United States
Environmental Protection
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 11
Number 8
October 1985

         Mysteries of the Atmosphere
         Another Challenge for
         Environmental Technology


                                         EPA's mobile incinenj/or in operation during u 1982 tricil Inirn in h'dison, \'J.
                                         The incinerator's saccess demonstrates how technology can help clean up the
                                         environment. (See story on pu»t! 17.)
and  the
   Behind (he cleanup of the
    environment stands a
powerful workhorse—
technology. This issue of
th<; EPA Journal examines
technology's role.
  EPA Administrator Lee M.
Thomas  sets a perspective,
explaining how science and
engineering are evolving
rapidly in support of cleanup
  A new research frontier at
EPA is featured in a piece
explaining how the everyday
world is being used as a
testing site to advance
environmental understanding.
  Other articles describe the
current technological effort to
clean up coal, developments
in techniques to deal with
hazardous waste, and modern
approaches  in municipal
waste-water  treatment.
  Congressman James H.
Scheuer explores the
changing relationship
between technology and the
environment. Scheuer is
Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Natural
Resources, Agriculture
Research and Environment.
  Also discussed in this
issue are the recent .success
of EPA's mobile
incinerator—the Blue
Goose—in destroying dioxin,
and EPA's use of an airborne
laser system to help solve air
pollution problems. From
EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory at
Corvallis, Ore., comes a
report on an innovative use
of computers.
  In other stories, a feature
describes how the New
England states have gotten
together to stop evasion of
hazardous waste disposal
rules. A new approach to
dealing with nonpoint-source
water pollution is reported.
An article explains what
scientists know about the
mechanisms that cause
  A photo essay features a
recent dive  by EPA scientists
in a submersible. The clivers
revisited an old dump site for
low-level radioactive waste
in the Pacific Ocean, 40
miles off the California coast.
  The issue concludes with
two regular  features—Update
and Appointments,  n

                               United States
                               Environmental Protection
                               Office of
                               Public Affairs (A-107)
                               Washington DC 20460
                               Volume 11
                               Number 8
                               October 1985
                           xvEPA JOURNAL
                               Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
                               Richard E. Sanderson, Acting 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.
Solving Tough
Environmental Problems
by Lee M. Thomas  -

Charting New Research
Frontiers in Chattanooga
by Jack Lewis 4

The Promise of
Cleaner Coal
by Julian Josephson 7

Deadline: 1990
by Suellen W. Pirages  '

Treating Municipal
Wastewater: Tradition
and Innovation
by Carl A. Brunner
Environmental Technology:
Old Disappointments
and New Hope
by James H. Scheuer  1

The Blue Goose Flies!
by Susan Tejada '

Lasers Help Unravel
Air Pollution Mysteries
by Donald  T. Wruble -

Using Computers to
Isolate Pollution Causes
by Karen Randolph

A Compact to Track Down
Waste Dumping Cheaters
by David Pickman
Speeding Water Cleanup
While Saving Money
by John Jaksch  and
Diane Niedzialkowski  2

How Chemicals
Can Cause Cancer
by Ronald W. Hart
and Angelo Turturro 26

Vigilance in the
Deep Sea Environment
by Margherita Pryor 2

Update ;il

Appointments at EPA
                               Front Cover; Sun behind clouds.
                               (See story on page 18 regarding
                               EPA's air pollution research with
                               laser beams.J
                               Design Credits:
                               Robert Flanagan;
                               Ron Farrah.
                               EPA Journal Subscriptions
  The annual rate for subscribers
in the U.S. for the EPA Journal is
$20.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is $25.00 a
year. The price of a single copy of
the EPA Journal is $2.00 in this
country and $2.50 if sent to a
foreign country. Prices include
mail costs. Subscriptions to the
EPA Journal  as well as to other
Federal Government magazines are
handled only by the U.S.
Government  Printing Office.
Anyone wishing to subscribe to the
EPA Journal  should fill in the form
at right and enclose a check or
money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents,
GPO, Washington, D.C. 20402.
 Name - First, Last
                                               PLEASE PRINT
 Company Name or Additional Address Line
 Street Address

|	I    Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)

M   Charge to my Deposit Account No	

Solving  Tough
Environmental  Problems
 by Lee M. Thomas
  It wasn't too long ago that the
   American environment seemed
 beyond repair. Downtown,  the air was
 so thick with smog that you couldn't see
 through it. The rivers were cesspools of
 floating sewage. Junk piles  were
 proliferating all over the landscape.
 Pesticides were killing off irreplaceable
 wildlife, and toxic substances in minute
 but dangerous amounts could not  be
 properly monitored, let alone managed.
  Now, 15 years after the founding of
 EPA, conditions are much better. We

 The public is  solidly behind
 the idea of scientific
 environmental management.
 have a long way to go before our
 surroundings become as clean and safe
 and healthy as we know how to make
 them, but we are on the road to
 recovery. The public is solidly behind
 the idea of scientific environmental
   Look how far we've come. Despite
 substantial increases in population and
 economic activity, despite millions
 more cars on the road, despite the
 continuing spread of exurban and
 recreational communities, we have seen
 steady progress in our efforts to combat
 surface-water pollution. The fish have
 returned to countless lakes and streams,
 and thousands of miles of
 once-contaminated rivers are open to
 swimmers. The changes in the urban
 atmosphere are even more obvious—the
 levels of almost all of the major
 pollutants have dropped, many
 dramatically, during the last decade and
 a half.
   These advances have been possible
 because of EPA's strict enforcement of
 environmental laws passed during the
  (Thoiims is Administrator <>! EPA.)
1970s. However, EPA programs don't
work in a vacuum; behind them lies a
largely  untold story of rapidly evolving
science and engineering. Without EPA's
health and environmental research,
sophisticated monitoring techniques,
and new control technologies, we could
not have accomplished as much in
protecting the health and heritage of the
American people. Our own findings are,
of course, amplified by the work of
academicians, environmentalists, and
industrial laboratories.
  To take one example of our progress,
the widespread installation and gradual
refinement of flue-gas scrubbers for
industrial and utility smokestacks
helped  cut ambient sulfur dioxide 36
percent from 1975 to 1983. Nitrogen
dioxide has come down more slowly,
but studies indicate that we may be able
to do better with computer-controlled
improvements in combustion
techniques. Meanwhile, stacks have
become less smokey in general due to
the installation of precipitators and
baghouses; particulates dropped 20
percent from 1975 to 1983.

 We must also look to science
for the ultimate solution to the
hazardous  waste problem.
  Automobiles pose a far less serious
problem today because of the
introduction of the catalytic converter in
the mid-1970s. Complementing these
engineered systems, by January 1, 1986,
we will have removed by regulation
more than 90  percent of  the lead
formerly used in gasoline.
  The nation's rivers have been a
special challenge because of the volume
and extraordinary variety of substances
dumped into them from  tens of
thousands of sources. Conventional
wastewater treatment technology has
always relied  upon screening, settling,
aeration, and chlorination to skim off
solids, clarify the water, and kill
infectious bacteria. But that is no longer
enough; EPA must regulate the toxic
compounds entering the nation's
waterways and aquifers as well.
Intensive research is under way to
identify and quantify toxics so we can
tighten our control measures.
  We must also look to science for the
ultimate solution to the hazardous waste
problem. Most communities are running
out of places to dispose of these wastes,
and under the 1984 amendments to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, they can no longer simply be
dumped, not even in controlled
landfills. Ironically, some wastes are
generated by systems installed to
prevent pollution of air and water. So
we are looking for breakthroughs in
safe, high-temperature incineration,
chemical treatment, and natural or
genetically engineered bacteria that can
digest toxics and excrete them in
harmless form. Initial signs are highly
  It goes without saying, however, that
studying pollutants individually, though
necessary, is hardly sufficient. We need
to analyze entire metropolitan regions
over long periods to determine how
pollutants interact and how various
strategies can minimize their impact.
Philadelphia and Baltimore have
pioneered in such research. Now
Chattanooga, Tenn., is working with us
to establish a baseline for the major
contaminants so we can follow them
over a number of years. The city and its
suburbs will be a living laboratory for
an integrated study of social, biological,
and physical aspects  of pollution in all
its complex forms. (See story on page 4).
  Environmental research is nothing if
not multi-disciplinary. It examines
everything from the fate of a small
biological community to the fluctuation
                                                                                                    EPA JOURNAL

                                                                              At EPA's Air and Knergy Engineering
                                                                              Research Lab in \orfh Carol)
                                                                              contract engineer Heggie Poive/1
                                                                              operates o  ivet scrubber pilot system.
                                                                              The system tises n mixture of'ivafc,
                                                                              limt'stone to remove sulfur dioxide from
                                                                              flue gases resulting trom <
                                                                              combustion. Technology dc;
                                                                              the lab and adapted by industry b
                                                                              limit gaseous pollutants in the
                                                                              of climate. EPA scientists study how
                                                                              pollutants are transported and
                                                                              chemically transformed in air, soil, and
                                                                              water; sometimes dispersed and
                                                                              sometimes concentrated by  industrial,
                                                                              urban, agricultural, or purely natural
                                                                              processes. Such observations determine
                                                                              who and what is exposed to danger.
                                                                              We know much more about
                                                                              how the environment works as
                                                                              a total biophysical system than
                                                                              we did 15 years ago.
                                                                              how intensively, and how long. With
                                                                              the facts in hand, we can then work out
                                                                              appropriate remedies.
                                                                                We know much more about how the
                                                                              environment  works as a total
                                                                              biophysical system than we did 15 years
                                                                              ago. EPA scientists have been in the
                                                                              forefront of this historic effort, both in
                                                                              the lab and in the field. Indeed,
                                                                              environmental research is one of the
                                                                              best examples of American leadership
                                                                              in world science generally. In applied
                                                                              environmental engineering we are, on
                                                                              the whole, far ahead of other industrial
                                                                              nations.  Yankee ingenuity is not only
                                                                              not dead, it's alive and well. It is
                                                                              solving tough problems and, not
                                                                              coincidentally, creating hundreds of
                                                                              thousands of  jobs.
                                                                                We still have a long way to go before
                                                                              the picture is complete, but in the
                                                                              course of the  next decade or two we
                                                                              may learn enough to design a system of
                                                                              environmental management that is less
                                                                              reactive and more proactive than any
                                                                              possible  today. That, in turn, would
                                                                              permit major  advances  in the protection
                                                                              of human health and the preservation of
                                                                              resources. From my vantage point, the
                                                                              prospects seem highly favorable, and we
                                                                              in EPA are anxious to get on with  the
                                                                              job.  a

Charting  New  Research
Frontiers  in  Chattanooga
by Jack Lewis
                                         AcriaJ vi>'\v o> Chattanooga. Lookout
                                         Mountain is in the background.
     Most people think of scientific
     testing as something very far
removed from everyday life. They
picture a scientist performing arcane
experiments in a laboratory filled with
test tubes and beakers.
  But what if the everyday world were
to become a lab? That is precisely what
is happening in Chattanooga, Tenn. EPA
has chosen this city from among 56
candidates to become the nation's first
Environmental Methods Testing Site
  This is not the first time a city has
served as a site for environmental
testing. What makes  Chattanooga—and
EMTS—unique is the duration  of testing
EPA has in mind, and the
unprecedented foundation of basic data
that will be gathered before testing
  For at least 10 years, and possibly as
long as 15, Chattanooga will be the
scene of a series of experiments, each
one adding another vital link to our
understanding of the environment.
  Before experimentation  begins, large
quantities of data will be gathered to
"characterize" the Chattanooga site.
Scientists  need such benchmark data
before they can set up their field tests,
and gathering it takes both time and
  The EMTS will offer scientists a set of
site characterization data unsurpassed
in the United States. Having exact data
on  pollutant loadings will do more than
save scientists time and money. It will
also improve the design of field tests  by

• How much new data should be
gathered by projected field tests.
• Whether computer mapping
 procedures can be constructed to
 predict the best locations  for field

 • What statements about  exposure can
 be  made on the basis of the data
 (Lewis is Assistant Editor of the EPA
Improved experimental design will
enhance the quality of field testing
methods and procedures. A fixed
location for experiments will also lead
to greater consistency.
  All the experimental advantages the
EMTS offers are certain to improve
EPA's understanding of the best means
of monitoring human exposure to toxic
substances. The Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976 charges EPA with
developing and improving methods  for
monitoring such exposure. The agency's
Office of Toxic Substances—in
conjunction with the Office of Research
and Development—decided that
selecting and characterizing a single
research site would greatly advance that
Chattanooga's biggest edge
was its inclusion in a veritable
treasure trove of computerized
Tennessee Valley Authority
  EPA will have priority access to the
EMTS, but other government
agencies—federal, state, and local—will
also have a chance to conduct field tests
in Chattanooga once the site is initially
characterized. One outside organization
has already been assured access to the
EMTS: the United Nations. The U.N.
Environment Program and World Health
Organization's Human Exposure
Assessment Location (HEAL) project
will be conducted in Chattanooga by
EPA. The Chattanooga HEAL site will
be one of only four such sites in the
  What factors have made Chattanooga
the focus for such intense scientific
research? EPA's EMTS Project
Coordinator Robert Jungers emphasizes
that Chattanooga was not selected as
any "dirty city showcase." Far from it,
in fact. Although Chattanooga once had
severe pollution problems, in recent
years the city has  made commendable
progress on all environmental fronts.
Chattanooga does  have measurable
pollutant loadings of the type scientists
need to study, but other American cities
have them, too.
  The main reasons for Chattanooga's
selection were altogether positive:

• A dynamic economy: Although still
heavily industrialized, Chattanooga is
forging a new economic position as a
major distribution center in the
Southeast. As EMTS Steering Committee
Chair Michael Dellarco puts it,
Chattanooga is making "an ambitious
and coordinated effort to improve its
economy and quality of life."

