotiation
provides an opportunity to explore the
rationale and needs of the participants
which often leads to an approach
satisfactory to all.
• So far. the process seems to be
meeting the expectations of producing
more balanced rules in a less adversarial
fashion, reducing the likelihood of costly
litigation.
These preliminary conclusions,
coupled with EPA management's strong
support, voiced on a number of
occasions, suggest that the project's
success has demonstrated that the
regulatory negotiation process is, as
former Administrator Ruckelshaus put
it, "lean, workable, and consistent in its
production of good environmental rules
that everyone can support." Although
Ruckelshaus cautioned that it is
unrealistic to think we will ever be free
of the adversarial process, or of litigation
as the ultimate recourse, he added: "I
think the potential exists to build on our
current momentum, to resolve disputes
before they erupt in heat, and to replace
a lot of fractiousness with good,
old-fashioned cooperation."
Next Steps
EPA's new top management is very
enthusiastic about the project and the
progress to date. They have authorized
going forward with additional pilot
negotiations. The project staff is actively
searching for qualified regulatory items.
D
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
EPA and Biotechnology
by Roy Popkin and Dave Ryan
EPA has a major role in coordinated
federal efforts to monitor and
regulate the dramatically evolving
biotechnology industry.
All federal departments that expect to
have a role in the biotech revolution are
part of a special working group of the
White House Cabinet Council on Natural
Resources and the Environment. The
Council's purpose is to decide the proper
jurisdiction of different agencies in the
biotech field and to ensure a consistent
approach to the subject by the federal
government. Towards this end, the
respective roles of the EPA, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) were
outlined in policy statements published
in the December 31, 1984, federal
Register. After receiving public
comments, the Council and the agencies
will finalize the policy later this year.
Although the terms "biotechnology"
and "genetic engineering" are often used
interchangeably, they are not the same
thing. Genetic engineering is just one
branch of biotechnology, the use of
biological science to produce chemicals
or living organisms for commercial use
or for something with commercial
potential.
Biotechnology is as old as the
fermentation of grapes to produce wine.
Fermentation is the use of
microorganisms to convert sugar into
alcohol. What is moving the field
towards new and dramatic change is the
kind of molecular engineering that has
been able to isolate, for example, the
DNA and KNA factors in genes. Through
such genetic engineering, scientists are
developing microorganisms that can
degrade pollutants (eat up an oil spill, if
you will), that will produce industrial
enzymes and chemicals more efficiently,
that will add a gene to an existing
bacterium that lives in an agricultural
(Popktn is a writer and Ryan us a press
officer in the EPA Office of Public
Affairs.)
A scientist
conducts basic
genetic research
in an effort to
develop netc
pesticides.
area and turn that particular bacterium
into a pesticide. An outstanding example
of such biotechnology is the new ability
to place the insulin-producing human
gene into bacteria that then become tiny
insulin-producing factories.
The federal Register proposal details
plans for interagency coordination and
scientific review, a matrix of the various
federal statutes that apply to
biotechnology, and a glossary of biotech
terms that apply to the lexicon of this
burgeoning new industry. There are
special sections prepared by EPA, FDA
and USDA.
Recognizing that there are conflicting
views of biotechnology ranging from
those who view the new technology with
alarm as a possible danger to the
environment to those who believe
absolutely no regulation is required.
"EPA's primary goal is to ensure a
reasonable balance between the need to
protect society from unreasonable risk
and the benefits to society provided by
the products of biotechnology," says
John Moore, the agency's Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
"Recent developments in the biological
sciences have increased our ability to
select or combine the genetic materials
of different organisms to produce new
products or to produce better or more
consistent versions of old products.
Such products may apply to a wide
range of industries, including chemical
production, agriculture, and
environmental protection," Moore adds.
"There are, however, concerns about
the health and environmental
implications of releasing such genetically
altered or other new bacteria into the
environment," he continues. "EPA and
other agency reviews of such products
before they go into commercial use-will
address such concerns."
Initiating its regulatory role in relation
to the biotech industry, EPA has
published two Federal Register notices.
APRIL 1985
25
-------
laying out the limits of the agency's legal
authority and also the framework for
actual registration. The emphasis of
EPA's biotechnical policy is on the
relatively new techniques of using
microorganisms that occur naturally,
but using them in places where they
aren't native (non-indigenous microbes,
so to speak), and on the use of
microorganisms altered or manipulated
through genetic engineering techniques.
Last October, the EPA issued its first
Federal Register notice, an interim
policy statement under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), requiring companies to
notify EPA 90 days before starting up
any small-scale field testing involving the
release of genetically engineered or
non-indigenous microbiai pesticides into
the outdoors. The 90-day notification
period will give the agency an
opportunity to review the project and
determine the potential for health or
environmental dangers.
