I
United States Office of Volume 11
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107) Numbers
Agency Washington DC 20460 November 1985
EPA JOURNAL
1Q7R
1Q7fi
1Q77
1Q7Q
Special
Anniversary
1QR3 "-
1Qftl
/EPA 1985
-------
An Anniversary
A decade and ;i hull ago, on
December 2, 1970, President
Nixon created Kl'A by
executive order. On this
anniversary of the agency's
birth, tin; i'.PA Journal
explores the past 15 years of
striving to protect public
health and tin; environment.
Tin1 issue burins wilb an
interview with !.(;(! XI.
Thomas. Next is a feature
exploring the chain of events
that hid to the birth of KPA.
Then the four former
.Administrators of the agency
give their views on EPA's
.strong points and
weaknesses.
Some of KPA's
achievements are highlighted
in graphs and charts. The
agency's Regional
Administrators discuss the
principal achievements of
their regions since 1070.
A selection ol cartoons
from the past 15 years gives a
humorous, it sometimes
biting, insight to
environmental issues. In
another view from the
outside. EPA's public: image
is mirrored through
on-1he-street interviews
around the country.
Two long-time observers
on the environmental scene
trace the environmental
movement since 1970.
Another observer discusses
industry's experience with
environmental issues.
An article features one of
the pioneers of conservation
in America—John Muir.
Concluding the anniversary
articles, some "old
tirners"—emp 1 oyees who
have been with EPA since
the beginning—describe their
most memorable moments at
the agency.
The magazine includes a
regular feature—Update.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 12
Number 9
November 1985
&EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Manson, .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 pro-
tect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate nl
national environment,il laws, the
agency strives to torrmilate and im-
plement actions vvliii:h lead to a
i ompatihlr halam e between hu-
man activities and the abilitv ot
natural systems to support ami
nurture lite.
Tin: KPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of KPA
has determined that the public.,i-
tion.ot this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of tin; public
business required by Uuv of this
agency. Use of funds tor printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director ot the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect KPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Kclitor (A-107],
Waterside Mali, 401 M St., SAY..
Washington. D.C. 204IU). \o per-
mission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Past, Present,
and Future
An Interview
with Lee M. Thomas
The Birth of
EPA
by Jack Lewis 6
Views from the
Former Administrators 12
EPA's Achievements:
Some Highlights 16
History as Seen by the
Regional Administrators IB
The Light Touch:
A Selection of Cartoons 24
In the Public's
Eye 27
The Environmental
Movement
Since 1970
by Robert Cahn
and Patricia L. Cahn 31
Industry's Experience
with EPA
by Richard L. Lesher 36
John Muir:
Environmental Pioneer
by Jack Lewis
Memorable Moments
at EPA
by Roy Popkin 45
Update 48
Design Credits:
Robert FJcuicigein;
Ron Farrah.
The: annual rate for subscribers
in the U.S. for the KPA Journal is
$20.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is SZ5.00 a
year. The price ot a single copy ol
the KPA /mirnal is S2.DO in this
country and $2.50 if .sent to a ior-
eign country. Prices include mail
costs. Subscriptions to the KPA
Journal as well as to other Federal
Government maga/.ines are hand-
led only by the U.S. Government
Printing Office. Anyone wishing to
subscribe to the F.PA /ounxil
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, (IPO. Washington.
D.C. 20402.
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Name - First. Last
PLEASE PRINT
Company Name or Additional Address Line
Street Address
City
Zip
Coc
u
i
I I Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)
LJ Charge to my Deposit Account No
-------
Past, Present,
and Future
An Interview
with Lee M. Thomas
(•,'/'.\ Administrator Ln Tlinmus. center,
listens (is Loi'e (,'uiHil
-------
an inkling of that 20 years ago. The
evidence for a major threat to public
health emerged largely within the
15-year lifetime of EPA. And only
during the last five years did we begin
to appreciate the immensity of the:
cleanup task ahead of us.
It used to be said when EPA was
first set up that EPA employees have a
unique relationship to their agency. Is
this still true?
A Yes, emphatically. Most EPA staff
regard environmental protection and
restoration as a sacred trust and a
necessity for the survival of the nation,
if not the planet. They see the goals of
EPA as consistent with their own
personal values and objectives. So their
identification with the agency is
stronger than it might be elsewhere. I
take great pride in this allegiance.
What is EPA's greatest strength, as
you see it?
r\ It's our administrative and
psychological maturity. We have come
through some tough times. We have
learned from our mistakes over the last
15 years. We recognize as never before
the urgency of balancing our various
environmental control responsibilities.
and pursuing them within the context of
economic growth and having to compete
in the global marketplace.
When do you think that the acid
rain problem will move from the
research stage to the action stage?
/\ 1 don't regard the current phase as
either research or action but rather as
both. Under the Clean Air Act, we're
reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide,
ozone — all of these have been
characterized as precursors of acid rain.
During the brief time I've been
administrator we have promulgated
nitrogen-oxide standards for heavy-duty
trucks. We are developing an
ozone-attainment strategy for 1987, and
we have announced tall-stack
regulations to control the dispersal of
sulfur dioxide. These measures will
probably have a significant impact on
acid rain.
Our research program is very
aggressive and has expanded
dramatically over the last two years. It
will provide the additional information
we need on the causes of acidification
in lakes and streams and on whether the
problem is accelerating. We are trying to
determine how much of the damage to
forests is manmarle and how much
is natural. If we can identify the sources
of acid precipitation — dry and wet — we
may be able to devise control measures.
So we are operating a two-track system:
control plus research.
Now the question is what additional
controls we may need and where to
apply them. It's hard to say when our
research program will provide the final
word. During the next two to three years
a lot of new data will come on-line, and
I hope we can use them to determine
potential solutions.
What would you most like to
accomplish as Administrator?
/\ I would like to be able to look
back four years from now and point to
significant environmental results in
each major program area. And I would
NOVEMBER 198b
-------
hope these gains would continue and be
built upon by my successors: for
example, systematic improvements in
long-range planning, in defining results,
and in the selection, training, and
advancement of people within this
agency.
What's the hardest part of your
joh?
/\ Clarifying complex scientific,
policy, program, and legal issues and
then choosing between options of
apparently equal merit. It's a challenge
to find out what is going on. what the
hidden issues are, when; the levers of
power are located, and then persuade
people to stick to their decisions, and
yet be adaptable. Critics used to say that
bureaucracy is hungry for power, but i
think too many of us would rather avoid
responsibility than seek it.