• Good location: Chattanooga's relative
isolation from other major population
centers makes it easier to get
measurements specific to the city. That
isolation does not cause inconvenience.
Transportation in and out of the city is
• A strong public health network at the
county level: Hamilton County, home
county of Chattanooga, has done its own
air pollution monitoring since the
1920s. The county also gained
experience as a site for EPA field testing
in the 1970s when the agency was
studying nitrogen oxides as part of the
Community Health and Environmental
Surveillance System program.
• Support facilities: EMTS experiments
can draw on the skills of commercial
engineers and technicians in
Chattanooga as well as those of
academic experts at the University of
Tennessee's Chattanooga campus.

And last but not least:
• Available data: Chattanooga's biggest
edge over its competitors was its
inclusion in a veritable treasure trove of
computerized Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) data. EPA estimates
that the existence of this vast computer
data base will shave an entire year off
the time it takes to characterize the
Chattanooga site.
  The long  process of characterizing the
Chattanooga site is already under way.
Even with the headstart from TVA, this
                                                                                                    EPA JOURNAL

demanding project will take a full year.
  EPA has contracted the site
characterization to the University of
Nevada's Environmental Research
Center (ERG). The Center will work
closely with EPA's Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las
Vegas. Computer experts at EPA's lab in
Research Triangle Park, N.C., will keep
track of the growing data base in  the
federal mainframe computers at the
National Computer Center.
  The most up-to-date computer
technology will be used to speed  the
EMTS site characterization. Consider
the ARC/INFO Georeferenced
Information System, better known as
"GIS." CIS gives scientists the power to
put spatial data into a computer data
base. That is a great leap forward,
because nearly all environmental  data
derive their significance from their
position on a map.
  As they are entered into the data base,
GIS data are categorized according to
"theme" and assigned to one  of many
layers in the computer's memory. Each
"theme" layer corresponds to a specific
data type: land use, hydrology, soil
type, etc. GIS permits scientists to
interact with all these stored data in an
endless variety of ways.
Never-before-possible correlations
involving data from many different
"themes" can now be done quickly and
printed out in handy map form. No
wonder words like "revolutionary" are
often used to describe the potential
impact of GIS.
  A quick look at the types of data
needed to characterize the Chattanooga
site bears out its spatial  dimension:

• Political boundaries
• Transportation systems

• Natural drainage patterns

• Streams, rivers, lakes
• Topography

• Land use
• Soil  type
• Census geography

• Sewage systems
• Drinking water distribution systems

• Location of large public buildings

* ZIP code boundaries
• Location of industries
• Location of environmental monitoring
• Demography

• Agricultural practices

• Climatology
• Concentrations of environmental
  Each of these "themes," once
programmed for Chattanooga on the
Georeferenced Information System, will
be a magnet for thousands of bits of
data: far more information than any
human brain can correlate, let  alone
  The EMTS site characterization team
will have  to locate all available data sets
pertaining to the Chattanooga Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, a 6-county
region that spills over the Tennessee
border into Georgia. A large portion of
this information exists only on paper,
buried in  the voluminous files of these
counties and states, as well as  in the
national files of EPA.  To  simplify the
process, no data earlier than 1980 will
be entered into the computer data base.

When no data exist for the years 1980 to
1985, the best available set of data will
be used.
  Compiling computer data bases will
also require a massive effort. The
Tennessee Valley Authority data base is
the prime candidate for inclusion, but
other needed information may come
from the computers of the Bureau of the
Census, the National Weather Service,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of Health and
Human Services, as well as from
existing data  bases at EPA. Fortunately,
the Georeferenced Information System is
readily compatible with other computer
data bases.
  EPA's Office of Toxic Substances
(OTS)  has a valuable data base to
contribute to the Chattanooga site
characterization. This is GEMS, the
Graphical Exposure Modeling System.
GEMS  already contains site
characterization data extracted from
many EPA data bases. OTS and many
other GEMS users across the country
use such data together with chemical
fate and exposure models available in
GEMS  to predict levels of exposure to
toxic substances. This innovative system
has attracted national, and even
international, attention over the past
five years.
  Many EM.TS experimenters will have
to wait until  every last detail  needed for
the site characterization has been
pinned down, and that can't be
expected before October 1986. Other
EMTS  projects have the green light,
however, because the data they are
gathering will make valuable
contributions to the site characterization
  A  case in point is the Office of Toxic
Substances' Pilot  Geocoding Project.
Scheduled for completion by  the end of
November, this project entails locating
emission sources  in Chattanooga using a
special means of analyzing aerial
   Another high priority project is the
 prestigious Human Exposure
 Assessment Location (HEAL) project for
 the United Nations. The HEAL project
 will generate an international data base
 of exposure and environmental
 monitoring data. The initial HEAL
 experiments at the Chattanooga site will
 generate data on several chemicals.
Chattanooga has the chance to
take environmental  science
out of the laboratory and into
real life.
  EPA's Office of Research and
Development and Office of Toxic
Substances are jointly leading the HEAL
effort in the United States. HEAL
projects are already underway  in Japan,
Yugoslavia, and Sweden. It is expected
that 12 to 15 nations will eventually be
part of the international HEAL network.
  Other projects already approved for
EMTS testing include:

• An Office of Toxic Substances pilot
test for monitoring levels of toxic
chemicals in fatty tissue. This national
survey will later be extended to human
blood and possibly mothers' milk.

• Phase 2 testing of the Total Exposure
Assessment Methodology (TEAM).
EMTS testing in Chattanooga will be
aimed at clarifying the differences
between outdoor and indoor toxic air
• Diesel engines and other sources emit
particulate matter into the air,  and
samplers are needed to monitor their
exact level. The EMTS will test particle
samplers developed by various

• The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
plans to conduct an in-depth
climatological study at the EMTS.

• Analyses of gases detected during soil
testing. Gases often emanate from
landfills and hazardous waste sites, of
which Chattanooga has its share.

• An evaluation of the merits of
Chattanooga's new drinking water
system technology.
  The final item on this list should
assure the citizens of Chattanooga that
EPA intends to be a good neighbor. To
promote better understanding and
communication, the agency has
included local as well as state
representatives on the EMTS Steering
Committee. This committee will screen
all proposals for projects to be
conducted in Chattanooga.
  But an EMTS experiment doesn't have
to have Chattanooga in its  project
prospectus to be pertinent to
Chattanoogans. Because of the  special
nature of the EMTS, all experiments run
at the Chattanooga site—even those
originating from abroad—will be
generating Chattanooga data, valuable to
Chattanooga residents, businessmen,
and government leaders. And EPA will
make every effort to tap the extensive
support facilities of Chattanooga in all
aspects of EMTS testing.
  The project also promises to bring
prestige to Chattanooga. Dr. Michael
Bruner,  Assistant Commissioner for
Environment in the Tennessee
Department of Health  and  Environment,
believes that the EMTS designation
gives Chattanooga "the potential of
developing into the national—and even
the international—center for
environmental methods  testing."
  Most important of all, the EMTS
project could provide  data crucial to the
formulation of new theories about the
effects of toxic substances  on humans:
how best to measure them, how best to
reduce or eliminate them.
  The daily life of Chattanooga can
proceed unchanged as scientists look for
new insights into these problems.  At no
risk or expense, and at little or no
inconvenience, Chattanooga has the
chance to take environmental science
out of the laboratory and into real life,
as a whole city becomes a  lab of great
value to scientists everywhere, Q
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL

                                      The  Promise  of
                                      Cleaner  Coal
                                      by Julian Josephson
                                         Coal is America's "good news-bad
                                          news" energy source.
                                        The good news is that it can be
                                      expected to remain a reasonably priced
                                      fuel over the next several decades—the
                                      time needed to develop renewable
                                      sources of energy on a scale large
                                      enough to meet the U.S. economy's
                                      needs. The bad news is that the
                                      expanded use of coal could cause
                                      additional air pollution because  of
                                      increased emissions of particulate
                                      matter (fly  ash and soot) and oxides of
                                      sulfur and nitrogen.
                                      The fly ash and soot are
                                      thought to contain trace
                                      amounts of toxic and
                                      cancer-causing substances.
                                        Coal combustion is a source of air
                                      pollution because of the composition of
                                      the coal and the manner in which it
                                      burns. Coal contains varying amounts of
                                      mineral  matter, including pyritic
                                      sulfur—the crystals of "fool's gold" one
                                      often sees in lumps of coal. It also
                                      contains organic sulfur bound
                                      up in its molecular structure. During
                                      combustion, the mineral matter fuses to
                                      become fly ash and  clinker.
                                      Incompletely burned coal forms  soot.
                                      The pyritic and organic sulfur oxidize to
                                      sulfur dioxide. Atmospheric nitrogen
                                      and oxygen combine under the high
                                      temperatures of coal combustion to form
                                      oxides of nitrogen.
                                        These materials do not affect only air
                                      quality and visibility. Atmospheric
                                      chemists now  believe that  oxides of
                                      sulfur and nitrogen combine with
                                      moisture in the air to form acid
                                      (/osephson is As.soddtc Editor of
                                      Environmental Science and Technology,
                                      a publication of the American Chemical
precipitation. Oxides of sulfur also form
sulfates which contaminate surface
water and soils, and can damage forests
and crops. The fly ash and soot are
thought to contain trace amounts of
toxic and cancer-causing substances.
  Because of these threats, existing
limits cm emissions of particulates and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) from stationary
sources, such as power plants, will
eventually be reduced further. Rules
sharply restricting emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) can be expected sooner
or later.
  To comply with present and future
emission  control regulations, the user of
coal has two options. One, presently the
most widely used, is to remove
particulate matter, SO2, and NOX  flue
gas generated when coal burns. The
other is to remove pollutants before they
are taken up in the flue gas. The first
option requires an elaborate installation
of gas-cleaning equipment; the second
consists of capturing pollutants during
the burning process or taking potential
pollutants out of the coal before it is
burned. Cleaning coal before or during
burning could reduce or eliminate the
need for gas-cleaning installations.