A number of companies have already
complied with this interim policy and
have informed EPA of their desire to
initiate such experiments. One of them.
Monsanto, notified the agency that it
wishes to field-test a genetically
engineered microbe that could destroy
root-eating black cutworms. The
experiment is scheduled to take place
this spring on a research farm near St.
Louis.
In November. EPA followed up this
specific pesticide policy with a much
broader one, covering the potential
regulation of genetically engineered
microbiological products under both the
Toxic Substances Control Act and
FIFRA. This action was included in the
December Federal Register.
Here are some highlights of EPA's
position on FIFRA's applicability to
biotechnology:
• FIFRA established EPA's authority
over the distribution and use of
conventional pesticides, as well as
non-indigenous and genetically
engineered microbiai pesticide products.
• Under this statute. EPA requires the
submission of data and information
concerning each pesticide product in
order to make regulatory judgments on
its safety. If, based on this information,
the agency decides the product poses no
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment, it may then be
registered and sold in the United States.
Additional microbiai information, over
and above that sought for conventional
pesticides, may be required.
(Interestingly, the first pesticide
registration in the biotechnical field was
27 years ago, in 1948, when a bacterial
product used to kill Japanese beetle
larvae was registered by the Department
A researcher ust'.s
aj'ermenter to
r/roir hacieria
ii'liich hare been
genetically
engineered to
produce larger
quantities of
proteins or
cht'rmcuis lor it.sr
in scientific
studies.
of Agriculture. Since then USDA and.
after its formation, EPA, have evaluated
and registered 14 microbiai pesticides
intended for a wide variety of uses in
agriculture, forestry, mosquito control,
and private homes. The same type of
data required from manufacturers in the
past for these registrations will continue
to be required in the future. The
Pesticide Assessment Guidelines,
available through the National Technical
Information Service, provide detailed
recommendations on developing
necessary data for microbiai
registration.)
• EPA has decided that plants and
animals used as pesticides are already
adequately regulated by other federal
agencies, and therefore has exempted
them from FIFRA.
As indicated earlier, EPA has also
indicated that the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCAj can also be applied
to biotechnology. This law is intended to
identify and control chemicals that pose
an unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment through their
manufacture, processing, commercial
distribution, use, or disposal.
TSCA does not, however, apply to
pesticides, which are regulated under
FIFRA, or to biotech products in the
fields of drugs, cosmetics, foods, food
additives, nuclear material, and tobacco.
These are regulated under other federal
authorities.
Some highlights of EPA's position on
how TSCA does apply to biotech are:
• TSCA gives EPA authority to gather
information on "chemical substances"
used in industry and consumer
products, and. if necessary, to control
their exposure to humans or the
environment. TSCA defines "chemical
substance" as any organic or inorganic
substance of a particular molecular
identity; microorganisms, as well as
nucleic acids (such as DNA) and other
substances that make up living
organisms, fall under the TSCA
definition. Thus, the Act gives EPA
authority to regulate certain biotech
products such as microorganisms used
to produce chemicals, degrade
pollutants, accelerate plant growth.
extract minerals from ore. or make it
easier to get oil out of the ground.
• EPA is proposing that companies give
EPA a 90-day notice before they begin
manufacturing new microorganisms. In
the December Federal Register notice.
EPA stated its position that
microorganisms produced by recombining
DNA molecules, fusing cells, and
perhaps by other genetic engineering
techniques, are "new" chemical
substances, subject to pre-manufacture
notice (PMN). The 90-day notice would
give EPA time to decide if there are any
potential health or environmental
dangers related to the product and, if so,
to take some form of regulatory action.
Microorganisms that occur in nature or
that are developed through artificial
selection would be considered products
"already in existence" and would not be
subject to this requirement. (Artificial
selection techniques are imposed on
groups of organisms to favor the growth
or multiplication of a particular
organism at the expense of others.)
Following receipt of comments, a final
determination about the 90-day
requirement will be made.
• Substances produced solely for
research and development are exempt
from the PMN requirement under
current TSCA regulations. This
exemption would extend to
microorganisms field-tested in the open
environment. EPA is, however.
considering the need to modify the
research and development exemption so
that it has an opportunity to review
microorganism products before they are
field-tested. D
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Oil, Water,
and the Osage
Mineral Reserve
by Dick Whittington
This is the seventh in a series of
articles in the Journal by EPA's
regional offices on major
environmental concerns they are
addressing. The author is
Administrator of Region 6 in Dallas,
Texas.