2 Can EPA do its job on its current
„ it budget?
I\ During the last two years the
budget has grown substantially, and
approximately the same level of
resources will probably be available in
the years immediately ahead. I'm
confident we have enough to do the joh
assigned us. I seriously doubt whether
we could efficiently use any more.
What leadership and managerial
strategies are you employing to tap the
diverse human resources we haven't
fully exploited heretofore?
/\ We've got a number of efforts
under way to utilize our talent more
intensively, including the establishment
of advisory groups on the use and
development of people. We've got
advisory groups on scientific and
technical careers, a support advisory
group, and a number of initiatives
related to training. I try to incorporate
into the overall decision-making process
an opportunity for input from all sectors
of the agency. That is important not
merely to build morale and generate a
sense of community, but to elicit the
creative ideas any agency on the cutting
edge of law enforcement desperately
needs.
Do you intend to place greater
emphasis on the cross-media approach
to pollution management?
/x I do. The environmental statutes
don't necessarily prohibit cross-media
analysis, but they don't usually
encourage it either. As a matter of fact,
they promote a single-medium approach
with deadlines and rigid requirements. I
will continue to stress cross-media
review so that we don't just transfer
pollutants from one medium to another,
but render them innocuous and dispose
of them once and for all.
In a recent speech you mentioned
a need for greater attention to
environmental fireproofing as opposed
to putting out brushfires after the fact.
What are you doing to ensure that EPA
does a better job of fireproofing?
/X One is to devise a better system for
longer-term objective-setting and
strategic analysis for the agency
generally and for the major program
categories, whether it's wetlands
protection or toxics or acid rain or
whatever. We've looked at how current
objectives impact other media and
we've set up methods to minimize that
impact. We try constantly to check
long-run against short-term goals. That
kind of synchronizing process is vital
for ecological fire prevention — otherwise
short- and long-term aims may conflict
and the interests of one medium may
dominate another.
What's the part of your job that
you most enjoy?
I\ The sheer intellectual challenge of
mastering the details and figuring out
how they add up. Environmental
regulation is like a science fiction chess
game with a nine-dimensional board,
independently motivated pieces, and
rules that change arbitrarily. I can
recommend it for anybody who's easily
bored or thinks he has all the answers.
How would you characterize
EPA's public image at this point?
I\ I see it as continuing to advance
steadily upward from the nadir it
reached several years ago. Image,
however, is not something that can be
fabricated out of nothing. It develops
from what you do, not what you say.
It is humbling to realize that
millions of people haven't the
foggiest notion of what EPA does and
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Hruf Tfiiim,1 !'
(firct'-vi'liirlr wreck uml <;
emiT'-jencr response ivurki-r (jpprnurhf.s
ii (linker I nick sd'll drippi;i'4 H i
fighting foam, Simuluicd incidents like
this urr part of EPA's hazardous waste
Irumiri". .According In /•'}'.\
Administrator Thmmis. n mini?
initiatives related In lamim" are
tindf'nvur
-------
The Birth of EPA
by Jack Lewis
The official birthday of EPA is
December 2, 1970. Like any other
birth. EI'A's needed progenitors, and a
family tree stretching back for years.
Surely no factor was more pivotal in the
birth of EPA than decades of rampant
and highly visible pollution. Hut
pollution alone does not an agency
make. Ideas are needed—better yet a
whole world view—and many
environmental ideas first crystallized in
1962.
That year saw the publication of
Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, first in
serial form in the Neiv Yorker and then
as a Houghton Mifflin best seller. This
exhaustively researched, carefully
reasoned, and beautifully written attack
on the indiscriminate use of pesticides
was not exactly light reading. Yet it
attracted immediate attention and
wound up causing a revolution in
public opinion.
An inveterate bird-watcher, Carson
derived her missionary zeal from her
fear that fewer species of birds would be
singing each spring unless pesticide
poisoning was curtailed. The readers of
her book, however, were less alarmed
by the prospect of a "silent spring" than
they were about people dying from any
number of hidden poisons lurking in
what had previously seemed a benign
environment. It was not hard to wax
hysterical after reading in Carson's book
that "the common salad bowl may
easily present a combination of organic
phosphate insecticides" that could
"interact" with lethal consequences to
the unsuspecting salad muncher.
Silent Spring played in the history of
environmentalism roughly the same role
that Unchi Tout's- Cabin played in the
abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA
today may be said without exaggeration
to be the extended shadow of Rachel
(f.rius is As.Mstiinl Kiiilor of Ilir Kl'A
Jounul. J
Carson. The influence of her book has
brought together over 14.000 scientists.
lawyers, managers, and other employees
across the country to fight the good fight
for "environmental protection."
Skeptics then and now have accused
Carson of shallow science, but her
literary genius carried all before it.
Followers flocked to Carson's
cause—rendered all the more sacred by
her premature death in 1964. Suddenly,
everywhere people looked, they saw
evidence of nature's spoliation. Concern
over air and water pollution spread in
widening eddies from the
often-forgotten core of the movement: a
highly detailed and intellectually
challenging book about commercial
pesticides.
The, issue of the environment
exploded on the country like
Mount St. Helens.
The disillusioning effect of the
Vietnam War enhanced the popularity
of SiJent Spring. When people heard of
the defoliation tactics used in the
jungles of Indochina, they became more
receptive to the "environmental" ideas
advanced by Carson and her countless
imitators. The cognoscenti oven began
using a more arcane term—"ecology"-
in reference to a science of the
environment, then still in its infancy.
The period 1962 to 1970 witnessed a
slow erosion in the popularity of the
word "conservation," as man himself
replaced trees and wildlife as the
endangered species, bar none.
Overpopulation and industrialization
had left mankind trapped in a
deteriorating environment. The damage
was not just esthetically displeasing but
threatening to the very survival of man.
Environmentalism gained strength as a
movement dedicated to ending—and if
possible—reversing this decline in the
human environment.
Everywhere television programs,
symposia, and "teach-ins" raised the
burning question: "Can Man Survive?"