Cleaning Emissions
Before the coal is burned, it can be
pulverized and washed to remove
some of the mineral matter that
forms ash and pyrites that oxidize
to SO2. After the coal is burned,
particulate matter is captured with
either an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
or a fabric filter. An ESP charges  the
particles  electrically and catches  them
on plates of opposite charge. A fabric
filter collects the particles as though it
were a giant vacuum cleaner bag.
  The gas is then passed through a
"scrubber" in which a wet alkaline
material, usually lime,  removes the  SO2.
Fabric filters and ESPs can capture more
than 99 percent  of the particulate
matter. Scrubbers can achieve more than

                                                                               At t/u's potvrr plmit i/i Hit; southeastern
                                                                               ("m'trd States, uork is underway on
                                                                               instijlliii"        [as desul/urization
                                                                               H-'(,D't system to the hit of the chimney
                                                                               and. to the ri»iit. (in electrostatic
                                                                                    .li/dtor. T'his particular F(;/) system
                                                                               product's commercial .ynulc gypsum as
                                                                               (i bypmdurt.
A fabric filter collects the
particles as though  it were a
giant vacuum cleaner bag.
90 percent SO2 removal. Most do not
yet remove NOX, although technology
to accomplish this is developing
  Although gas-cleaning equipment has
performed successfully, it still has
several problems. For instance, an ESP
or fabric filter cannot catch all of the
solid particles. Small amounts of finer,
inhalable particles can escape to the air.
The solid material that is captured must
be disposed of in some way. This
problem could become more serious if
these solids are designated as a
hazardous waste.  A major problem with
scrubbers is that they are expensive and
energy-intensive. A scrubber can add as
much as 40 percent to the cost of a new
coal-fired power plant. Its operation can
consume up to eight percent of the
plant's output.
  Another difficulty is that scrubbing
SO2 with wet  lime produces large
quantities of sludge which must be
disposed of somewhere. At a coal-fired
power plant in western Pennsylvania,
the sludge is submerged in a large
artificial lake in which it settles to the
bottom and is  said to cause no
contamination  problem. At another
plant, proprietary materials are mixed
with the sludge to "fix" it in a
concrete-like material that can be used
for paving.
  Newer technologies in use or in
advanced stages of development bypass
the sulfite sludge  disposal problem.
They can also  produce marketable
byproducts whose sale partially offsets
the high capital and operating costs of
flue gas cleaning equipment.
  In one process developed in Japan,
SO2 is scrubbed with limestone over a
catalyst made of silver. The limestone is
converted to calcium sulfate (gypsum)
which is used to make plaster and other
building products.
  Other techniques do not use lime or
limestone. For example, at several
plants, flue gas is scrubbed with a
solution of caustic soda to produce
sulfur,  a marketable byproduct. In
another process, SO2 is captured with
magnesium oxide. After the sulfur is
removed, the magnesium  oxide can be
recycled to the flue gas cleaning system.
This process also produces sulfur of
marketable quality.
  Flue gas scrubbing technology for
removing both SO2 and NOX is coming
on line. One technique uses black
copper oxide to capture SO2. This
reaction produces copper sulfate which,
in turn, catalyzes the destruction of NOX
by ammonia and the formation of water
and nonpolluting nitrogen gas. Heating
the copper sulfate restores the copper
oxide and drives off SO2 in
concentrated form.  This concentrated
SO2 is  easily converted to sulfuric acid
or sulfur, both of which are always in
demand in many industries. A West
German process produces ammonium
sulfate, a fertilizer base, as the flue
gas cleaning byproduct.

Cleaning Coal during Combustion
Fluidized-bed combustion (FBC)
removes SO2 during combustion by a
process known as sorption. Coal and
limestone are crushed, then burned
together in a bed suspended in midair
by updrafts from below. As the coal
burns, the limestone captures, or sorbs,
the SO2. Suspending the coal-limestone
mixture on the updraft "cushion" makes
it look  like a flowing, bubbling liquid.
  FBC  takes place at lower temperatures
than those needed for conventional or
The development and
commercialization  of cleaner
ways to burn coal is going
"fixed-bed" combustion. Typical
temperatures for FBC are 750-950°C
(1382-1742°F); fixed-bed combustion
requires temperatures of 1400-15QO°C
  Because of these lower FBC
temperatures, no slag or clinkers are
formed from the mineral matter in the
coal. That makes the ash soft and easy
to handle. Lower FBC temperatures also
lead to substantial reductions in the
formation of NOx as well as the highly
corrosive vapors of alkali and metal
  Between next year and 1989, several
utilities in Colorado, Kentucky, and
Minnesota expect  to start up
fluidized-bed combustion boilers to
generate 100-160 megawatts of power.
About 20 U.S. and 32 foreign companies
are  vying to sell FBC  systems in what
they see as a rich market, and a number
of engineering firms are competing for
orders to design such systems.
  One problem with FBC is that most
systems use the limestone sorbent only
once to capture SO2, and then dispose
of it. However, scientists and engineers
are  developing sorbents that can be
regenerated and recycled. They are also
testing materials which can sharply
increase the efficiency of these sorbents.

Cleaning Coal before Combustion
This approach involves removing the
mineral matter that would  otherwise
become fly ash and SO2 before the coal
is burned. Among techniques in use or
being developed are simple washing,
                                                                                                        EPA JOURNAL

 Research Cornell
conversion of coal to gases and liquids,
and exotic procedures such as chemical
treatment and microwave separation.
  One coal-cleaning technology has
completed one year of successful
performance  at a 100-megawatt power
plant in California. Coal is reacted  with
steam and oxygen under very high
pressure, to form a mixed gas consisting
of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This
gas drives a turbine to generate
electricity; it  is then burned in a boiler
to make steam which drives another
turbine to produce more electricity. The
coal's sulfur combines with the
hydrogen  formed by the gasification
process. The  sulfur can be recovered for
possible sale. NOX formation is
inhibited because of lower flame
temperatures  and oxygen concentration,
and new burner and flame-shaping
  Solvent refining is another means of
cleaning coal. The coal is dissolved in
an organic solvent and heated to
750-850°F under pressures of 1800-2800
pounds per square inch. This process
forms hydrocarbon liquids and gases,
hydrogen sulfide, and water. The
hydrogen sulfide removes some of the
organic sulfur bound up in the coal.
Ash-forming  minerals and inorganic or
pyritic sulfur are also taken out. Pilot
studies of the process are being
conducted  in Alabama under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Department of
Energy, and several industry
associations and companies.

Why Not Full Speed Ahead?

The development and
commercialization of cleaner ways to
burn coal is going forward, and shows
promise for reduced air pollution and
acid deposition. But why are these
activities not  moving ahead at full
speed? One reason may be the present
glut and price softness of oil.  The
economic situation has dampened
incentives to  improve coal cleaning and
combustion technologies. However, the
petroleum oversupply cannot last more
than several years, at best. When oil and
natural gas supplies become short once
again, environmental regulations
governing the use of coal will not be
relaxed. Clean coal research,
development, and commercialization
must be accelerated so that coal and its
products can  tide the U.S. over between
the time oil and gas become scarce once
again and renewable sources of energy
become technically and economically
feasible for use on a large scale, n

Deadline:   1990
by Suellen W. Pirages
    Deadline: 1990. That is the year when
    land disposal of all hazardous waste
will come to a complete stop unless. . .
  Unless EPA has, by then, evaluated
all listed hazardous  wastes, determined
which ones should not be disposed on
land,  and identified  alternative
ways—either by incineration or
treatment—to manage those wastes.
  Congress imposed the 1990 deadline
on EPA  last year, when it reauthorized
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
  What  will happen if the land disposal
prohibition takes effect before sufficient
capacity to treat or incinerate hazardous
waste exists?
  Manufacturers will either have to
store their hazardous waste until such
capacity does become available,  or they
will have to stop producing goods that
generate hazardous waste.
Unfortunately, these goods include not
only exotic chemicals with which the
average  American is little concerned,
but also such essential items as
medicines and medical supplies and
such common everyday items as
automobiles, household plumbing
fixtures, paint, home computers, and
clothing. Obviously, if production of
these  goods were to  stop, the effect on
both manufacturers  and consumers
would be drastic.
  Can the congressional requirement be
implemented by 1990? Perhaps.  But
several factors will limit the ability of
both government and industry to restrict
certain wastes from  land disposal.
  Two inescapable realities confront
any attempt to ban land disposal of
hazardous waste. First, the residues of
some  industrial wastes will require land
disposal even after treatment.
  Both organic compounds and
inorganic elements are found in
industrial wastes.  Organic compounds
can be destroyed using existing
technology. But according to the laws of
physics, inorganic elements—which
occur  naturally in the environment and
include  lead, mercury, chromium,
cadmium, and  sodium—can never be
destroyed. The best option for managing

 (Pirages i,s Director  (if t/iu .Yntionul
 Solid Wastes Management Association's
 Hdzcirdoiis U'tisff! Prognim.)
these wastes is to solidify them to
minimize the possibility of future
migration, and to place them in a secure
  Second, even though alternatives to
land disposal are available now, limited
capacity for treating hazardous waste
could still make it difficult to meet the
1990 deadline.
  A recent  national survey conducted
for EPA indicated that, even as early as
1981, 66  percent of the total national
volume of hazardous waste generated
was already being treated. Furthermore,
an informal survey of selected
 No prudent businessman  in
 today's economy will expand
 investments into an area
 plagued by uncertainty.
commercial waste service firms revealed
that, of the untreated waste accepted at
disposal facilities, 30 to 60 percent was
pretreated at the facility before disposal.
  In addition to conventional treatment
options in use today (see Figure  1), new
developments to improve treatment
technology are emerging. Some of these
are refinements of existing technologies
that lead to more efficient destruction of
hazardous chemicals. Others involve the
development  of "high tech" innovations
that can reduce the hazard of chemicals
that previously were difficult to  destroy.
Figure 2 illustrates some innovative
technologies that have advanced beyond
the experimental stage and are ready for
investigation in larger demonstration
  But while commercial capacity for
treating industrial waste exists, it is not
evenly distributed throughout the
country. EPA  data suggest that unused
treatment capacity nationwide stands at
30 to 45 percent. Some regions of the
country use almost all their treatment
capacity, but others  do not. The greatest
unused capacity apparently exists in the
  Unavailability of nearby commercial
treatment facilities can force large
generators to ship their industrial
hazardous waste long distances for
treatment or to treat the waste
themselves; and it puts a real crunch on
medium and small generators who
cannot afford an in-house treatment

Barriers to
Increasing Capacity

There are three major barriers to
increasing commercial capacity for
treating greater volumes of industrial

Lack of adequate regulatory standards
inhibits both commercial expansion of
conventional treatment capacity and
capital investment in new technologies.
  Within the RCRA program, strict
standards have been developed only for
incineration and land disposal of
hazardous waste. Other treatment
alternatives are regulated only by the
Clean Water, Clean Air, and Safe
Drinking Water Acts, laws which do not
regulate a diverse range of hazardous
industrial chemicals.
  EPA plans to develop health-based
criteria with which to evaluate wastes
for restrictions from land disposal. Once
established, these criteria can  be used to
identify treatment standards for a broad
range of land disposal alternatives.
  Until then, however, no prudent
businessman in today's economy will
expand investments into an area
plagued by uncertainty.
  Figure 1.
  Conventional Treatment

  •  precipitation
  •  oxidation
  •  reduction—dechlorination
  •  photolysis
  •  stabilization/solidification
  •  aerobic/anaerobic
  •  land treatment
  •  liquid injection
  •  rotary kiln
  •  cement kiln
                                                                                                       EPA JOURNAL

S, MondShem
     Constraints on commercial markets
     arise from governmental actions at all
     levels. For example, many states and
     communities are attempting to restrict
     the movement of industrial wastes,
     either by preventing hazardous material
     transport through a city or by imposing
     high taxes on importation of hazardous
     waste for treatment and disposal. Some
     states attempt to impose differential tax
     rates on waste treated commercially and
     waste treated by a  generator. New
     mandates by Congress to minimize
     waste generation can lead to uncertainty
     about future volumes requiring
     management. Expansion of commercial
       Figure 2.
       Emerging Technologies
       • Water oxidation
       • Vertical-tube reactor
       • Pyrolizing rotary kiln
       • Penberthy pyro-converter
       • Plasma arc
       • High-temperature fluid wall reactor
       • UV photolysis
       • Pyroplasma processes
treatment technologies will continue to
be constrained until such trends in
taxation, transport, and composition and
volume of industrial waste can be
identified with greater certainty.
  Another major constraint to
development of  commercial treatment
capacity is the present slow pace of
granting government permits for
operation of a facility.  RCRA permits
must be obtained before construction of
new facilities  or expansion of existing
facilities. To date very few permits have
been granted.  Some have been finalized
for small treatment facilities in rural
areas, but virtually no  final permits
have been granted for large
multipurpose  management facilities
(i.e., facilities  with incineration,
treatment, and land disposal capacity
for treatment residues).
  Although EPA has stated that new
treatment facilities will receive high
priority in the permitting process,
evidence of this promised change is not
yet apparent. Since it takes time to raise
capital to invest in better treatment
processes and new equipment, the
longer the permit process, the greater
the delays that can be expected in
implementing land disposal restrictions.