The Osage Indians are an old and
proud people. They are also a wise
people.
When they were driven out of Kansas
in the 1880s, the tribe purchased one
and a half million acres of land in
Oklahoma from the Cherokees. The
subsequent discovery of substantial
quantities of oil beneath the land made
that a very beneficial purchase for most
members of the tribe.
As the oil field was developed, the tribe
retained the mineral rights to the full
acreage, although individual Indians
were allowed to sell their surface rights.
Now, most observers say, the Osage
tribe has made another smart move in
agreeing to a deal with EPA and the
Department of Interior's Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIAS to protect
underground sources of drinking water
from pollution from oil and gas
operations.
It did not take long after the land was
bought in 1883 for the black gold to
appear. The first well was drilled on
Osage land in 1896 in what was then
the Oklahoma Territory.
When Oklahoma became a state on
June 16, 1906, the Osage lands became
Osage County. Okla., and 12 days later
Congress passed the Osage Allotment
Act which established the Osage Mineral
Geological technician Andrew Yates of
the Osage underground injection control
office in Pawhuska, Okla., logs
information from pressure test of
injection well. This helps insure that
the well is mechanically sound.
Reserve. That set the stage, in the
1920s, for the most highly publicized oil
boom on Indian lands in the history of
the United States.
In recent years. Osage County has
consistently ranked among the nation's
top counties in oil well completions.
Today, some 12,000 wells produce about
30,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
When the oil comes out of the ground,
it is accompanied by large quantities of
brine. In fact, about 70 percent of the
fluid coming out of a well is brine, with
30 percent oil plus gas. As a general
rule, the oil is separated out, and the
brine is injected into the earth, either
for disposal or to increase the yield of
the well field.
If these injection wells are not properly
constructed, the brine may leak into
freshwater formations. Or, improper
operation may create pressures that
break confining layers and allow brine to
enter freshwater zones.
Osage County is primarily a rural area
with a total population of between
25,000 and 30,000 people. Of these.
some 3,000 are Osage Indians, and
10,000 are Indians representing about
50 other tribes. Many of these residents
rely on wells for their drinking water.
There is convincing evidence that
some individual and community wells
have already suffered damage from oil
field brines.
When EPA developed the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program under
the Safe Drinking Water Act, one
objective was to delegate implementation
of the program to the states. In the case
of Oklahoma, the program was delegated
to the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission.
But the Corporation Commission has
no jurisdiction over the Osage Mineral
Reserve. The Osage Allotment Act
authorized the Osage tribe to set leasing
policies and obtain royalties from oil and
gas production on the Reserve through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and that
means federal jurisdiction.
From the outset, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BLA) has regulated oil and gas
production on the Reserve through
permitting and field inspection
programs. The BLA also is responsible
for protection of freshwater resources
from oil and gas production activities.
In 1979, EPA began a series of
meetings with the Osage tribe and the
Muskogee Area Office of the BLA, aimed
at development and implementation of a
cooperative program to solve the tangled
jurisdictional problem and control
APRIL 1985
27
-------
Workers do maintenuncc check on oil
well in Osage County. Okla.
injection wells in the Reserve. The
following year, In a major step forward,
the Osage Tribal Council adopted a
resolution which sanctioned the
framework lor an EPA/BIA joint
agreement as well as a cooperative
agreement between the Tribe and EPA.
Under an Interagency Agreement
signed in May 1980 between the two
federal agencies, coordination of permit
procedures and data collection and
management was achieved, and
agreement was reached to share geologic
and hydrologic data. This working
relationship also covered areas of
technical assistance, staff training.
surveillance and investigation, and the
initiation of special studies.
In addition, a Cooperative Agreement
was signed with the Tribal Council,
providing for the tribe to share certain
administrative functions of the program
with EPA. Under this agreement, an EPA
field office was set up at the Tribal
Headquarters at Pawhuska. some 60
miles north of Tulsa, and grant funds
for support staff for both office and field
operations were provided. The Tribe
provides a variety of administrative
functions to support the field office.
Once these arrangements among the
three parties were in place, the
development of Underground Injection
Control regulations specifically tailored
to the Osage Mineral Reserve was
undertaken. The regulations were
published last November.
Those regulations include provisions
to meet EPA requirements and are
compatible with state regulations set
forth by the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission and the BIA regulations
already in existence.
But there are some provisions specially
developed to satisfy the concerns of the
Tribal Council. For example, one
provision applies to existing disposal
and enhanced recovery wells. For the
most part, these existing wells will be
regulated under general operating
requirements, and they will not have to
have individual EPA permits. (However,
all existing wells will undergo a technical
review and a mechanical integrity test
and will be required to meet stringent
operating standards. In wells where
specific problems are encountered, an
EPA permit will be required.)