In May 1969, U Than! of the United
Nations gave the planet only ten years
to avert environmental disaster; the
following month, he blamed the bulk of
planetary catastrophe on the United
States. Under Secretary of the Interior
Russell E. Train spoke skeptically at the
April 1969 Centennial of the American
Museum of \atural History: "If
environmental deterioration is permitted
to continue and increase at present
rates, [man) wouldn't stand a snowball's
chance in hell [of surviving]."
By late 1969, the subterranean
rumblings heralding the impending
explosion could already be heard. On
August 31, Senator Ted Stevens of
Alaska complained: "Suddenly out of
the woodwork come thousands of
people talking about ecology." On
October 20, Robert Bendiner—in a
signed Neiv York Times editorial—had a
startling prediction to make: "Call it
conservation, the environment,
ecological balance, or what you will, it
is a cause more permanent, more
far-reaching, than any issue of the
era—Vietnam and Black Power
included."
The Nixon Administration, although
preoccupied with an unpopular war and
a recession-ridden economy, took some
stopgap action on the environmental
front in 1969. In May, President Nixon
had set up a Cabinet-level
Environmental Quality Council as well
as a Citizens' Advisory Committee on
Environmental Quality. His critics
charged that these were largely
ceremonial bodies, with almost no real
power.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
ON W 1
Rachel
WARNING
PESTICIDES
Carso
: WILL CAUSE
TOXIC FUMES
Spnn
Hurhei ('arson's book iiboul peslii
The Si Unit Spring, published t'n !962,
sparked a revolution in public opinion
about pollution.
Sieve fielaney
Stung by these charges, President
Nixon appointed a White House
committee in December 1969 to
consider whether there should be a
separate environmental agency. The
President had already asked Litton
founder, Roy L. Ash, to take a sweeping
look at organizational problems
throughout the government.
It was at just this time that Congress
sent to the President a remarkable bill
known as the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Senator Gaylord
Nelson (D-Wis.)—looking back at the
"Environmental Decade" in
1980—called NEPA "the most important
piece of environmental legislation in
our history." It is easy to see why.
A tone of high-minded idealism
pervades this statute. NEPA's stated
purposes were:
• "To declare a national policy which
will encourage productive and enjoyable
harmony between man and his
environment."
• "To promote efforts which will
prevent or eliminate damage to the
environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of
man."
• "To enrich our understanding of the
ecological systems and natural resources
important to the Nation."
To further these ends, NEPA called
for the formation of a Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) to give the
President expert advice on
environmental matters. The CEQ was
also charged with reviewing
Environmental Impact Statements.
which were now required of all federal
agencies planning projects with major
environmental ramifications.
In an era of bitter ideological
disputes, public opinion was virtually
unanimous on the need for the national
environmental policy NEPA would
generate. Turning his reluctant consent
into a show of visionary statesmanship,
President Nixon chose to sign NEPA on
New Year's Day, 1970—thus making the
signing his "first official act of the
decade." He named future EPA
Administrator Russell E. Train to be the
first CEQ Chairman.
NEPA's New Year's Day signing did
prove to have more than symbolic
significance. Enactment of this law set
the stage for a year of intense activity on
the environmental front. Senator
Gaylord Nelson recalls that right after
the passage of NEPA, "the issue of the
environment exploded on the country
like Mount St. Helens." The authors of
the first CEQ Annual Report on
Environmental Quality had the same
sense of an unprecedented watershed.
In August 1970, they wrote: "Historians
may one day call 1970 the year of the
environment—a turning point, a year
when the quality of life (became] more
than a phrase. . ."
It was in this atmosphere of intense
concern for environmental issues that
President Nixon delivered his 1970
State of the Union Address. Speaking to
both houses of Congress on January 22,
the President proposed making "the
1970s a historic period when, by
conscious choice, [we] transform our
land into what we want it to become."
He continued this activist theme on
February 10, when he announced a
37-point environmental action program.
The program gave special emphasis to
strengthening federal programs for
dealing with water and air pollution.
Two months later, on April 22, the
first Earth Day celebration brought 211
Suddenly out of the woodwork
came thousands of people
talking about ecology.
million Americans out into the spring
sunshine for peaceful demonstrations in
favor of environmental reform. Senator
Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis.) and
Congressman Paul McCloskey (R-Calif.)
gave bipartisan sponsorship to the
event, but its popularity far surpassed
their wildest expectations. President
Nixon was not caught by surprise. He
had spokesmen deployed throughout
the country to present the
Administration's case; at teach-ins.
The first Earth Day lives in popular
memory to this day as a joyous and
life-affirming moment in American
history. The theatrical flair of some of
NOVEMBER 1986
-------
the demonstrators had a great deal to do
with its success. Oil-coated ducks were
dumped on the doorstep of the
Department of the Interior. . .A student
disguised as the Grim Reaper stalked a
General Electric Company stockholders'
meeting. . .Demonstrators dragged a net
filled with dead fish down Fifth
Avenue, and shouted to passers-by,
"This could be you!"
The phenomenal success of Earth Day
gave greater priority than ever to
environmental issues. In particular, it
strengthened the impact of the report
that Roy L. Ash of the President's
Commission on Executive
Reorganization had submitted on April
15. That report argued strongly that an
El3 A op an nd for business in a
tiny suite of offices in
northwest Washington, D.C.
independent agency was needed to
coordinate all of the Administration's
new environmental initiatives.
In sending Reorganization Plan No. 3
to Congress on July 9, the President
admitted that he had first been reluctant
to propose setting up a new
independent agency. Eventually,
however, he was convinced by all "the
arguments against placing
environmental protection activities
under the jurisdiction of one or another
of the existing departments and
agencies."
These arguments were twofold: first,
the primary mission of each existing
department would bias any decisions it
made on a government-wide basis
concerning the environment; second,
the same factors might raise questions
about the objectivity of any existing
department as a standard-setting body
for other agencies and departments.
To avoid such pitfalls, President
Nixon culled for "a strong, independent
agency." The mission of this
"Environmental Protection Agency"
would be to:
• Establish and enforce environmental
protection standards.
• Conduct environmental research.
• Provide assistance to others
combatting environmental pollution.
• Assist the CEQ in developing and
recommending to the President new
policies for environmental protection.
The components of the new agency
were pieced together from various
programs at other departments. From
the Department of Health. Education
and Welfare (HEW) came several
functions: those of the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, the
bureaus of Water Hygiene and Solid
Waste Management, and some
functions of the Bureau of Radiological
Health. The Food and Drug
Administration of HEW gave up to EPA
its control over tolerance levels for
pesticides.