Siting problems—the Not In My
Backyard, or NIMBY, syndrome—persist
today as strongly as ever. Various
                                                                                      An American ritual: watching TV on
                                                                                      Saturday morning. Production of nuiny
                                                                                      of the items in this room generates
                                                                                      hazardous tvustf. Those items include
                                                                                      the cnrprting. paint, ivooii stum.
                                                                                      television, and clothing, drapery, and
                                                                                      upholstery  fubrirs.
 models for an effective siting process for
 hazardous waste management facilities
 have been proposed, but to date none
 has been successful. Community
 resistance continues regardless of the
 type of facility being proposed. Between
 1983 and 1985, for example, 15  different
 proposals were made around the
 country for development of treatment
 and incineration facilities and small
 landfills for disposal of treatment and
 incineration residue. None of the
 proposals succeeded.
  But unless the United States returns
 to "caveman living standards," there
 will always be some volume of
 hazardous waste requiring treatment
 and disposal; it will not magically
 disappear. Each state and community
 must be willing to take some
 responsibility for its proper
  It is relevant to recall the experience
 of California. In 1983, California became
 the first state to prohibit land disposal
 of hazardous waste.  But this prohibition
 has yet  to be implemented. In fact, state
 officials recently called for an extension
 of the legislative deadline for
 implementation. A major reason for the
 delay is a lack of alternatives for
 managing waste. In California, as in the
 rest of the nation, permitting and siting
 problems have  hampered the
 development of facilities capable of
 using alternative technologies.
  The immediate future is not rosy
 regarding restricting certain hazardous
 wastes from land disposal, but it
 certainly is not hopeless. The ability to
 treat hazardous waste using
incineration,  and chemical and biological
 destruction processes exists.  Barriers to
a timely implementation of land
 disposal restrictions  are primarily
 institutional, not technological.
  EPA has a very complex and difficult
task before it. It may be necessary for
Congress to assist EPA and industry by
providing more time to promulgate
restrictions and develop alternatives for
land disposal, o
     OCTOBER 1985

Treating   Municipal
Wastewater:  Tradition
and  Innovation
by Carl H. Brunner
                                           A rotating biological contactor is a
                                           cost-effective municipal u-u.sfeivafer
                                           treatment system for smaller plants.
  J.Technologies" is the name of the
game as municipal wastewater pollution
control moves into its second century.
  Although the history of mankind's
efforts to get rid of liquid wastes dates
back to the sewer systems of ancient
Rome, it was not until well into the
nineteenth century that concern over
the detrimental public health impact of
such pollution led to significant
attempts to develop wastewater
treatment methods. Since that time,
there has been a continuing recognition
of new problems and of the need for
new approaches. EPA research has been
an important source of innovative,
cost-effective solutions.
  The earliest identified municipal
wastewater problems were the presence
of biologically degradable organic
materials and disease-causing
(pathogenic) microorganisms. In  1913,
for example, outbreaks of typhoid in the
Detroit area were traced to sewage
pouring into Lake Erie, Lake St. Glair,
and the Detroit River which joined
them.  The solution then was to relocate
the sewer outlets in relation to drinking
water  intakes. Today, wastewater
treatment technology is the answer.
  In addition to the health problems
caused by disease-related
microorganisms, scientists became
concerned about biologically degradable
organic; materials which caused a
number of problems in the lakes and
streams into which they poured. These
organics reduced dissolved oxygen in
the water to levels that caused
unpleasant tastes and odors and
prevented the existence of fish and
other aquatic plants and animals. These
problems are still important today.
(Dr. Brunner is Chief of (lie Systems
Engineering Evaluation Branch of I he
VVastewarer Research Division in KPA's
Water Engineering Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio.J
  By the 1960s, scientists had expanded
 the list of problem substances in the
 concern over clean water to include
 nutrients—mainly phosphorus and
 nitrogen—and refractory, or
 treatment-resistant organics. The
 nutrients stimulate excess growth of
 algae and other plants which not only
 cause aesthetic problems but also
 "choke" the affected waters by reducing
 dissolved-oxygen levels to the point
 where fish can not live. The refractory
 organics were suspected of including
 chemicals that were  toxic or otherwise
 harmful to humans. Continuing
Added to the problem of
pollution itself is the cost of
providing adequate municipal
wastewater treatment.
 improvements in analytic techniques in
 the 1970s and 1980s reinforced these
  Added to the problems of pollution
 itself is the cost of providing adequate
 municipal wastewater treatment.
 Progress towards the Clean Water Act
 goal of maintaining the "chemical,
 physical and  biological integrity of the
 nation's waters" has already cost
 billions of dollars. The technology
 required to curb pollution from
 household and commercial sewage is
 one of the major costs involved. EPA
 construction grants presently help
 communities  pay the price of
 state-of-the-art wastewater treatment
 plant construction, but escalating energy
 charges and other rising expenses keep
 increasing the cost of operating the
 plants. EPA scientists and engineers
 working on the development of
 innovative technologies must
 continually seek ways of getting more
 clean water for the EPA buck.
Responding to the Problem

Many of the wastewater treatment
techniques in use today are modified
forms of approaches developed by early
researchers, who took advantage  of the
ability of natural microorganisms to
degrade  organic matter  when oxygen is
present.  Today's activated sludge
process,  in which air is blown through
tanks containing the wastewater  and
microorganisms, and the process
whereby wastewater is  trickled over
beds of high-surface material covered
with microorganisms, are the
"traditional" biological  processes
considered conventional for removal of
organics and reduction  of pathogenic
  The battle against eutrophication—
the excess fertilization  that  almost killed
Lake Erie before massive wastewater
treatment intervention—was  first fought
by adding iron or aluminum compounds
to the biological treatment processes to
remove  phosphorus. Phosphorus was
targeted  because it was cheaper  to
remove than nitrogen. Most wastewater
treatment plants requiring phosphorus
removal  still use this chemical
  because it was found that some
microorganisms can,  under certain
conditions, absorb abnormally large
amounts of phosphorus, there has been
a growing interest in utilizing biological
methods. Some activated sludge
treatment plants have been modified by
adjustments in dissolved oxygen levels
to make  possible substantial phosphorus
removal  without requiring chemicals.
  Ammonia, another nutrient found in
wastewater, is a problem because it
reacts with oxygen and can deplete the
dissolved oxygen in surface waters.
Conventional biological processes have
been modified to  allow the ammonia to
be oxidized to nitrate. This method is
already being widely used.
  In the  1970s, there were a number of
new developments in response to the
need for more cost-effective,
                                                                                                   EPA JOURNAL


energy-effective technology. Use of pure
oxygen rather than air in the
activated sludge process was one. In
new or retrofitted plants, the size  of the
needed aeration tanks is halved.
Because of the cost and complexity of
producing the pure oxygen, this process
is better suited to large plants. For
smaller plants, a more appropriate new
system has been the rotating biological
contactor (RBC). This uses a series of
rotating plastic disks covered with
microorganisms, and functions much
like a trickling filter.
EPA research has been an
important source of
innovative,  cost-effective
Technologies Program
Clean Water Act amendments in 1977
led to the creation of the Innovative and
Alternative (I/A) Technologies program,
which accelerated the pace of
technology development and full-scale
evaluation. The amendments
encouraged use of not fully proven
systems that were potentially beneficial
and cost- and energy-effective.  Increased
federal sharing in the  costs of
construction and modifications—if the
new technology  didn't work
properly—was a major new incentive.
  The I/A program has produced
important changes in municipal
wastewater treatment and accelerated
utilization of research results. A very
significant change has been the
widespread adoption of such alternative
technologies as land disposal techniques
for wastewaters and sludges. Such
treatment allows the wastewater to
infiltrate the soil or run over sloped
surfaces. Infiltration can produce a very
high quality water for aquifer recharge
or other uses. Overland flow lets
biological pollutant removal occur at the
ground's surface and produces water
similar in quality to that from
conventional treatment. Such systems
are being used at  more than 150 sites
under the I/A program.
  More than 200 alternative collection
projects have been funded under I/A,
resulting in combined savings of more
than $100 million to small
communities. The majority of these are
pressure sewers, but there are also
small-diameter gravity sewers which
accept septic-tank effluent, and vacuum
  The program has also helped
accelerate adoption of energy-saving,
fine-bubble diffuser technology in
activated sludge processing. Replacing
large, or coarse, bubble aeration systems
with fine-bubble units equipped with
individual air flow control devices can
save as much as 50 percent on aeration
energy requirements. Virtually all new
aeration construction is expected to
involve some form of fine-bubble
  Disinfection technology, too, has
advanced significantly under the I/A
program. Until recently, chlorination
was virtually the only method in use,
but concern about the appearance of
harmful chlorinated organics in
municipal wastewater led to the quest
for other approaches. Over the last 10
years, EPA has played a major role in
the development of ultraviolet light
disinfection as a low-cost alternative to
chlorination by supporting research and
demonstration projects and funding
facility construction. Ultraviolet
disinfection systems are being utilized
at over 50 wastewater treatment plants.
  The treatment and disposal of sludge
left over from biological wastewater
treatment plants can represent as much
as half the  total treatment cost.  What's
more, the amount of sludge being
treated—currently about seven million
dry tons annually—is steadily
increasing and there are significant
changes in the way it is being handled.
About a quarter of the residual sludge is
being applied to the land as fertilizer
instead  of being incinerated  or dumped
in landfills. Properly done,  the
agricultural application of sludge
reduces the need for chemical
fertilizers. Composting of sludge to
produce a soil enhancer for lawns and
gardens is also increasing. The number
of treatment plants composting sludge
has increased from 10 to 50 in the past
                   Continued to next page

  Although much of EPA's effort in
developing wastewater treatment
technology focuses on communities
with centralized systems, agency
research and development has not
overlooked the 25 percent of our
population not served by sewers. Some
of the new collection methods
developed under I/A are making
practical the use of sewers in many
such areas. Improvements have been
made in the septic tank soil absorption
system. Where even septic tanks are not
practical, research has developed
improved methods of wastewater
disposal such  as:

• Mound systems, where the
ground-water level is too high or the
aquifers unprotected.
• Evapotranspiration beds in arid
regions with unsuitable soils.
• Improved sand filter designs which
permit high quality on-site treatment for
direct disposal to surface water where
soils are unfit  for infiltration.

• Wastewater  segregation  and
conservation techniques which can
extend the lives of marginally failing
conventional backyard  systems.