The new program, now underway on
the Reserve, targets some 3.800
injection wells for increased regulation.
The program will have two major
impacts on ground-water quality. It will
prevent further deterioration from oil
and gas operations, and it will make it
possible for water quality in some
already damaged wells to improve
through dilution resulting from the
natural recharge of freshwater
aquifers. Q
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Update
A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control areas
AIR
Lead Phasedown
EPA has announced final
standards for cutting the
amount of lead used in gasoline
by 90 percent starting January
1, 1986. The agency's new
standard will limit the lead
content of gasoline to 0.10
grams per gallon. The current
standard allows 1.10 grams per
leaded gallon. EPA has also set
an interim standard of 0.50
grams per leaded gallon.
effective July 1. 1985.
Adverse health effects from
elevated levels of lead in blood
range from behavior disorders
and anemia to mental
retardation and permanent
nerve damage. EPA estimates
that between 1985 and 1992 the
new standards will result in
almost one million fewer
incidences of blood lead levels
exceeding 25 micrograins per
deciliter, the level recently
established by the Center for
Disease Control as a measure of
elevated blood lead levels.
The agency has also estimated
that the new standards will save
$6 billion over the same period
from reduced vehicle
maintenance, reduced levels of
exhaust emission pollutants (by
discouraging misfueling), and
lowered medical and
rehabilitative costs that result
from excess exposure to lead.
Emissions Standards for
Trucks and Buses
EPA has issued standards that
will significantly reduce nitrogen
oxide and paniculate emissions
from light and heavy-duty
trucks, as well as urban buses.
The new standards, established
under the Clean Air Act. will
become effective with the 1988
model year.
Particulate emissions remain
a serious air quality problem in
many major urban areas.
Heavy-duty diesel engines are a
major source of particulate
omissions, including the
smaller, fine particles that pose
the greatest threat to public
health.
EPA's action is considered
likely to result in a 50,000 tons
per year (46 percent) decrease in
urban diesel particulate
emissions by the year 2000. The
agency has estimated that
without these additional
controls, nitrogen oxide
emissions from all sources
would increase 23 percent
nationwide by the year 2000.
Bulkheads Proposed for
Uranium Mines
EPA has proposed a
requirement that large
underground uranium mines
install bulkheads to reduce the
release of radiation into the air.
The agency's proposed
work-practice standard would
require the sealing off of
mined-out and inactive mine
areas to reduce levels of
radon-222, a uranium decay
product. This sealing procedure
for unused areas is called
"btilkheading." Bulkheading
would allow radon-222 to decay
in the closed-off areas rather
than be discharged into the air.
Radon-222 is considered the
most significant radionuclide
emitted by uranium mines to
the above-ground air. It decays
into a series of short half-life
solid radionuclides that attach
to dust particles. These
particles, when inhaled, become
lodged in the lung and cause
irradiation, which increases the
risk of lung cancer.
GM Recall
The General Motors Corporation
is voluntarily recalling
approximately 290.000 1982
and 1983 vehicles to repair
catalytic converters that may be
defective. California vehicles are
also included in the recall.
The recall affects vehicles
equipped with 4.1 liter V-8
gasoline engines. The models
being recalled are the 1982 and
1983 Cadillac DeVille. Fleetwood
Brougham. Eldorado, and
Seville.
Owners of these vehicles can
identify their engine through
the vehicle identification or
serial number. The figure "8" in
the eighth position of the serial
number of these models
indicates that the vehicle is
equipped with the 4.1 liter V-8
engine.
HAZARDOUS WASTI
Superfund Reauthorizatioii Bill
EPA has submitted to Congress
President Reagan's proposal for
reauthorization of the
Superfund law, which is
formally known as the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
The proposed CERCLA
Amendments of 1985 would
allocate S5.3 billion to carry out
Superfund activities through
fiscal 1990. This would triple
resources available for
Superfund over levels authorized
when CERCLA was first passed
in 1980. In addition, the bill
would target those resources on
hazardous waste sites and
augment EPA enforcement
capabilities by increasing all civil
and criminal penalties.
Other key provisions of the
President's proposed Superfund
reauthorization include;
• Targeting Superfund over the
next five years at hazardous
waste sites, municipal arid
industrial sites with problems.
and sites regulated under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act but held by
insolvent firms;
• Increasing the maximum
criminal penalties under
Superfund to S25.000 and the
maximum civil penalties to
$10.000, as well as creating civil
penalties to augment criminal
sanctions where they do not
already exist;
• Establishing benchmark
cleanup standards at Superfund
sites and promoting permanent
cleanup solutions at sites:
• Guaranteeing a meaningful
role for affected citizens by
requiring that they be notified of
proposed cleanup action and
given an opportunity to
comment on proposed cleanup
decisions and alternatives.