The Department of the Interior
contributed the functions of the Federal
Water Quality Administration and
portions of its pesticide research
responsibilities. EPA gained functions
respecting pesticide registration from
the Department of Agriculture. From the
Atomic Energy Commission and the
Federal Radiation Council, the new
agency gained responsibility for
radiation criteria and standards.
Two of these programs—HEW's
National Air Pollution Control
Administration (NAPCA) and Interior's
Federal Water Quality Administration
(FWQA)—represented the core of the
federal government's pollution-control
apparatus prior to the birth of EPA. The
air program was founded in 1955 in
reaction to a wide range of alarming
problems: the suffocating blanket of
EPA JOURNAL
-------
January 1. Hi/0: President fiirluinl
Xixon si.uns (lie X'dtidiKil h'nvirniinx'iitdJ
I'olicv Act.
smog covering greater Los Angeles; the
1948 atmospheric inversion that
temporarily raised the death rate in
Donora, Pa., by 400 percent; a London
"fog" in 1952 that killed 4,000 people
over a four-day period. Equally severe
water pollution problems—untreated
sewage and industrial waste, dying
rivers and lakes—led to the founding of
the predecessor of the FWQA in 1948.
NAPCA began as a research body with
no regulatory powers. The Clean Air Act
of 1963 gave NAPCA enforcement
authority to attack interstate air
pollution problems. Two years later, the
act was amended to permit NAPCA to
set air pollution standards for new
motor vehicles. In reality, however,
little effective use was made of these
powers in the 1960s, and they were
further diluted by the Air Quality Act of
1967, which re-emphasized the
principle of state and local control over
air pollution.
The Federal Water Quality
Administration (FWQA) began as a
program in the Public Health Service of
HEW but was transferred to Interior in
1966. The FWQA was authorized to give
technical assistance to states and
localities and to distribute construction
grants for municipal waste treatment
programs. Like NAPCA, the FWQA
gained enforcement and standard-setting
powers in the 1960s, but the actual
exercise of these powers fell far short of
expectations.
One of EPA's goals was to give real
bite to the federal enforcement bark. But
this would clearly be impossible unless
EPA's first Administrator was able to
fuse the air and water programs as well
as those for pesticides and radiation
into one effective working entity. Tribal
boundaries separated all these programs,
and their staff of 5,650 highly skilled
and highly competitive people. The
challenge of getting this many people to
work in harmony would in itself have
overwhelmed most managers.
But President Nixon made the task
facing EPA's first Administrator even
greater by insisting upon the importance
of viewing "the environment as a
whole." The President's charge to the
first EPA Administrator was to treat "air
pollution, water pollution and solid
wastes as different forms of a single
problem." The main purpose of the
reorganization that gave birth to EPA
was to introduce a "broad systems
approach [that], . .would give unique
direction to our war on pollution."
This daunting assignment went to a
38-year-old Assistant Attorney General
named William U. Ruckelshaus,
President Nixon nominated Ruckelshaus
A state of cheerful chaos
prevailed during the first few
months of the agency's
operation.
on November 9. On December 1, at his
Senate confirmation, Ruckelshaus
received a magnanimous blessing from
the Democratic Party's leading
environmental activist, Senator Edmund
Muskie (D-Maine): "I hope that you
pre-empt the title that has been tossed
about loosely in recent years. I hope
that you become known as Mr. Clean."
That was. indeed, to become the
favorite tag for EPA's first
Administrator. It was not long before
the media were portraying William
Ruckelshaus as a knight in shining
armor charging out to do battle with the
wicked polluters of America. By
adopting an aggressive stance toward a
wide variety of environmental problems,
EPA's new Administrator managed to
gain headlines for his infant agency
almost from the day of its birth.
EPA opened for business in a tiny
suite of offices at 20th and L Streets in
northwest Washington, D.C., December
2, 1970. A mere five days later.
Administrator Ruckelshaus attracted
wide media attention when he delivered
the keynote address to the second
International Clean Air Congress.
Ruckelshaus said that he and EPA were
starting with "no obligation to promote
commerce or agriculture." By promising
to enforce "reasonable standards of air
quality," Ruckelshaus positioned
himself as the governmental advocate of
environmental progress, not merely a
mediator between industry and the
public. In fact, he seemed to envision
for EPA a crucial role in the
"development of an environmental
ethic:" among businessmen and citizens
alike.
On December 11, Ruckelshaus went
on the offensive against three cities with
noteworthy water pollution problems:
Cleveland (of "Burning Cuyahoga"
infamy), Detroit, and Atlanta. EPA gnvt;
the mayors of these cities six months to
come into compliance or face court
action. Four days later, he spoke to a
Governors' conference of the
"imperative" need for unbiased state
pollution control boards. (Fortunately,
many of these were coming under the
aegis of state "environmental protection
agencies," a large number of which were
founded during the Year of the
Environment.)
Some of the first problems tackled by
EPA were less sublime than the
Administrator's rhetoric. A ruling on
NOVEMBER 1985
-------
I
marint! toilets was necessary, but hardly
glamorous. A missing interceptor ;it Key
Bridge brought a flood of untreated
sewage into the Potomac. . .and a flood
of irate reporters into EPA. Noise
fanatics were deafening in their protests
over the Supersonic Transport. Agency
lawyers had to dredge up a dusty .statute
from 1899 before they could take any
action against factories discharging
scalding water into lakes and streams.
But the Year of the Environment came
to an end on an extremely upbeat note
with the signing of a major piece of
environmental legislation. The Clean
Air Act (CAA) of 1970 was the perfect
bookend to balance the National
Environmental Policy Act the President
had signed with such a flourish on New
Year's Day.
The Clean Air Act brought
dramatic—and substantive—changes to
the federal air quality program. The act
required EPA to establish national air
quality standards as well as national
standards for significant new pollution
sources and for all facilities emitting
hazardous substances. The CAA took
dead aim against America's leading
source of pollution: the automobile. The
law set statutory deadlines for reducing
automobile emissions levels: 90 percent
reductions in hydrocarbon and carbon
monoxide levels by 1975 and a
90 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides
by 1976.
Among the less tangible but vital
contributions of the CAA, according to
former Deputy Administrator Alvin
Aim, were the working arrangements
forged while setting and enforcing its
standards. These "set the pattern for
federal-state relations for years to
come."