Toxics Control

Treatment systems have always
coincidentally removed toxics from
wastewater. Recently, however,
municipal wastewater treatment
objectives have begun to move beyond
control of "traditional" pollutants to
encompass specific individual toxics
and overall biological toxicity caused by
the complex mixture of materials found
in wastewater. This added dimension,
which is evolving as a national policy
for the development  of water
quality-based permit limitations for
toxic pollutants, recommends an
integrated approach using both specific
chemical analyses and  biomonitoring
with appropriate bioassays.
  Pollution control based upon toxics
leads logically to a broad systems
engineering approach in which tradeoffs
between municipal and industrial
treatment to attain water quality goals at
minimum cost must  be considered.
Modern, automated process controls
will be a necessary tool in applying this
approach. While such effective
Photomicrograph D? \(« 
Environmental  Technology
Old  Disappointments
and  New  Hope
 by James H. Scheuer
  In the early 1970s, the relationship
   between technology and the
environment seemed simple and
obvious. Bad technologies were the ones
that polluted the environment; good
technologies were the ones that did not
pollute, or ones which cleaned up after
the bad technologies.
  The solution to pollution seemed
equally obvious: we ought to set clean
air and clean water standards, and
replace the polluting technologies wih
ones that could meet those standards.
This simple faith in the ability of
technology to deliver us painlessly into
a pristine future resulted in provisions
requiring industries to install the "best
available technology" to control
We clearly underestimated the
difficulty in cleanup.
  That early faith in technology was a
product of the boundless optimism in
our economy that pervaded the nation
in those years. Americans had the sense
that we could solve all our problems by
simply calling on American science and
engineering. After all, as the cliche'
went, if we could send a man to the
moon, why couldn't we clean up our
planet? In a time when double-digit
inflation and the Japanese trade
invasion were unimaginable, we had
faith in the ability of American industry
to absorb any necessary costs that might
result from pollution controls. Certainly
 (Scheuer is Chairman of tht: ffou.si;
 Subcommittee on NuturoJ Resources.
 Agriculture Research and Environment.
 in the Committee on  Science mid
 Technology. He is a Democratic
 Congressman representing the flth
 District of New York.)
it should not be too difficult or
expensive for industry to find a way to
stop spewing pollutants into the air and
water. Certainly the engineering talent
in our automotive industry could come
up with an innovative way to cut
emissions from auto exhausts.
  Fifteen years and over $500 billion
dollars later, we remain far from the
vision of fishable and swimmable
waters and clean, healthy air that
guided Congress' actions in the early
1970s. We clearly underestimated the
difficulty in cleanup. Deadlines in
several of our environmental statutes
have been reached, extended, and
reached again. Making a bad situation
worse, the very nature of the problems
we are now facing has changed. Today,
we must deal with a veritable "alphabet
soup" of toxic chemicals, heretofore
unheard of by the public.
  Our early faith in the bright promise
of technology was not altogether
misplaced. Much of the progress made
in cleaning up our air and water is
indeed  due to significant technological
developments and improvements, such
as scrubbers and catalytic converters. It
is also clear that developments in
technology will play an even more
important role in the future in
addressing critical environmental issues
such as acid rain and hazardous waste
  But plainly our early assumptions
were faulty. Part of the problem
stemmed from our failure to take to
heart the lessons of ecologists that the
environment must be viewed as a total
  The distinction between "good"
technology and "bad" technology
rapidly eroded as we began to realize
that, in reality, technology often created
new problems or presented a variety of
trade-offs. We embraced technologies
which cleaned up  one part of the
environment at the expense of another.
Tall stacks meant to meet Clean Air Act
requirements improved local air quality,
 but contributed to long-range acid
 deposition. Treatment technologies used
 to remove pollutants from water at
 sewage treatment plants cleaned the
 water, but released the pollutants
 directly back into the air. To clean up
 surface waters, hazardous wastes
 formerly discharged into water were
 stored at dumps, which subsequently
 leaked and contaminated ground-water
 sources  across the country.
  Technology also had the confounding
 effect of uncovering "new" subtle,
 pervasive, and threatening forms of
 pollution. Thanks to the rapid
 development of analytic technology, we
 became  able to detect and measure toxic
 substances at ever lower levels of
 concentration, down to a few parts per
 trillion.  As the threshold of detection
 increased, the apparent dimensions of
 the toxic contamination problem
 increased as well.
Technology also had the
confounding effect of
uncovering  "new" subtle,
pervasive, and threatening
forms of pollution.
  Ground water, which many scientists
 had believed only a few years ago to be
 protected from pollution, instead was
 found in many instances to be
 contaminated with a wide range of
 pollutants. The Congressional Office of
 Technology Assessment has identified
 over 200 substances found in the
 nation's ground water. Similarly,
 improvements in monitoring devices
 helped reveal the potential hazards of
 exposure to contaminants, such as
 formaldehyde and radon, found in
 indoor environments.
  Over the last 15 years, our faith in
 technology has waned.  While
 Americans have been quick  to embrace
 the comforts and protections afforded by

technology, we have nursed a quiet
democratic distrust of elites of any sort,
including the technological elite. As
technology has proliferated over the last
20 years, touching every aspect of our
everyday lives, it is not surprising that
many citizens are increasingly
distrustful and suspicious of technology
which they cannot understand or
control. Cars stuffed with  byzantine
emission control equipment can't be
fixed even by the most ardent
do-it-yourselfer; consumers erroneously
dunned by bill-collecting computers
can't find a "real person"  to set the
matter straight.
  That distrust is not altogether
unwarranted. Compiling a list of
incidents which engineers and scientists
said could not happen is not a difficult
  Three Mile Island was an accident
which engineers performing elaborate
risk analyses concluded was statistically
impossible. Yet despite numerous
mechanisms designed to ensure the
safety of the plant, recent  investigations
show that the core of the Three Mile
Island reactor came perilously close to a
meltdown, closer than any scientist or
engineer thought even theoretically
possible at the time of the accident.
  Similarly, for decades, scientists
believed that ethylene  dibromide (EDB)
was safe to use as a pesticide because it
was volatile and would leave no residue
on  food. Only in the late 1970s did
researchers discover that EDB  did not in
fact dissipate, and that large quantities
of flour and other grain were
contaminated. The discovery that EDB
could also leach into ground water came
as a further surprise a few years later.
  More recently, a sophisticated
computerized system installed at Union
Carbide's Institute, W. Va., plant to
warn the community in the event of a
toxic chemical release  failed to work
when toxic rnethylene chloride was
accidently released at the  plant, despite
the high priority given to  the system by
the company in the wake  of the Bhopal
  It is not astonishing  that the public is
skeptical of statements from scientists
working in the area of biotechnology
that the development of new
genetically engineered organisms  pose
no  threat to the environment or human
  While engineers and scientists are
loathe to admit it, the fact is that they
have no special exemption from
Murphy's Law. Yet the failures
mentioned above, and  numerous others,
have not stemmed from a  failure of
technology per se. By and large, the
tools, machines, and computers—the
hardware, if you will—have behaved as
they were designed or programmed to
  Rather, the failures have often come
from human error, such as the case of
Three Mile Island, or from a tendency of
scientists and engineers to
underestimate the complexity of the
natural ecosystems within which they
are working. Perhaps part of this
tendency is caused by the nature of the
scientific method, which requires  the
careful observation of a  few variables at
a time under controlled  conditions.
Nature, however, is rarely content with
the simplicity of laboratory conditions,
and scientists and engineers sometimes
fail to appreciate potential interreactions
or uncertainties about the particular
ecosystem involved.
  And yet it is precisely technology
itself which holds out the best hope for
our ability to understand and analyze
the environment from an integrated and
holistic view. Remarkable developments
in satellite  remote sensing, for example,
can help  build a much better
understanding of the interplay of
environmental factors over  large regions
of the earth. The truly global nature of
many environmental problems—and the
global nature of any solution—is being
documented by this new tool. At the
other extreme of the scale, sophisticated
new research tools make it possible for
us to measure and manipulate biological
and ecological activities at the cellular
level, helping us to  understand the basic
processes which must be known and
understood to create an  effective and
total view of the environment.
  Finally, and perhaps most
 The Three Mile Island Nudear Station.
 located on the Susquehanna River south
 of Harrisburg. Pa. According (n
 Congressman Scheuer, the 1979
 accident at Three Mile Island — an
 accident that supposedly was
 "statistically impossible" •— is one
 reason why Americans  liuvo become
 "distrustful and suspicious of
importantly, the development of new
generations of supercomputers creates
the possibility of building complex
models of the environment which can
integrate the new wealth of information
and begin, for the first time, to
approximate nature's own complexity.
  Such developments will be necessary
if we are to solve the great global
environmental issues—acid rain,
desertification, deforestation, loss of
species, and the depletion of natural
resources—that will surely demand our
attention well  into the next century.
  In recent years, Congress1 view of
technology and its ability to bring us
effortlessly to a pristine  environment
has been tempered with a more accurate
vision of the limits and  perils of
technology. We certainly know now that
technology by itself will not solve our
environmental problems; what is
perhaps most needed is  an improvement
in our human  vision of  the
interrelationship of the vast array of
component elements which make up
our environment. But it  is equally
evident that without technology, even
inspired  human vision will be unlikely
to create the cleaner and healthier
environment we all seek. Q
                                                                                                          EPA JOURNAL

 The  Blue  Goose  Flies!
 by  Susan Tejada
  In the January-February 1985 issue of
   the EPA Journal, Rowena Michaels,
 Public Affairs Director of EPA Region 7,
 reported on an upcoming experiment in
 southwest Missouri. In a field test in
 Barry County, Mo., EPA's mobile
 incinerator, known as the "Blue Goose,"
 would be used to burn some of the
 dioxin-contaminated waste that had
 been spread years earlier at more than
 40 locations throughout that  part of the
   "Upon successful completion of the
 project," Michaels wrote, "we will have
 demonstrated that no harmful
 contaminants entered the environment
 by any route from the process . . . We
 will have successfully, safely destroyed
 Agency officials declared the
 tests were a  "major
 breakthrough" in  efforts to
 find solutions to the dioxin
   This summer, EPA announced that
 the trial burns had succeeded. Final
 results showed that the system
 destroyed or removed 99.9999
 percent of wastes contaminated with
 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the most toxic form of
 dioxin, and that there were no
 detectable traces of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the
 system's flue gas emissions, kiln ash, or
 scrubber-water effluent streams.
   Michaels' prediction had come true.
 The Blue Goose had worked. Agency
 officials declared the tests were a "major
 breakthrough" in efforts to find
 (Tejada is Associate Editor of the EPA
solutions to the dioxin problem.
  The mobile incinerator was conceived
in 1976 by the EPA Office of Research
and Development, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
in Edison, N.J., and built by
outside contractors. Its effectiveness had
been documented in a series of trial
burns with fuel oil, iron oxide, carbon
tetrachloride, o-dichlorobenzene, and
PCBs in 1982 and 1983, and at the end
of 1984 it was moved for dioxin testing
to Missouri.
  Four dioxin trial burns took place in
the state between February and April.
1985. EPA's Environmental Monitoring
System Laboratory in Las Vegas
compiled results of the tests from more
than 15,000 pages of analytical data.
  The incinerator processed 1,750
gallons of liquids and more than 40 tons
of soil contaminated with dioxin,
destroying a  total of 3.84 pounds of
2,3,7,8-TCDD.  Emissions from the
system met and exceeded all federal and
state requirements for the incineration
of the dioxin-contaminated  material.
  Because the mobile incinerator
burned the 2,3,7,8-TCDD so completely,
EPA has proposed to de-list, or
designate as not hazardous, the residues
from future burns in the incinerator.
  Despite the incinerator's success, use
of the system is not practical at certain
sites such as Times Beach, Mo., where
dioxin contaminated an estimated
400,000 tons of soil. Since the unit was
developed for mobility, its capacity is
restricted by design requirements that
had to satisfy "over-the-road"
limitations. Generally, the unit can
process up to one ton of contaminated
solids per hour and up to one gallon of
contaminated liquids per minute.
  Although not suited for Times Beach,
the Blue Goose can  be used at other
sites around the country with more
limited amounts of dioxin
contamination. The unit cuts waste
transportation and storage costs and,
since it operates on-site, it eliminates
the possibility of accidental spills
occurring in transit to a landfill.
Generally, the unit can
process up to one ton of
contaminated solids per hour
and up to one gallon of
contaminated liquids per
  In an article on the development of
the incinerator that appeared in 1982,
the EPA Journal stated: "The mobile
incinerator was the first of its
kind .  . .  EPA is counting on the
ingenuity of American industry to
produce future generations of this
technology." In fact, a number  of major
waste  management  companies  have now
indicated that they  are interested in
building similar units.
  Scientific data, reports, and permit
materials relating to the  mobile
incinerator are  available on request from
James  Yezzi, U.S. EPA, Releases Control
Branch, Woodbridge Avenue, Edison,
N.J. 08837. a