Hazardous Waste
Ground-Water Task Force
EPA has formed a Hazardous
Waste Ground-Water Task Force
to evaluate all commercial land
disposal facilities that receive, or
may receive, Superfund or other
hazardous wastes. The mission
of the task force is to determine
whether these facilities are
meeting Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act regulations for
protecting ground water against
contamination by leaking
hazardous constituents.
The task force will evaluate
about 18 commercial hazardous
waste land disposal facilities in
1985. Approximately 41 other
such facilities will be evaluated
on an accelerated schedule in
1986.
Fred Lindsey from the Office
of Solid Waste has been
appointed director of the task
force. He and other task force
members at EPA headquarters
will coordinate each site
evaluation with task force teams
from the state and from the EPA
regional office where the site is
located.
The objectives of the task force
are to:
• Determine if there are
significant ground-water
management, contamination.
and compliance problems at
commercial hazardous waste
land disposal facilities, and take
enforcement or other
administrative actions to correct
these problems:
• Determine under what
conditions Superfund wastes
may be disposed of at the
facilities:
• Make recommendations for
long-range improvements in
ground-water regulations.
guidance, inspection
procedures, enforcement
actions, training programs, and
general program infrastructure.
Clean Sites Indemnified
EPA has agreed to indemnify
Clean Sites, Inc. (CS1). against
legal liability that may arise
trom its efforts to promote
cleanups of hazardous waste
sites. CSI is a private, non-profit
organization created to expedite
cleanups by encouraging private
parties to become involved In
the process.
Under this new agreement,
EPA will consider, on a
site-by-site basis, giving CSI
advance authorization to submit
a claim for reimbursement
should it be sued and held liable
for third-party injuries as a
result of planning potential or
actual cleanups of hazardous
waste sites. The agency would
pay such claims from the trust
fund established under the
Superfund law (CERCLA).
APRIL 1985
29
-------
Reporting Levels for Hazardous
Spills
EPA has announced final
reporting levels for 340
hazardous substances whose
accidental spill or release into
the environment has to be
reported to federal emergency
response authorities. The
agency has also proposed
reporting levels for 105 other
hazardous substances.
Under the Superfund law
(CERCLA), 698 hazardous
substances must be reported to
federal authorities when
accidentally spilled or released
into the environment (air, land.
surface water, ground water) at
levels at or above specified levels.
EPA's latest action formally
re-establishes or adjusts the
reporting requirements for 340
of these substances. The agency
has also proposed to raise,
lower, or re-establish reporting
requirements for another 105 of
the 698 hazardous substances it
regulates for accidental spills or
releases.
RESEARCH
Visiting Scientist Program
EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has
developed a competitive program
for bringing as many as ten
internationally recognized
scientists and engineers to its
laboratories for research in
environmentally related fields.
Scientists selected by ORD for
its 1985 Distinguished Visiting
Scientist Program will conduct
their research at one of 14 EPA
laboratories located in Research
Triangle Park, N.C.: Cincinnati,
Ohio; Las Vegas, Nev.; Athens,
Ga.; Corvallis. Ore.; Duluth,
Minn.: Gulf Breeze, Fla;
Narragansett. R.I.; and Ada,
Okla.
Successful candidates for the
program will be appointed for
terms of up to three years on a
full- or part-time basis. The
nature, location, and term of the
appointment—as well as salary,
travel expenses, and equipment
needs—are negotiable. They will
be tailored to the specific
research objectives of the 10
successful candidates, whose
names are expected to be
announced by May 1.
TOXICS
Union Carbide Fined
EPA has fined the Union
Carbide Corporation S3.9
million for delaying the
reporting to EPA of new
carcinogenicity information on
diethyl sulfate.
EPA's administrative civil
complaint charges Union
Carbide with delaying for over
four years the reporting of the
results of a study which showed
that diethyl sulfate causes skin
cancer in mice.
Specifically, EPA charges
Union Carbide with violating
Section 8(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
which requires any company
that manufactures, imports,
processes, or distributes a
chemical to immediately notify
the EPA Administrator if the
company obtains information
which reasonably supports the
conclusion that a chemical
poses a substantial risk of injury
to health or the
environment—unless the
company is sure the
Administrator already knows of
this information.