At the outset, President Nixon
promised the states a chance to make "a
good faith effort" to implement CAA
standards, but warned that federal
enforcement action against violators
would be swift and sure. Alluding to a
popular Clint Eastwood picture of the
day, the President said that William
Ruckelshaus would be "The Enforcer"
in cases of air pollution.
An early test of EPA's resolve in this
matter led to a confrontation with
Union Carbide. Under pre-existing air
statutes, Union Carbide had been
required to submit a timetable for
bringing its Marietta, Ohio, plant into
compliance with recommended federal
standards by the end of 1970.
On January 9, 1971, William "The
Enforcer" Ruckelshaus rejected Union
Carbide's schedule for reducing sulfur
oxide emissions from its Marietta plant.
The company retaliated by threatening
to lay off 625 workers. Eventually, EPA
was able to forge a compromise that
saved the workers' jobs. This was done
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The' IViiy \\V \\Vn>: Air pollution in
Pittsburgh, Pa.,
-------
Views from the Former Administrators
William D.
Ruckelshaus
(Served December 1970 to
April 1973 and May 1983 to
January 1985)
When I returned to EPA in the spring
of 10H3. I was under no illusion
that everything was just fine. I knew
there would he some surprises. I was
not disappointed.
I was surprised at how emotional the
issue of (lit; environment had become.
Feeling strongly is one thing—giving
reason a permanent holiday is
something else. The relationship
between the political appointees of the
Reagan Administration and the press,
the Congress, and the public was
marked by deep mistrust and fiery
rhetoric:. The environmental community
was particularly outspoken in its
opposition to anything the
Administration proposed.
On the positive side I found much of
American industry truly concerned by
what had happened to EPA. A strong,
trusted, and self-confident EPA was
essential, not only to protect the
environment, but also to ensure that
industry could continue to function. A
beleaguered EPA meant an uncertain
future for those subject to its regulation.
In spite of these surprises and a
feeling that the agency was still
operating with a flawed statutory and
analytical base, 1 was sustained by my
fundamental faith in the dedication and
ability of the employees of EPA. My
second tenure at the agency only served
to reinforce that conviction.
EPA's great strength in 1983 was the
same as in 1970—its people. There is
something about working at a place as
challenging, interesting and, yes,
frustrating as EPA that attracts the best
and the brightest our country can
produce. Those attracted don't all stay,
but they never leave without being
enlarged by their experience. And,
when EPA was in trouble, as it clearly
was in 1983, many dropped what they
were doing and came back to help.
It is to those who came when called
and those who hung on through the
storm that I say thanks. There was a
time when it was not clear if there
would be a fifteenth birthday. It has
arrived and the agency is alive, well and
certainly wiser than on its first, fifth, or
tenth anniversary.
To those of you who have stayed
through the thick and the thin—happy
birthday!
You stand high in your countrymen's
eyes, as well you should.
You operate in waters that are
uncharted and uncertain.
You do your best in the face of
impossible mandates as to the levels of
risk reduction you can achieve and the
time it takes to get there and yet you
proceed with grace and good humor.
1 shall never forget my times spent at
EPA.
I will simply repeat what I said when
we all shared that wonderful moment
on the mall at Waterside in April of
1983: There are no finer public servants
anywhere in the world than the men
and women of EPA.
It was an honor to have served with
you once again.
Russell E Train
(Served September 1973 to
January 1977)
A age 15, EPA is in the throes of
moving from adolescence to
adulthood. Since its start, the agency
has made significant strides in curbing
conventional air and water pollutants. It
has accumulated considerable
experience in the intricacies of
pollution control. Today, like a youth
on the verge of becoming an adult, EPA
is beginning to grasp fully the rough
course ahead.
The exuberance characterizing the
agency's early years could hardly
continue. In successive Congressional
sessions, the nation's lawmakers handed
EPA major new responsibilities. The
Clean Air Act came in 1970, Clean
Water in 1972, the Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act the
same year, the Safe Drinking Water Act
in 1974, the Toxic Substances Control
Act and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act in 1976, and Superfund in
1980, among others. EPA's funding and
staff have never been adequate to carry
out the plethora of tasks assigned it by
Congress under these laws: prepare and
issue regulations, set standards, evaluate
chemical risks, clean up pollution, form
partnerships with states, sponsor timely
research, assess the economic impacts of
regulations, keep Congress and the
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
public informed, meet deadlines, and so
on.
One can argue about what is adequate
support for EPA. While some would like
to see its budget increased manyfold,
few familiar with the magnitude and
complexities of pollution problems
would advocate fewer dollars. Yet EPA's
funds were cut in the first Reagan
Administration budget. Fortunately,
recognizing the error of this position, as
well as public and Congressional outcry
at the erosion of support for the agency,
the Administration has modified its
position.
But with the possible exception of
Superfund, EPA programs will have to
scrimp. Particularly in the area of toxic
pollutants, failure to build and susfain a
strong research program will have
long-term adverse effects.
It has not been easy for the agency to
respond to its competing overseers. EPA
officials report to more than a score of
Congressional subcommittees. The
White House and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) are
always to be reckoned with. Witness the
escalating tug of war between OMB and
EPA over how much independence EPA
can exercise in setting its regulatory
agenda and in finalizing regulations.
Splintered lines of accountability are
likely to continue, forcing EPA to make
the best of a difficult situation.
EPA's constituencies—business,
environmental organizations, farm
groups, and others—also have been
demanding critics. Lawsuit after lawsuit
has plagued the agency. Sometimes
court directives have prodded the
government to move more quickly. But
more often than makes for good
government, lawsuits have merely
delayed agency actions and introduced
uncertainties into environmental policy.
If there is a hopeful note, it is that after
a rocky road, EPA is beginning to
engage its critics, experimenting with
new methods—regulatory negotiation is
one—to get beyond the adversarial
character of so many past environmental
debates.
Nor has it been easy to deal with its
primary mission, pollution control. The
compartmentalized nature of EPA's
programs is in part attributable to the
jurisdictional divisions of Congress. In
part, it seems a normal state of affairs
for a government agency that functions,
after all, like any large bureaucracy with
rules and procedures and forms in
triplicate. But dealing separately with
pollution problems in air, water, and
land defies a growing understanding of
pollution problems. Pollutants
generally, toxics in particular, tend to
move readily among air, water, and
land. A disparity exists between the
multiple environments defined by
statutes, regulations, and Congressional
committees and the one natural
environment with which those policies
and institutions try to deal.