Lasers  Help   Unravel
Air  Pollution   Mysteries
 by Donald T. Wruble
                                       LkJar "slice?" of the atmosphere above a
                                       Southern QiJif'ornin mountain nmge.
                                       Darker portions slum1 ureas o\ j>rea,s, N'ev.)
smoke, and gas molecules absorb and
scatter the light. A portion of the light
pulse is scattered directly back to a
telescope. The telescope, pointed along
the laser light beam path, focuses the
scattered light on electronic detectors.
The detectors convert the scattering
intensity into a "picture" of the air
contaminants the beam has
  Various government, university,  and
private groups around the world are
using ground-based lidar to conduct air
pollution research. EPA is  one of the
few organizations to use airborne lidar.
(Only two other groups in the United
States employ such systems. SRI
International operates an airborne
system for various public and private
organizations, including the Electric
Power Resources Institute. The National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) conducts research to develop
lidar systems for global air monitoring
from satellites.)
  The EPA airborne lidars are dedicated
to research studies to help EPA and the
states understand the sources, chemical
and physical transformation, and
Curt Edmonds, KPA computer
electronics engineer, examines video
display ol airborne lidtir collection
transport processes of air pollutants.
The research data are used to develop
pollution-control plans as well as add to
our understanding of air pollution.
  During operation of the EPA lidar,
every second or two  a laser emits
extremely short pulses of light (lasting
17 billionths of a second) toward the
ground through a hole cut in an
airplane floor. The beam spreads out as
it travels downward to ensure that the
laser light energy at ground level will
not cause eye damage to an observer
who  might be looking straight up at that
  As each short pulse of the laser beam
light travels downward, the amount of
particulates or gases  the light pulse
encounters affects the degree of
absorption or scatter. When the beam
strikes the ground, an even greater
portion is reflected back to the aircraft.
The light that travels back to the aircraft
                                                                                                     EPA JOURNAL

is "collected" through the telescope, and
the beam intensity and time-for-return
are measured continuously with a
complex ultra-high speed electronics
  Since light travels  at about 186,000
miles per second, super-fast electronics
and onboard computers are required to
differentiate how long a portion of the
beam traveled outside the aircraft and to
determine how far from the aircraft a
given group of scattering particles were
encountered by the beam. This system
was developed by EPA engineers and
computer scientists to enable handling
the immense amount of electronic data
produced at "the speed  of light." In the
airplane cabin, the electronic results of
each laser pulse are displayed
side-by-side on a video  screen. The
operators see a "slice" of atmosphere
showing lighter and  darker areas that
portray particle or gas concentration and
distribution below the aircraft.
  Without this system, an armada of
airplanes flying simultaneously at
various altitudes collecting air samples
one after another could  only begin to
collect a comparable number of air
samples to describe the  aerosol
distribution, not to mention the years  of
laboratory analysis that  would be
required to determine the sample
constituents. With the airborne lidar, all
this is accomplished within a few
micro-seconds. Multiple flight paths
across an urban or regional area can
produce data that describe the
transport and transformation  of particles
and gases found in that  atmosphere.
  Importantly, the data  provide an
extensive three-dimensional picture of
an air mass, not  just  an  estimate such  as
would be gathered with only ground
sampling stations and weather
information. The "slices" can be studied
either visually or with much  greater
sophistication using  computer analysis
techniques. In this manner, EPA
scientists develop detailed mathematical
models of air pollutant transport over
mountains, cities, and countryside,  or
assist state air pollution officials in air
pollution control planning.
  Research studies in 1985 include:

• Mapping smoke plume from burning
rice fields in the Sacramento Valley of
California. After harvest, the rice fields
are burned to prepare them  for the next
crop.  This burn-off can create extensive
smoke through a large area.
Understanding smoke transport paths in
different weather conditions enables
farmers to plan burning periods during
weather that  will carry most of the
smoke away  from residents  in the area,
• Mapping particulates associated with
photochemical  oxidants in air over
Ventura and  Santa Barbara counties in
California. Lidar mapping allows
assessment of the contribution of
hydrocarbon  gases from offshore oil
drilling to onshore air pollution.
Understanding the amount of pollution
from this  source versus  pollutants from
automobile exhausts is important  for air
pollution  control planning.

• Mapping transport and diffusion of
airborne particles in the Midwest
(Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana). Tracking
these  manmade particles helps EPA
meteorologists develop mathematical
models describing movement of air
contaminants that may combine with
moisture to create acid rain.
  In order to  study acid rain origins
from air pollutants, scientists at the Las
Vegas laboratory are working on the
next generation lidar, called  an
ultraviolet differential absorption lidar.
This lidar will use a new technology
laser,  called an excimer laser. NASA
scientists  are  cooperating in  this
development  which will enable
simultaneous measurements  of ozone
and sulfur dioxide, as well as
particulate aerosols in the atmosphere.
  Dr. Jim  McEIroy, who heads the
laboratory's lidar research program, is
enthusiastic about the use of lidar to
help answer many of the research
 questions about air masses producing
 acid deposition. "We have an
 opportunity to capitalize on a space
 age technology development and apply
 it to an environmental problem that can
 affect us all. Airborne lidar can help us
 locate sources of air pollutants leading
 to acid rain, help us follow pollutant
 paths across the country, and help us
 understand the air flow patterns that
 determine areas of lakes and forests that
 are affected."
We have an  opportunity to
capitalize on a space age
technology development and
apply it  to an environmental
problem that can affect us all.
  Airborne lasers can be used to test
lake waters for changes resulting from
acid rain. Dr. Mike Bristow, an optical
physicist at the Las Vegas laboratory,
has pioneered development of an
airborne laser fluorosensor. This system
uses different laser wavelengths that
create fluorescent light when the beam
strikes dissolved matter in water in
lakes below the aircraft. This fluorescent
light travels back to the aircraft to  be
electronically processed in a similar
fashion to that of the lidar. As the
aircraft  flies several paths across the
lake, the distribution of dissolved
organic material across the lake is
mapped. These and other data are
computerized to assess acidity changes.
  Dr. Bristow is working with Cornell
University scientists who  have made
recent discoveries in spectral analysis of
laser fluorescence using laboratory
water samples. By marrying this
technique to  EPA's airborne laser
fluorosensor, Dr. Bristow hopes to  equip
EPA with an advanced technology
system for monitoring acid rain impact
on lakes across the United States,  a

Using  Computers  to
Isolate Pollution  Causes
by Karen Randolph
   A'>out 20 years ago, peopie began
     noticing a deterioration of
vegetation in the path of emissions of
pollutants such as sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and ozone. But these
emissions were only a few among scores
of variables that could be causing the
damage. How to isolate the real
  At EPA's Environmental Research
Laboratory in Corvallis, Ore.,
answering this question is a major
priority. Four years ago, the scientists
there set out to design a system that
would enable them to study plant
responses under realistic air quality
conditions. The result of their efforts is
not only a sophisticated facility of plant
growth chambers, greenhouses, and
outdoor exposure chambers, but also a
state-of-the-art computerized process
control technology.
  Thanks to their computer, the
Corvallis scientists can go beyond the
constraints of the  9 to 5, Monday to
Friday work week to achieve continuous
control and monitoring of
environmental conditions in exposure
chambers. Where once it took years  of
tedious observation to accumulate data
under different growing conditions,  they
can now experiment with several
variables simultaneously. And because
the computer can  dispense and control
hourly concentrations of pollutants so
precisely, scientists can also enter actual
ambient site data from specific
geographic regions to reproduce
real-world conditions in the exposure
  In studying plant response to ozone,
for example, scientists use ozone data
obtained from  actual sites. The
computer is programmed  to replicate
the hourly ozone concentrations over 30
days. Sample air lines feed back into
monitors, providing continuous reading
and adjustment of pollutant
concentrations delivered to each
chamber. Sensors  in the chambers also
feed back data on light, air, soil
temperatures, and relative humidity.
These data are displayed so that
operators can monitor each chamber at  a

 (Randolph is Technical Jnl'onmifion
 Manager til KP.Vs Environmental Hesearch
 Laixmiforv in  (,'mvallis. Orr.J
glance. Every 24 hours, the collected
data are transmitted to the laboratory's
mainframe computer and printed out.
  During the first year of operation, the
scientists looked at the effects of ozone
on two important forage crops: alfalfa
and tall fescue. Using exposure
schedules based on air-quality data from
a midwestern hay-producing state, they
tested response under two conditions.
One delivered ozone in varying peaks,
frequencies, and durations; the other
provided it in a consistent pattern.
Throughout the growing season, plants
in both groups  were exposed to equal
amounts of ozone.
  In both groups, alfalfa growth
decreased as ozone levels increased. But
varying ozone concentrations reduced
growth more than  did consistent
concentrations. Tall fescue, however,
was only slightly affected under both
conditions. Experiments last year with
timothy hay showed the same response
as the alfalfa studies: reduced growth
associated with varying ozone levels.
  Another experiment involves the

These field exposure <:lir.s cif h'PA's
lab in (,'orvnllis. Ore., arc designed to
mimic natural  
                                    A  Compact  to Track  Down
                                    Waste  Dumping  Cheaters
                                     by David Pickman
                                        The greatest obstacles in the path of
                                        safe and economical waste
                                     management are the "waste cheats" who
                                     dump hazardous waste in city sewers or
                                     in convenient swamps which eventually
                                     poison water supplies. Some cheats are
                                     deliberate, but many are cheating from
                                     ignorance. According to EPA Regional
                                     Administrator Michael R. Deland,
                                     "Relentless tightening of regulations and
                                     computer storage of information by state
                                     governments are closing in on the
                                     deliberate cheats, and education is
                                     bringing the others into the system. In
                                     New England, it's  a regional effort."
                                      The Resource Conservation and
                                     Recovery Act (RCRA) was designed to
                                     provide cradle-to-grave security for
                                     hazardous waste. As most recently
                                     amended, it requires manifesting of
                                     waste shipments by all generators of 100
                                     kilograms (220 pounds) or more of
                                     hazardous waste per month. Shipments
                                     must be accompanied by a manifest
                                     giving the name, address, and EPA
                                     identification number of the generator,
                                     transporter, and receiving facility. The
                                     law requires the generator to report to
                                     the state or EPA if the signed manifest is
                                     not returned within 45 days.
                                      The six New England states have gone
                                     a step further in a  regional compact
                                     designed both to track down the waste
                                     cheat and to give waste managers in
                                     government and industry the data base
                                     they need to plan the future. When the
                                     final RCRA hazardous waste regulations
                                     were just beginning to take effect in
                                     1981, the New England Regional
                                     Commission (later absorbed by the New
                                     England Governors Conference) devised
                                     a uniform manifest for the six states and
                                     their western neighbor, New York.  The
                                     system was in place in 1982 and needed
                                     only minor adjustment when EPA came
                                     up with its  uniform manifest in
                                     September 1984.

                                     (Pickman is on the staff of the Office of
                                     Public Affairs of EPA Region I.)
  The idea of a single computer and
seven terminals was seriously proposed,
discussed and debated, and eventually
rejected for lack of agreement on where
the computer would reside. The five
computer systems now in existence are
compatible, although operated
independently by Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York and Maine (which runs a
three-state system for itself, Rhode
Island, and Vermont). The three states
in the Maine system comprise about 20
percent of the New England population
of 12 million.
  "When the New England states began
to adopt programs so as to receive
RCRA authorization, they recognized
that this region was unique in its heavy
reliance on out-of-region disposal
facilities," says Mel Hohman, Director of
Region 1's Waste Management Division.
"The fact that a large portion of the
waste is transported long distances and
through multiple state jurisdictions led
our states to focus on the need for
tighter controls. Hence, a load-by-load
tracking system was developed.
  Unlike the national regulations, the
state rules require that manifest copies
be sent to the states when waste is
shipped and again when it is received at
the licensed facility. If waste is shipped
first to storage and then to permanent
disposal, the state gets two copies of
each of two manifests.
  Manifest forms are numbered so  that
the copies are easily matched and
disappearance or destruction of a
manifest is easily detected by the
computers. If the receiver's copy does
not join the generator's copy in a
reasonable time, the computer "sends"
an inspector to investigate.
  Officials report sharp increases in
reported "deficiencies" since the
computerized system went into effect.
Previously, many generators simply
forgot about shipments once they were
off the premises, and there was no
check on transporters who might dump