Information on 15,000
Chemicals
EPA is proposing to collect
up-to-date production
information on chemicals
manufactured in this country or
imported into the United States
at levels above 10,000 pounds
per year. The agency expects
this action to provide important.
updated information on
approximately 15,000 chemicals.
This information is the first
update of production data for
EPA's inventory of existing
chemicals in the United States.
The original inventory was
developed under authority of the
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and based on 1977
production information.
EPA is proposing to exclude
four categories of substances
from reporting requirements:
polymers (the basic molecular
ingredients in plastics),
inorganics (substances without
a carbon atom), naturally
occurring microorganisms
(bacteria, fungi, etc.), and
naturally occurring substances
(natural gas, crude oil, minerals.
etc.).
EPA has chosen to exempt
substances that fall into these
four categories for one of two
reasons: either because they are
of little health concern or
because the agency has
determined that it would be
more cost-effective to obtain
data concerning them via a
different mechanism.
Asbestos Training Center
EPA has opened its first formal
training center to help the
public identify and control
friable asbestos in buildings.
The Southeast Asbestos
Information Center is located at
the Georgia Institute of
Technology in Atlanta.
A major focus of the training
will be on proper control
techniques. In some cases,
careless asbestos abatement can
be more dangerous to public
health than leaving the
substance in place. The center
also will hold general awareness
courses for parents, school
officials, teachers, building
owners, and other laypersons.
The program will be carried
out In the form of a cooperative
agreement between EPA's
Region 4 office in Atlanta and
the Georgia Institute of
Technology. Georgia Tech has
received 8125,000 for operation
of the center.
WATER
Ocean Incineration Rules
EPA has proposed rules to
regulate the incineration of
liquid hazardous wastes at sea.
The proposed regulations would
provide specific criteria for the
agency to use in reviewing and
evaluating ocean incineration
permit applications for
incinerating wastes at sea. It
would also provide guidance for
the designation and
management of ocean
incineration sites.
The rules are being proposed
under the authority of the
Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as
amended. The regulations also
incorporate the requirements of
the London Dumping
Convention and adopt the
requirements for land-based
incineration of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
and the Toxic Substances
Control Act.
The public has until May 20
to comment on the proposed
rules. EPA is planning to hold
public hearings on the proposals
in April at the following
locations: West Long Branch.
N.J.; New Orleans. La.;
Brownsville. Tex.; and San
Francisco. Calif.
Treatment Plants Training
Compliance with the Clean
Water Act has shown significant
improvement at many
wastewater treatment plants,
thanks to a training program for
plant operators made possible by
special funding from Congress
since 1982.
The gains have been especially
marked at small treatment
facilities where states are
focusing their attention.
Forty-nine states and Puerto
Rico are now participating in
the training program.
EPA policy emphasizes that
effective operator training is of
paramount importance In
protecting the public's very large
financial investment in
wastewater treatment facilities.
Since the Clean Water Act was
passed in 1972. EPA has
provided more than $40 billion
in construction grants for
wastewater treatment. D
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Appointments at EPA
SelJ
Ravan
Jeter
Elkins
Sweeney
James M. Seif has been named
Administrator of EPA's Region 3, which
has its headquarters in Philadelphia. In
addition to Pennsylvania. Region 3
includes Delaware. Maryland, the
District of Columbia, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Seif replaces Thomas Eichler,
who has accepted an appointment to be
Secretary of Health and Social Services
for the State of Delaware.
Seif has been Regional Manager of
Government Relations for the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company's
Washington. D.C., region since 1983.
From 1979 to 1983, he was
Administrative Assistant to Governor
Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania.
In 1977 and 1978, Seif served as
deputy campaign manager for the
Thornburgh-for-Governor Committee.
Also in 1977 he was assistant general
counsel for the Rohm and Haas
Company of Philadelphia.
Between 1975 and 1977. Seif served
on the staff of the Assistant Attorney
General in the U.S. Department of
Justice's Criminal Division. From 1973
to 1975 he was Chief of the Legal
Branch of EPA's Region 3 office, where
he supervised the development of cases
involving all of EPA's programs and
developed enforcement guidelines and
procedures. From 1971 to 1973 Seif was
an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
Pittsburgh, where he concentrated on
litigation involving environmental
matters.
Seif received his B.A. in political
science and American government from
Yale University in 1967. He graduated
from the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law in 1971. Seif is a member of the
Pennsylvania Bar.
Jack E. Ravan has been named Regional
Administrator of EPA's Region 4 office
headquartered in Atlanta. Region 4
encompasses North and South Carolina.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
Ravan has been EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water since 1983.