An appreciation of the "cross-media"
phenomenon, as many now call it,
underlay the creation of EPA in 1970
when several offices scattered
throughout the federal government were
combined into a single line agency. That
appreciation was lost in the day-to-day
dynamics of creating a new agency, only
to be rediscovered as the problems
posed by toxic chemicals became better
understood. As the still rudimentary
process of assessing risks from
chemicals improves—we would do well
to keep in mind that only a small
fraction of chemicals used in commerce
have been adequately tested for health
and environmental effects—EPA could
find itself confronting the need for a
major overhaul of its pollution control
authorities.
The extent and seriousness of air and
water contamination by toxic chemicals
was hardly recognized by the drafters of
the Clean Air and Water acts 15 years
ago. Today, public concern is mounting
over toxic air pollutants indoors and
outside, over pesticides and other
chemicals washing off farmlands and
other "nonpoint" sources into our
waterways, over pollution of ground
water, over the slow pace of cleanup in
the Superfund program, over the effects
of acid rain. The agency has yet to tame
these problems.
Problems with toxic chemicals are
cropping up worldwide, in industrial
accidents, in farmworker health, in
migrating wildlife. This parallels the
growth of environmental awareness
around the globe. In 1972, at the United
Nation's Stockholm conference on the
environment, scarcely more than a
dozen developing nations had agencies
addressing environmental matters. The
developing world tended to cast the
issue as if they, too, deserved the
chance to pollute their way to economic
well-being. Since then, more than 100
developing countries have formed some
kind of environmental ministry. Some
are newly receptive to benefiting from
U.S. experience in pollution control.
Many recognize the increasingly clear
international dimensions of
environmental problems. Finding a
proper, effective role for EPA—technical
assistance, sharing research and
information on standards and risks,
initiatives in international
forums—remains an ongoing concern.
Undaunted, EPA at age 15 has going
for it one major plus: as solid,
competent, knowledgeable, and
dedicated a staff of civil servants as can
be found anywhere. Their commitment
bodes well for the agency despite some
formidable challenges, current and
yet-to-come. Among the most pressing:
toxic pollutants, ground-water
contamination, and acid rain.
NOVEMBER 1985
13
-------
Douglas M. Costle
(Served March 1977 to
January 1981)
There is, I am told, an ancient curse:
"May you live in interesting times."
That phrase aptly describes EPA's
position today. In its brief 15 years of
existence, the agency has been living on
the razor's edge of our society's attempt
to come to grips with the legacy of one
of the most significant economic and
environmental events of this century:
the chemical revolution.
Our chemical industry has brought us
thousands of substances that save lives,
increase agricultural productivity, and
improve our living standards. But
among them, too, have been chemicals
whose side effects we did not
anticipate, and often could not judge,
for years: Thalidomide, DBS, PCBs,
EDB, to mention a few.
Our ability to create new substances
outran our knowledge about their
characteristics, pathways, and ultimate
effects. According to a 1983 study by
the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, little or
no health information exists in
government files about the chronic
effects of almost 90 percent of all
chemicals, including many commonly
used drugs, cosmetics and industrial
compounds. The Council reported that,
of the more than five million chemicals
known to man, about 53,000 are
commercially important, and for an
estimated 86 percent of these, so little is
known about their toxicity that not even
a partial assessment of their health
hazards can be made.
I cite this finding principally to
illustrate what EPA staff and people
familiar with environmental issues
already know: most decisions involve
"judgment calls." In almost no case is
the scientific evidence free of ambiguity.
Moreover, in our complex industrial
economy, the environmental unknowns
almost always seem greater than the
knowns.
Many of these materials are appearing
in human tissue and in essential food
and water supplies. Poll after poll has
shown overwhelming public demand for
government action to protect people
against involuntary exposure to even
Anne M. Burford
(Served May 1981 to March
1983}
The Environmental Protection Agency
is unique among ail other federal
agencies in that the combined
expectations of both the American
public and the EPA staff exceed the
capability of any agency to achieve
those goals. And yet, that seeming
contradiction is in reality an asset, a
strength, that continues to serve the
agency and the public well.
My 22-month tenure us head of EPA
was hardly the agency's most serene
hour. By the time 1 left, the air was
filled with so many charges, and the
staff and I were so bogged down in the
fight with Congress over the doctrine of
executive privilege, that the agency
itself seemed hardly to be functioning.
It was functioning, however. Indeed.
we had instituted a number of
fundamental changes that were
beginning to have their desired dice:!,
and as a result of the internal dialogue
that I had initiated in order to learn
which changes were most necessary, I
also learned a great deal about the
strengths and weaknesses of EPA.
Let me begin with the weaknesses—so
that I can end on an upbeat note. In my
opinion, the single greatest weakness
within EPA—and from the very
beginning, not just recently—is its lack
of solid management skills, from top to
bottom. When I took office, there were
substantial backlogs in every
programmatic area, with the licensing
backlogs in RCRA being the most
flagrant example (and one which is
hardly improved today.)
The need for stronger management
became so pronounced that Congress
stepped into the vacuum and began
imposing a series of deadlines, in effect
taking over the management function at
the highest levels. The fundamental
importance of deadlines, whether
internally or externally imposed, was
recently recognized by a joint study of
the Environmental and Energy Study
Institute and the Environmental Law
Institute, the very title of which
underscores my point: "Statutory
Deadlines in Environmental Legislation:
Necessary But Need Improvement."
I was blessed with a few top-notch
managers (Comptroller Morgan
Kinghorn and Superfund chief William
Hedeman, among others, come
immediately to mind) but not enough.
As one of my former top aides told me,
"There is not a large cadre of superior
managers with a lot of management
skill. Traditionally, people come from
the technical areas and an: 'thrust up' to
management posts. There is simply not
enough depth. Also, we have developed
a star system, in that if people are
recognized as being good, we give them
too much more to do, to the point,
frequently, of burning them out. And,
because so many staff people at EPA are
committed, they tend to overpromise, to
bite off more than they can chew."
EPA JOURNAL
-------
minute quantities of substances feared
to be harmful to human health.