 The "milk run" pickups cost
 about 20 percent of what a dry
 cleaner has to pay for
 independent waste hauling.
                                                                                /\t (i dn1 cleaning shop, a drive'
                                                                                the Safety Klern (.,'urp. picks tip ivastr
                                                                                fluids (or reeyrimt;. I 'ntJer a pro.mii
                                                                                in/tinted fiv (he /ntcnmf ional <
                                                                                 States believe they can steer
                                                                                 the largest quantity of waste
                                                                                 into safe  disposal by a
                                                                                judicious blend of education,
                                                                                 hand holding, and
under federal regulation.
   The states are not relying exclusively
on enforcement at this stage. The goal
is to educate dry cleaners (chlorinated
hydrocarbons),  auto body shops (paint
removers and solvents), paint shops
(paint waste), and other small
enterprises. Printed instructions on
waste identification, the use of the
manifest, and the penalties for
mismanagement are being mailed to
thousands of small businesses. Seminars
are planned. Slide tapes will be
produced and circulated to trade
associations. EPA has provided about
$300,000 in grants to states for outreach
to small generators. EPA's Hohman
warned against underplaying
enforcement. "It is the responsibility of
industry large and small to comply with
the regulations. If they cannot, they
should ask EPA or the state for advice
and direction. Non-compliers will be
identified and enforcement action will
be taken."
  Trade associations have taken steps to
bring their  members into compliance.
Northeast Fabricare Association
organized a New England-New York
"milk run" for dry cleaners. Safety
Kleen Corporation of Elgin, 111., picks up
the waste cleaning fluids, helps the
generators fill out manifests, hauls the
waste to a recycling plant, and delivers
the recycled product to many of the
same customers. The "milk run"
pickups cost about 20 percent of what a
dry cleaner has to pay  for independent
waste hauling.
  Only about 60 percent of the New
England-New York dry cleaners are on
the "milk run," according to Fabricare,
because the minimum pickup has been
three 55-gaIlon  drums a year. Safety
Kleen has now  agreed to include all
interested cleaning shops, and
participation is expected to rise sharply.
  Safety Kleen  is also working with the
states to bring more auto body  shops
into the system. Like dry cleaners, auto
body  shops produce fairly uniform and
consistent waste which, if properly
managed, can be recycled with a
minimum of waste analysis and
separation of incompatible substances.
As with the dry cleaners, the object is to
help with the paper work and cut costs
for the proprietors.
  The states have stressed education
—the helpful approach—rather than
total reliance on enforcement.
Flagrant  violations have been
penalized, sometimes with fines of
more than $20,000, but many violations
are routine and result in notices of
violation in  which the generators are
instructed in correct  internal procedures
to avoid  future  slip-ups. Every effort is
made to communicate with generators
through their trade associations and
trade publications. The states agree that
this will  yield more returns at this  stage
than all-out  enforcement against routine
  Enforcement  is time-consuming.  Even
with administrative penalties that
bypass court action, there is a lot of
paper work. States believe they can
steer the  largest quantity of waste into
safe disposal by a judicious blend of
education, hand holding, and
  Russell Sylva, Commissioner of the
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental  Quality Engineering, told
an inquiring State Senate committee
that waste load tracking was not
primarily an enforcement tool, but  was
being used to "identify patterns of
hazardous waste management." He
added that compliance was at a high
level. "We are finally seeing most of the
large quantity generators come into
compliance" and "we are now able to
focus more resources on small quantity
  EPA is also interested in studying
these  patterns of hazardous waste
management. Given the relatively strong
data base in  Region 1, the agency's
Integrated Environmental Management
Division (IEMD) is running a pilot
 project there. Regional data have been
 entered into a computerized model
 developed by EPA's Office of Policy
 Analysis. The purpose is to correlate
 existing information on waste volumes,
 constituents, transportation routes,
 waste  management facilities, exposure
 probabilities, populations, and potential
 health and environmental effects. IEMD
 plans to work with state, local, and
 industry representatives to formulate
 waste  management strategies for
 analysis by the model.
  The  model will calculate costs for
 each potential strategy and indicate
 each strategy's relative impact on
 regional waste management systems.
 The states are particularly interested in
 the model's use in demonstrating the
 need for waste management facilities.
 The region has no integrated waste
 treatment, storage, and disposal facility
 and depends heavily on out-of-region
 facilities.  It is hoped that the pilot
 project will help the states and the New
 England Congressional Institute develop
 a truly regional waste  management
 system with the right balance of waste
 reduction by industry, solvent recovery,
 incineration, chemical and physical
 treatment and, last and preferably least,
 land disposal.
  Whatever success is achieved will be
 dependent on the region's wasteload
 tracking systems and the detailed
 information the states  provide on the
 intricacies of the problem and the
 viability of various management
 strategies. The presence of an adequate
 waste management system in the region
 would  also reduce the cost to  the
individual generator and, with it, the
temptation to cheat, a

Speeding  Water  Cleanup
While  Saving  Money
by John Jaksch
and Diane Niedzialkowski
Wafer pours nidi an mrrHuiv stnin'urr
in t/j
to zero by complex and expensive
methods, nonpoint phosphorus
discharges from development activities
would cause continued algae growth.
Control of nonpoint sources was
necessary to avoid a sewer tap
moratorium that would effectively
freeze growth and severely restrict
Summit County's booming economy.
  Faced with a potential crisis, the
Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission asked local agencies to
help*develop a comprehensive
management plan for addressing
phosphorus pollution in the Dillon
Reservoir Basin. The Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments
became the lead agency for what was
known as the "Phosphorus Club." This
consisted of representatives from the
state, county, surrounding
municipalities, environmental groups,
local industry, and other parties with a
significant  stake in Dillon's water
quality. The Club developed a
consensus approach which took
point source pollution  into account, but
fundamentally relied on systematic
nonpoint source control to achieve
water quality goals.
  Several factors helped this
multi-government trading approach
develop and coalesce at Dillon. There
were sufficient water quality data to
evaluate the effects of various nonpoint
source control strategies. All interested
parties had continuing input. And
effective, low-cost nonpoint source
controls were available.
  Previously, EPA's National Urban
Runoff Project and other studies had
indicated that low-technology "best
management practices," such as settling
ponds and  percolation  pits, could
remove large amounts of phosphorus
from urban runoff with far less cost,
energy use, and sludge generation than
advanced point source  treatment. But
these results had not been widely tested
under real world conditions.
  In 1982, the Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments asked EPA to
help fund and evaluate a pilot control
facility at Dillon. At the pilot facility,
urban  runoff from an 81-acre watershed
was collected in a plastic-lined basin,
which overflowed into a settling pond.
In eight major runoff events, this facility
removed 68 percent of incoming
phosphorus, at a cost of only $67 per
pound removed. Available
treatment plant improvements would
have cost from $824 to nearly $8,000 for
each pound of phosphorus removed.
  The  trading system ultimately
developed at Dillon requires that
existing nonpoint sources be  controlled
while phosphorus from future nonpoint
sources is minimized through
state-of-the-art controls. This  allows for
point source (and municipal) growth in
the future, through compensating
nonpoint source control. Dillon's
phosphorus control strategy has five
major elements:

• 1982 levels of phosphorus were set as
the water quality target for Dillon. Each
municipal sewage treatment  plant was
given a share of the available load.
providing a  "growth margin"  through
• In addition to installing state-of-
the-art phosphorus controls,  new
developments must contribute to a
Nonpoint Source Facilities Investment
Fund, which will be used to construct
controls for  pre-1984 nonpoint sources
and help finance administration of the
trading program;

• A "trading ratio"  of 2:1 was
established to assure environmental
progress. For each pound of phosphorus
a treatment plant is allowed to
discharge above 1982 levels, two
pounds of phosphorus must be removed
from a  nonpoint source existing before
• Both point and nonpoint dischargers
receive Clean Water Act permits which
define  their  phosphorus limits and their
responsibilities for maintaining
nonpoint source control devices. Failure
 to operate and maintain the devices will
 result in direct federal or state
 enforcement action.

 • The Summit County Water Quality
 Committee was established to monitor
 the trading program and provide
 long-term water quality management.

  The State of Colorado held public
 hearings on Dillon's proposed trading
 plan in  May, 1984, and formally
 approved the plan in June, 1984. With
 approval by EPA Region 8 the next
 month,  Dillon Reservoir became the first
 operating point/nonpoint source trading
 system  in the United States.
  Can this trading approach be  used for
 other locations and types of nonpoint
 source pollution? Is Dillon unique? The
 quality  of virtually all lakes is
 controlled by a delicate balance of
 nutrients such as  phosphorus. Many
 coastal  rivers and bays are also affected
 by phosphorus pollution. Trading offers
 potential control of nutrient pollution
 on all such water bodies, in ways which
 are non-intrusive, save tax dollars, and
 allow regulatory programs to operate
 more smoothly.
  While trading shows great promise,
 Dillon left several questions
 unanswered. For example, will trading
 work on free-flowing streams or
 estuaries rather than lakes or bays, or
 for other nonpoint sources such as
 farms? Can the frameworks developed
 at Dillon be adapted to other locations?
 Will other types of nonpoint source
 control  prove as cost-effective?
  EPA headquarters, together with EPA
 Region  3 and the states of  Pennsylvania,
 Maryland, and Virginia, is currently
 examining application of "Dillon type"
 approaches to the Chesapeake Bay,
 which has a major nonpoint source
 phosphorus  problem due to agricultural
 and other activity in its stream
 drainages.  In addition, EPA is looking
 for other sites where trading may apply,
and which can also help answer these
questions, a

How  Chemicals
Can  Cause  Cancer
 by Ronald W. Hart
and Angeio Turturro
   That the average lifespan of humans
   has increased, there can be no doubt.
Even in our lifetime, the improvement
of public sanitation, reduction in famine
(current  conditions in Africa
notwithstanding), and control of
infectious diseases have contributed to
an increase in average longevity
worldwide. There is little doubt that our
increased,  and relatively newfound,
scientific knowledge of the genetic
differences in, and the biochemical
complexities of man also have played
an important role.
We all make daily contact
with a considerable number
and variety of chemicals,
many of which are known

  Attendant to this newfound
knowledge is an increasing awareness
and concern about the possible adverse
effects of our exposure to
chemicals—adverse effects like the
production of cancer, or carcinogenesis.
  No matter who we are, no matter
what our station in life, no matter where
we live, we all make daily contact with
a considerable number and variety of
chemicals, many of which are known
carcinogens, others only suspected as
being carcinogenic. Some occur
naturally in the food we eat, some are a
result of our lifestyles, some are
manmade products which have benefits
desired by  members of our society, and
some represent naturally produced
compounds found in  molds, fungus, and
other plants and animal species.
  Educated estimates indicate that there
now may be more than 65,000 manmade
chemicals in  everyday use. Our food
contains tens of thousands of natural, or
"wild," chemicals which help comprise
the flavor, aroma,  or nutritional value of
our daily fare.
 (Dr. Hart is Director of the National
 (.'(.'liter for Toxirnlo^irui Hrscurc/i 
                 •iiifiiois u! tin's
                    :i iluilors :
             .-.iny. (jli:ohol. (ind high fut
diets li
Vigilance  in  the  Deep  Sea  Environment
by Margherita Pryor
   This summer, EPA's Office of
   Radiation Programs (ORP) led a team
of scientists  on a cruise from California
to some Pacific islands. Idyllic? Not this
trip.  Their port of call was almost a mile
under water  at a disposal site about 40
miles southwest of San Francisco . . .
pitch dark, icy cold, subject  to
pressures of  thousands of pounds per
square inch,  and, incidentally, home to
the largest congregation of Great White
sharks in U.S. waters.
  The bleak  Farallon Islands area is a
bird  refuge. Until  1954, it was also a
an ocean disposal site for low-level
radioactive waste, and scattered over the
sea floor are about 3500 steel drums,
dating back over 30  years.
  Since 1974, ORP has monitored this
disposal area on several occasions. Last
June, ORP again directed an underwater
survey of the site. Using a U.S. Navy
state-of-the art deep submergence vessel
and a highly sophisticated satellite
navigation system, 11 specialists
descended 900 meters (3,387 ft.) to
observe conditions and take samples of
sediment and marine organisms.
  Did they find two-headed fish?
Glow-in-the-dark tube worms?
  No way, according to Bob Dyer of
ORP and head of the scientific
expedition. As in previous surveys  at
the Islands,  there appeared to be no
adverse impacts to either man or the
marine environment from these early
disposal operations; the surveyors found
the normal complement of marine
organisms at those depths and
conditions. They also found, with the
help of direct observations from the
submersible, that over time, some of the
drums have  produced an artificial reef
effect. Several species of marine
organisms have attached themselves to
the drums or established residence  in
the immediate drum areas.
  Submersibles have radically improved
our ability to study  deep sea
environments. Manipulator arms and
cameras can provide immediate and
accurate information, and the new
generation of manned
"mini-submarines" allows scientists to
observe marine conditions and
organisms as they really are. "There's no
better way," says Dyer, "to get that  far
down and see what's actually
happening." D