During his two years in that position, he
has reorganized the Office of Water and
administered a number of programs of
national importance, including
reauthorization proposals for the Clean
Water Act, and creation of the Office of
Ground-Water Protection and the Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
Ravan previously was Administrator of
EPA's Region 4 between 1971 and 1977.
From 1977 to 1980 he served on the
executive management committee and as
director of business development for
Jordan, Jones & Goulding of Atlanta.
From 1980 to 1982 Ravan was Director
of the Alabama Department of Energy.
From 1982 until his return to EPA in
1983, he served as vice president, in
charge of project development, for the
Signal Clean Water Corporation of
Atlanta.
Prior to joining EPA for the first time,
Ravan was special assistant to the
federal co-chairman of the Coastal Plains
Regional Commission from 1970 to
1971. He also served as an
administrative assistant to Senator
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina
from 1969 to 1970. Ravan was a
technical manager with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
from 1968 to 1969.
A 1959 graduate of the U.S. Military
Academy, Ravan served for eight years in
the Army.
Charles R. Jeter, who has been
Administrator of EPA's Region 4 since
1981, has been appointed Special
Assistant for Ecology in EPA's Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation. He will
be based at EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Athens, Ga. In
his new position, Jeter will be
concentrating on programs associated
with water quality and wetlands, but he
will also focus on the interaction of EPA
programs with those of other federal
agencies as well as state and local
governments.
Jeter worked for the South Carolina
Department of Health and
Environmental Control from 1967 to
1981. He began as a staff chemist and
later became Director of the Industrial
Agricultural Wastewater Division and
then Chief of Wastewater and Stream
Quality Control.
Jeter received his B.S. in
Environmental Engineering from
Clemson University in 1963, and his
M.S., also from Clemson, in 1971.
Jeter is a past national President of the
Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators.
Charles L. Elkins has been appointed
Acting Assistant Administrator of EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation, replacing
Joseph A. Cannon who has resigned to
become a partner in the Washington
office of Pillsbury. Madison & Sutro,
where he will practice environmental
law.
This is the third time that Elkins, a
career EPA official, has been called upon
to serve in this capacity. As Acting
Assistant Administrator, he is
responsible for setting and enforcing
standards for national ambient air
quality, hazardous air pollutants, new
source performance, and prevention of
significant deterioration in air quality.
In addition, he is responsible for
establishing and enforcing emission
standards for mobile sources and for
establishing radiation standards.
Elkins' most recent previous
assignment in the Office of Air and
Radiation was as director of the acid
rain policy staff. He was a member of the
task force that advised President Nixon
to create EPA in 1970 and has served
the agency in various high-level
positions since that time.
Daniel S. Sweeney has been named
EPA's Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for Investigations. In this
position, he supervises and directs
investigative activities relating to
programs and operations within EPA as
required by the Inspector General Act of
1968.
Sweeney came to EPA from the
Department of Transportation (DOT),
where he served for the past year as
Director of the Inspector General's Office
of Washington Operations.
Prior to that, Sweeney was Director of
DOT's Office of Special Assignments. He
also held other positions in the Office of
the Inspector General and in the
Secretary of Transportation's Office of
Investigations and Security.
Sweeney began federal service in 1965
as a special agent with the Naval
Investigative Service, in which he served
until he joined the Department of
Transportation in 1972.
Sweeney, who graduated from Boston
College in 1960, received an M.A. in
Public Administration at American
University in 1969.
APRIL 1985
31
-------
Jordan
rrsnn
S/ictpln
Fullord
J. William Jordan has been appointed
Director of the Enforcement Division in
EPA's Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits. In his new position he is
responsible for directing a national
compliance monitoring and enforcement
program for the Clean Water Act and the
Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act.
For the past nine years. Jordan has
been Chief of EPA's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Technical Support Branch.
Jordan has been with EPA since its
inception in 1970. From 1970 to 1976
he worked as a Chemical Engineer in
the agency's Permits Division and served
as the national expert for permitting
steam electric power generation facilities.
Between 1968 and 1970, Jordan
served in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. For two years prior to joining
the Army. Jordan was a process
engineer for the Ethyl Chemical
Corporation in Baton Rouge. La.
Jordan received his B.S. in Chemical
Engineering from Mississippi Stale
University in 1966. He earned an M.S. in
Chemical Engineering at Louisiana State
University in 1968. In 1977 Jordan
received an M.B.A. from George Mason
University.
William M. Henderson has been named
Director of the Resource Systems Staff
in EPA's Office of the Comptroller. In
this position, which he has held on an
acting basis since November 1984,
Henderson is responsible for
implementing three programs at EPA:
the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act and internal control systems: OMB
Circular A-70. "Performance of
Commercial Activities": and Reform '88
and Grace Commission initiatives.