Congress has responded by making
EPA responsible for implementing a
complex set of laws to protect human
health by controlling such exposures.
The agency often comes under
fire—unfairly—for failing to accomplish
its goals with optimum efficiency.
Nonetheless, it is being asked to
perform Herculean tasks, and some
resolution must ultimately be reached
about what government can reasonably
be expected to accomplish. Above all,
our society needs to come to terms with
the issue of what degrees of what kinds
of risks are acceptable, and at what
price.
EPA must play the honest broker
among legitimate competing societal
concerns. Insufficient knowledge cannot
justify failure to act, so the agency must
constantly operate in the context of
scientific uncertainties. There is a
growing gap between EPA's obligations
and authorities and its ability to deliver
satisfactory results by traditional
administrative means.
To fulfill its mandates, EPA does need
increased resources far beyond the 1981
levels to which Congress has recently
barely restored it. But even a substantial
infusion of money and staff will not of
itself get the job done, and increases of
any notable magnitude are unlikely in
the face of competition for finite
government resources for other pressing
social needs.
The agency needs to draw on two
invaluable internal assets: the spirit of
dedication and professionalism that
characterized its employees throughout
the first decade of the agency's creation
and maturation, and a renewed resolve
to tap the best minds in the scientific,
business, academic, and political
communities to devise better ways of
achieving environmental goals.
EPA must consistently be its own
sternest critic, always evaluating
whether it is using the most effective
means to attain its ends. The agency
needs, for example, to examine and
adopt innovative approaches—such as
using private sector auditors, inspectors,
and certification processes—to
maximize the resources that government
can directly bring to bear. It needs to
deal creatively with non-technical
problems, such as liability issues. It
must re-engage in intensive public
education efforts to frame complex
scientific/technical issues so that people
can make informed judgments about
managing risks in our society. It needs
to restore decimated government
research programs and to stimulate new
non-governmental efforts to realize
answers to the unknowns confronting
us.
Living on the razor's edge is never
comfortable, but whoever promised
anyone in public service any kind of
garden? EPA does, indeed, live in
interesting times, and that is its only
constant prospect in this age of change
and challenge.
These are classic, text-book management
problems.
Finally, in regard to weaknesses, there
is the problem of priorities. EPA
operates under a set of commands from
the Congress, commands which have
been written into the law. Once they
exist, they must be answered, even if
changing times result in changing
priorities. There has always been—and I
hope always will continue to
be—within EPA a conflict between what
we are required to do and what we
would like to do. But that conflict, if
properly managed, can result in a
healthy working atmosphere. I believe
we established, in my 22 months, an
effective way of meeting our statutory
requirements while being mindful of
priorities.
As for strengths, it must be mentioned
first of all that EPA is still a very young
agency with a very high degree of
commitment. And that makes it a very
exciting place to work. It is full of new
ideas. But the same youthful enthusiasm
and commitment can be a
"positive-negative." (Indeed, EPA is
filled with positive-negatives, which is
not at all a bad thing, even if it does
create internal conflicts.)
During my time at EPA we instituted
four changes which I feel are all
definitely "strengths." They are: 1) the
management system, whereby we made
sure people knew what (hey were to do
and to whom they were responsible; 2)
the peer review system, which enabled
us, for example, to take Superfund from
a piece of paper recently passed into
law to a full-blown federal program; 3}
the revamping of the enforcement
system, a highly controversial change
that nonetheless allowed the agency for
the first time in years to speak with a
single voice, and to return to a proper
attorney-client relationship; and, 4) the
budgetary hearings procedure, which for
the first time in EPA history gave the
Administrator direct involvement in the
agency's various budget decisions, with
the result being better environmental
results for the money, or, even, for less
money.
It should be remembered that I came
to office as part of a new Administration
that brought a different approach to
solving the problems of government.
One of the tenets of that approach was
what we called New Federalism, or the
idea that there were any number of
services being provided by Uncle Sam
that could be better provided by the
states themselves. Under that theory,
while at EPA, we were the only agency
in Washington that was truly practicing
New Federalism. The amount of
delegation we accomplished in 22
months was truly enormous. And with
each delegation we increased the
manpower in the country dedicated to
environmental protection.
All of these changes, I am proud to
say, remain in effect today, and
continue to prove their worth.
I don't mean to sound parochial,
however, by mentioning only those
strengths which my people and 1
introduced. There was a lot of
fundamental good in EPA when we
arrived, and it remains.
As a long-time career person at EPA
told me recently, "When we tackle a
problem, there are few agencies in town
that can tackle it as well as we can. For
example, I think we came to terms with
the problem of asbestos in the schools
more quickly than anybody else could
have."
If pressed to name EPA's greatest
strength, I would have to say that its
real strength is the fact that the agency's
mission enjoys enormous popular
support among the people of America.
I think all of us who have ever
worked for EPA can be proud of the
accomplishments of the last 15 years,
especially in the areas of air and water.
And now there is also a strong
Superfund program in place (the
funding for which will most certainly be
extended and increased). But 1 would be
remiss if I didn't mention my fears
about how EPA is dealing, through
RCRA, with the problem of waste.
Paradoxically, waste represents both
EPA's greatest strength and its greatest
weakness: we have done a fine job of
cleaning it up, but a poor job of
preventing it. That is EPA's challenge
for the future, o
NOVEMBER 1985
-------
EPA's
Achievements
Some
Highlights
EPA's achievements over the past 15
years add up to a cleaner, healthier
environment for the nation. Here are
some highlights:
AIR
In the 1970 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, Congress directed EPA to
establish programs to control air
pollution to protect human health.
Major research, control technology,
regulatory, and monitoring initiatives
were implemented in cooperation with
state and local authorities to reduce
emissions of the six criteria air
pollutants: particulates, sulfur dioxide,
carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and lead. For each pollutant,
EPA established a standard to protect
people against the adverse health effects
associated with high concentrations of
these air pollutants. The standards are
known as National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Reliable data on
how much progress is being made in
reducing the amount of these harmful
pollutants in the air has been collected
and analyzed since 1975.
Overall on a national basis,
substantial progress has been made.
Between 1975 and 1983, average
ambient concentrations of particulates
have declined 20 pecent; sulfur dioxide
has declined 36 percent; carbon
monoxide has declined 33 percent; and
lead has declined 67 percent. Ambient
concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have
remained about the same, and while
ambient concentrations of ozone have
declined 8 percent, on a national basis,
average concentrations of ozone exceed
the national standard and ozone
remains a very serious air pollution
problem. (Much of the decrease in
ozone appears to be due to a calibration
change in the monitoring equipment in
1979.)