r\t<>i is C-tiiitrihuttny Editor of EPA
Members nl I/in si ienh'lir; team one! \civy .support creiv. From (up Jet! to
bottom right: l)ai\ (JotsJiall. (xili'lorniu Department of Fish and (,'ame: Hay
Ki.s.sane. DSRV Avalon: /im Co/it. DSHV Avalon; Bill Pi»«. DSHV Avalon;
Deborah lY'iiiy. I'Diversity ol Washington, School of Oceanography; Mike
l}(itrit:ola. l)Sn\' Aviilon; Bob Dyer, hl'A: I'^te ("olomho. Rmukhuvtui
\afional Laboratory; Stun Kelly. Interstate Klectrom'cs CJorp.: mid llal
Palmer, Marine TacJinolcigv Society. \ot pictured: Tomio Iwomoto,
California Academy of Science; Far! U'eiler. Interstate Flectrunics  (,'orp.:
and Brian Mel/run. EPA, Hegion 9.
A drum packed ivith
low-level radioactive
HdSte ail;i sealed IVJtll
concrete. The drum has
Imcn iiJe'iid'fi'e.d ns one that
UTIS ((.'ft (it the site be.hvcen
]!).">! and !<)5-J.  A/though
                                                                                      '/'In1 DSHV [Deep Submergence Heseue
                                                                                      Vehicle/ Avainn on board its support
                                                                                      ship, the (r.,S.S. I'i^eim. h'J'A n.M'il the
                                                                                      Avalon during ils June survey o|  the1
                                                                                      /•'(iniJJun LslancLs  OOO-inofci' (/isposol
                                                                                      site. Rcixiuse of' its siinpi; nml ;
                                                                                      \d\-v  CITUV nu-ni/frrs refer (o i( cis "t/ic
                                                                                      pickle"; (i Idunrli  is roiled u  "pickle.
                                                                                      iJunip." Ht'sciif u'liicli's like tlir Avalo
                                                                                      (ire iiuich Idrne.r tfuin lypicril rej
                                                                                      submersibJes, (.'urrvmi;  up i
                                                                                      j)(!.ssent;ers mid crew.
                                                                           Inside the Avalon's pi>
                                                                           observation capsule. Observers ore
                                                                           required to go .shoeless  to protect the
                                                                           capsule interior, even though
                                                                           temperatures can »et us Ion- us 40°J;
                                                                           during a dive.


 A 24-cm sediment corf; from 
 V-J IJUCl l\J   A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
Four Substances Reviewed
The agency has  announced
its  intent to list  carbon
tetrachloride as  a hazardous
air pollutant under the Clean
Air Act.
  This action triggers the
development of  emission
standards for significant
sources of this pollutant.
  The agency also has
completed its evaluation of
manganese, chlorinated
benzenes, and vinylidene
chloride and has decided not
to regulate these chemicals
under the act at  this time.
  EPA has reviewed studies
on  carbon tetrachloride, a
volatile organic  liquid used
in making refrigerants,
pesticides, and other
chemicals, and has
concluded it is a probable
human carcinogen. Because
carbon tetrachloride is
extremely stable in the
atmosphere, emissions from
all  countries contribute to
gradually increasing
concentrations that can be
measured virtually anywhere
in the world.
Heavy Duty Vehicle
EPA has issued  final
regulations  allowing
manufacturers of heavy-duty
engines that do  not have the
technological capability to
meet future, more  stringent
emission standards to pay
penalties instead.
  Without such  a regulatory
mechanism, some
manufacturers unable to meet
future standards might be
forced out of the
  These rulemaking actions
are the result of  a unique
process called regulatory
negotiation, which allows
industry, states,  and public
interest groups an
opportunity to participate in
the regulation's  development
through face-to-face
Small Quantity Waste
Many producers of small
quantities of  hazardous waste
will be required to send their
wastes to federally approved
disposal facilities starting
next year, under regulations
proposed by  EPA.
  In addition, these small
quantity generators will be
required to label their waste
with the hazardous waste
manifest form to ensure that
it is sent to either an EPA or
state-approved facility. This
requirement and the
proposed rule are both
authorized under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.

Liability Insurance
The agency is considering
alternatives to current
requirements for third-party
liability insurance  that
hazardous waste facility
owners and operators must
now have to  stay in business
under federal law.
  Regulations published on
April 16, 1982 under the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act {RCRA) require
facilities to demonstrate
liability insurance  coverage
for  bodily injury and
property damage to third
parties resulting from both
accidental sudden  and
nonsudden releases during
the operating life of a facility.
  However, such third-party
liability insurance  is
becoming increasingly
unavailable to segments of
the industry.  In addition,
new amendments to RCRA
require that all disposal
facilities certify that they
meet all financial
responsibility requirements
when submitting an
application for a permit.
Under the amendments, all
facilities must apply for a
final permit by November 8,
  To respond to the dilemma
posed by the  growing
shortage of third-party
insurance available to
facilities which need  to
certify compliance  with
financial responsibility
 requirements by November 8,
 EPA is considering, and
 seeking public comment on
 the advisability of,
 alternatives to the current

 Continued Use of Dicofol
 EPA is proposing to allow
 the continued use of the
 pesticide dicofol under
 certain conditions after
 determining that the
 substantial benefits of using
 this product outweigh the
   Dicofol is used to control
 various species of mites on
 cotton and citrus as well as
 other crops.
   This announcement
 modified the agency's
 proposal in October 1984 to
 cancel dicofol. The earlier
 proposal was based on the
 high levels of the
 manufacturing impurities
 found in this insecticide,
 including DDT and the
 related compounds DDD,
 DDE, and tetrachloro-DDT
 (collectively known as DDTr).
 The agency had determined
 in the earlier proposal that
 these chemicals could result
 in unreasonable adverse
 effects on fish and aquatic
 bird populations, particularly
 certain endangered  species.
   In response to the earlier
 proposal, the registrants have
 indicated that the DDTr
 levels  in technical dicofol
 ranging up to approximately
 10 percent can be reduced in
 incremental stages up to  0.1
 percent by July 1987. These
 small amounts will be
 indistinguishable from
 current background levels of
 DDTr and are not expected to
 pose any significant risk  to
 the environment. According
 to agency risk estimates,
 these lower levels of DDTr
 will not  cause eggshell
 thinning or other
 reproductive problems in
 birds or fish or otherwise
 represent a threat to
 endangered species or to the

 Daminozide Notice
 EPA has  announced that  it
 will be sending its Science
Advisory Panel a draft
 notice of intent to cancel the
 use of daminozide, a
 pesticide used primarily on
 apples, as well as on peanuts
 and other fruits and
 vegetables. EPA is seeking
 the panel's review of the
 scientific basis for the
 agency's determination that
 lifetime exposure to food
 residues of this product may
 result in unreasonable risk to
 public health.
   Under the  Federal
 Insecticide. Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the
 agency  is required to submit
 cancellation actions to the
 Science Advisory Panel for
 peer review before final
 cancellation actions are
 taken. The agency also will
 be submitting this notice to
 the U.S. Department of
 Agriculture as required by

High-Level Radioactive
The agency has issued final
standards for the
management and disposal of
high-level radioactive waste
from both commercial and
defense sources. The rules
provide public health
protection for future
generations from
radioactivity from spent
nuclear reactor fuel and
high-level waste products
generated by atomic energy
defense activities.
  The standards require
isolation of these nuclear
wastes far from man's
environment. Current
national law requires they be
placed in mined geologic
repositories several thousand
feet below the earth's surface.
The standards are expected
to provide the regulatory
framework and public
confidence necessary for the
federal government to
proceed in developing and
demonstrating geologic
repositories for disposing of
these radioactive materials, a

                              Appointments  at  EPA
Offshore Oil and Gas
EPA has reported that it is
proposing rules to control the
discharge to the ocean of
substances such as
drilling fluids, drill cuttings,
well treatment fluids, and
sanitary wastes from offshore
oil and gas facilities such as
platforms and drilling rigs.
  The rules would govern the
quality of such wastes from
all existing and future
facilities located offshore in
the Gulf of Mexico, the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans,
and Alaskan waters. Oil and
gas exploration, well drilling,
and oil and gas production
activities are the primary
operations  conducted by the
affected facilities.
  The rules would require
the nearly 4,000 existing
facilities to control the
amounts of oil and grease,
mercury, cadmium, chlorine,
floating solids, and various
oils discharged to ocean
waters. The requirements are
based upon treatment of the
wastes by the best available
treatment technology. In
addition, the rules would
limit the toxicity of drilling
fluids being discharged.
These fluids are mixtures of
clays, minerals, oil, special
chemicals, and water used in
drilling an oil or gas well.
Jennifer Joy Mcmson    Lawrence /. Jensen     Michael J. Quigley     Timothy Fields. Jr.
         Jennifer Joy Manson has been
         nominated to the post of Assistant
         Administrator for EPA's Office of
         External Affairs. She will be responsible
         for managing the agency's public affairs,
         Congressional relations, and liaison
         with other federal agencies, state and
         local governments, and environmental
         and other private organizations. She
         will be the national program manager
         for dredge-and-fill oversight under
         Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
         will be responsible for coordination of
         federal facilities compliance and the
         Indian policy efforts of the agency's
         Office of Federal Activities.
           Since 1975, Manson has held policy
         and management positions with the
         White House, the Virginia governor's
         office, the U.S. Senate, and  several
         political campaigns. Mpst recently, she
         managed the successful re-election
         campaign of Senator John Warner fR.-Va.)
           Manson received a B.A. in Speech from
         the University of North Carolina in 1974.
           Lawrence J. Jensen has been
         nominated to be Assistant Administrator
         for EPA's Office of Water. The position
         includes responsibility  for all of the
         agency's water-quality programs,
         including drinking water standards; the
         development of effluent guidelines for
         industrial facilities and municipal
         wastewater treatment plants; the
         construction grants program; and the
         protection of ground water and marine
         and estuarine resources.
           Jensen currently is Associate Solicitor
         for Energy and Resources at the U.S.
         Department of the Interior. From
         October 1981 to June 1983,  he served as
         the department's Associate Solicitor for
         Indian Affairs, and from 1976 to 1979,
         he was a trial lawyer in the  Civil Division
         of the U.S. Department of Justice. Before
         coming to Washington again in 1981,
         Jensen was an associate with the law firm
         of Jones, Waldo,  Holbrook and
         McDonough in Salt Lake City, Utah.
           Jensen received a  B.A. in  History from
         the University of Utah in 1973, and
         earned his law degree from  Brigham
Young University in 1976. He is a
member of the Utah State Bar.
  Michael J. Quigley has been named
Deputy Director of the agency's Office of
Municipal Pollution Control in the
Office of Water. His major
responsibilities involve management of
the construction grants program,
including the development of
regulations, policy, and guidance for
municipal treatment facilities. Quigley
had been Acting Deputy Director of the
office since December 1984.
  Quigley has been with EPA since
1971, primarily in the water program.
His previous experience includes five
years with NASA, and three years of
service in the U.S. Air Force.
  Quigley received his B.A. from
Trinity College  (Conn.) in 1961, and his
law degree from Georgetown University
in 1969. He also holds a master's degree
in public administration from Harvard
University, which he attended under
EPA's executive development program.
Quigley is,an associate certified
financial planner  and a member of the
Virginia Bar Association.
  Timothy Fields, Jr.,  has been
appointed director of the Emergency
Response Division of EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
His major responsibilities include the
development and  implementation of
emergency response program policies
for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
and releases of  hazardous substances
and oil into the environment. He  has
been Acting Director of the division
since January of this year.
  Fields has been with EPA since 1971,
with most of his experience in the
Office of Solid Waste.
  He received his B.S. in Industrial
Engineering from  the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State
University in 1970. Under  EPA's
Long-term Graduate Training Program,
he also attended George Washington
University and received an M.S. in
Operations Research in 1975. a

                          EPA JOURNAL

EPA Administrator Lee Thomas, left.
hikes Camel's {lump mountain in
Vermont to study forest damage.
Accompanying Thomas on  the
trek, which took p/ace in .August, are
Sen. Patrick Leahy (l.)-\'l.J.  center; I'rol'.
Hubert Vo»elnuinii of Ilie Cnivei'sily of
Vermont. ri»iit; and several government
officials ond environmentaJists from
Vermont and ,Veiv Hcniijj.sJiire.
Back Cover: Leaves in (he fall. Photo by
Michael Philip Manheim. Ko/io, Inc.

 United States
 Environmental Protection
 Washington DC 20460

 Official Business
 Penalty for Private Use  S300
Third Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
Permit No G 3b