Prior to joining EPA. Henderson
worked for five years at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). From
1979 to 1982, lie served as Deputy
Director of the Debt Collection Staff in
OMB's Management Improvement and
Evaluation Division. Between 1982 and
1984. he was the Director of the Cash
Management Staff in the Financial
Management Division of OMB.
Henderson began his civil service
career in 1971 as an auditor at the
Department of the Treasury. From 1972
to 1974. he worked as a systems
accountant in the Special Financing
Staff of Treasury's Banking and Cash
Management Division. From 1974 to
1976 Henderson served as a bank
analyst and cash management specialist
in (lie same division. From 1976 to 1978
he was a fiscal affairs specialist in
Treasury's Office of the Fiscal Assistant
Secretary.
Henderson received his degree in
Business Administration and
Accounting from Brescia College in
1971.
Dr. Michael H. Shapiro has been named
Director of the Economics and
Technology Division in EPA's Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS).
He has served as Acting Director of this
division since the end of 1981.
As Director of the Economics and
Technology Division, Dr. Shapiro is
responsible for managing all economic.
chemical engineering, and industrial
chemistry analyses required to support
the activities of the Office of Toxic
Substances.
Dr. Shapiro joined EPA in 1980 as an
environmental engineer in OPTS. In
1981 he was appointed Chief of the
Regulatory Impacts Branch in OPTS.
From 1976 to 1980, Dr. Shapiro was
an Assistant Professor of City and
Regional Planning at Harvard University.
where he was awarded his Ph.D. in
Environmental Engineering in 1976 and
his M.S. in 1972. He received his B.S. in
Engineering from Lehigh University in
1970.
Donald W. Fulford has been named
Director of EPA's Office of Data
Processing at Research Triangle Park,
N.C. This position, which he has held on
an acting basis since 1983. gives Fulford
responsibility for managing EPA's data
center and telecommunications facilities
and for supporting all other
automatic data processing technologies,
Fulford has been with EPA since its
inception in 1970. His most recent
previous assignment within EPA was as
head of the Data Center Branch.
Fulford began his civilian government
career in 1966 with a position as
mathematician in the Department of the
Navy. Later he served as a computer
specialist in the Department of the Army
before joining the National Air Pollution
Control Administration in 1969.
Fulford earned his B.A. in
Mathematics from Atlantic Christian
A
Diamond
Morthole
College in Wilson, N.C., in 1965, and his
M.A. from East Carolina State in 1969.
Bruce M. Diamond has been appointed
Regional Counsel of EPA's Region 3
office in Philadelphia. As Regional
Counsel, Diamond will be responsible for
legal enforcement matters as well as legal
and policy advice to the Regional
Administrator and other senior
managers. He is returning to EPA after
two years as an associate professor of
law at Rutgers University in Camden, N.J.
Diamond first joined EPA in
September 1974 as a general
Attorney-Advisor in the Water Division of
the headquarters Office of General
Counsel. In 1978 Diamond moved into
the Toxic Substances Division at EPA
headquarters as Deputy Associate
General Counsel for Litigation. From
1979 to 1981. he served as the Deputy
Associate General Counsel for the
Stationary Source and Air Deterioration
Branch in the Air. Noise and Radiation
Division. In March 1981. Diamond moved
back into the Water Division as the
Acting Associate General Counsel.
Diamond completed his undergraduate
education at the University of
Pennsylvania, where he received a B.A.
in Biology in 1968. He received his J.D.
magna cum laude from the University of
Michigan Law School in 1972. He
worked as a law clerk in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit from
1973 to 1974. Diamond is a member of
the District of Columbia Bar.
Karl R. Morthole has been appointed
Regional Counsel of EPA's Region 9
office in San Francisco. As Regional
Counsel, Morthole will be responsible for
legal enforcement matters as well as legal
and policy advice to the Regional
Administrator and other senior
managers.
Morthole has been a general attorney
for Union Pacific Railroad Company in
Omaha. Neb., since 1978. From 1976 to
1978. he was in private practice in
Boston, Mass. He was an associate with
Hcrrick and Smith in Boston from 1974
to 1976.
In 1968 Morthole graduated magna
cum laude from Princeton University,
where he was a University Scholar. From
1969 to 1972 he taught at the Koaga
Harambee Secondary School in Meru,
Kenya. Morthole received his J.D. from
Harvard Law School in 1974. ( ]
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Two different generations enjoy a
springtime excursion on a creek in
Maryland.
Back cover: A butterfly alights on a
mountain laurel bush. Photo by T.C
Flanigan. < 1984, Folio Inc.
-------
F
*
\
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
------- |