In each column of the "Air Quality
Trends" chart below, the upper limit
of the light area represents the average
for the most polluted sampling sites
and the lower edge marks the average
of the cleanest sampling sites.
Except for ozone, the average for all
sites (located by the •) has been
brought below the NAAQS.
Nevertheless, the amount of light area
extending above the standards line
shows considerable work yet to be done.
A rough estimate of the number of
people exposed to "unhealthy" air is
shown below, also indicating the job
remaining. Note that 46 percent of
the U.S. population resided in counties
where the ozone (Os) standard was
exceeded.
Some Air Quality Trends
200
NAAQS 100
Exposure to Below Standard Air (1983)
16
TSP SO, CO
readings in 1975
03 N0? Pb
readings in 1983
TSP
SO,
CO N02 03
EPA JOURNAL
-------
WATER
PESTICIDES and TOXICS
SUPERFUND
The Clean Water Act is designed to
clean up and maintain the quality of the
Nation's rivers and streams. EPA works
with states to adopt water quality
standards; establish limits on pollutant
discharges by industries and
municipalities into rivers and streams;
develop permits and enforce discharge
limits: and fund municipal treatment
works.
A key to the surface water pollution
control program is the state designation
system. States classify rivers and
streams by use, which range from
support of cold water fisheries and
swimming to irrigation or industrial
cooling. This system identifies pollution
control actions required to meet and
maintain the waterbodies' designated
uses.
Progress has been made in ensuring
that waterbodies meet their designated
uses. The chart below depicts changes
in designated use between 1972 and
1982 for 758,000 miles of the estimated
1.8 million miles of U.S. rivers and
streams. In this 10-year period, 296,000
stream miles were reported to have
maintained the same level of water
quality; 47,000 miles improved; and
11,000 miles degraded. Additionally,
pollutant discharges from municipal
plants are estimated to have decreased
46 percent and a billion pounds of
toxics are removed annually due to EPA
controls.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) provides EPA
with broad authority to regulate
pesticides. New pesticides are subject to
rigorous testing prior to their use. For
existing pesticides, the agency has
implemented an intensive review to
ensure that they have been adequately
tested and to eliminate uses that pose
unreasonable adverse effects. For
example, in the 1970s following the
amendments to FIFRA, the agency took
action to cancel the major uses of DDT
and dieldrin. As Figure A shows, the
levels of these pesticides found in human
fatty tissue have significantly declined.
Under the authority of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, EPA began
phased regulation of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in the mid-1970s. In
sum, EPA prohibited the manufacture of
PCBs, restricted their processing and
distribution in commerce and use;
regulated certain PCB electric
equipment to reduce risks from
exposure to PCBs and combustion
byproducts during fires; and required
their proper disposal. These controls on
PCBs from manufacture through proper
disposal have resulted in significant
reductions in PCB levels in human fatty
tissue (see Figure B).
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980 ("Superfund").
EPA has the responsibility for cleaning
up abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. Since 1980, over
21,000 sites have been inventoried and
more than 14.000 preliminary
assessments have been completed.
In 1981 there were 115 sites on the
National Priorities List (NPL). The
number has grown to 850 today. At 413
sites, engineering studies have been
started and final design engineering or
construction activities are underway at
over 100 sites.
In addition to the long-term remedial
cleanup actions, EPA has also
completed over 583 removal actions.
184 of which were at NPL sites. These
are typically sites where an "immediate
threat" is posed to human health or the
environment. They may require up to
six months to complete and cost up to
$1 million.
Using Superfund's enforcement
authorities, the agency has reached
agreements with responsible parties to
initiate privately financed cleanup
actions valued at over $480 million.
Moreover, EPA has recovered over $21
million in cost recovery actions from
responsible parties.
Meeting Designated Stream Uses
Decline of Some Chemicals in People Cleaning Up Superfund Sites
410,000
68.000
272,000
167.000
1972
NOVEMBER 1985
1982
Unknown
Not
Reported
Not
Supporting
Uses
488,000
Partially
Supporting
Uses
D
Fully
Supporting
Uses
10 ...
Figure A.
•8
•6
DDT
-4
•2
' Q.
a.
-.24
•
..20
..16
DIELDRIN
Figure B.
-60
-50
-40
PCBs
-30
-20 ^
C
ra
jr
I
£
10 1
c
i
CL
_J , 1 !__• ._! 1 1_1
1970
1983 1972
300
700
a
a
600
500
• iOO
:
igg 1980 1981 1984 1985
17
-------
History as Seen by the Regional Administrators
On the occasion of (he fifteenth
anniversary o/the agency, (he EPA
Journal asked EPA's RegionaJ
Administrators to look back and reflect
on what achievements stand out in their
region. The magazine received a variety
of responses and they are printed here.
by Michael R. Deland
Region 1
The Atlantic salmon has
returned to some rivers for the
first time since (ieorge
Washington's day.
Over the past decade and a half, we
have witnessed in New England a
grassroots revolution against
environmental degradation. State and
federal lawmakers and civil servants,
citizen groups, business and industry,
and thousands of caring and dedicated
New Englanders are the "militia" that
turned things around. The formation of
this loose but powerful coalition is the
single greatest achievement I have seen
since 1970 when EPA was born.
The accomplishments of this coalition
are all around us. Levels of most air
pollutants have dropped markedly
despite doubling and tripling of major
pollution sources. Five of six New
England states are now inspecting motor
vehicles for emission controls or
actually testing emissions. Sulfur
dioxide; trouble spots have been all but
eliminated. Working with industry, our
states have developed new processes to
reduce or eliminate some hydrocarbon
emissions.
In 1970, less than 30 percent of our
major river mileage was suitable for
fishing and swimming. Today the figure
is 80 percent. Beaches and shellfish
beds are reopening along the coast, and
the Atlantic salmon has returned to
some rivers for the first time since
George Washington's day. Among the
remaining 20 percent of river mileage
are small streams dominated by
industrial effluent and municipal
sewage. Here industry is striving to
clean its effluent to standards more
strict than those for drinking water.
Boston Harbor has been grossly
polluted for more than 20 years, but a
new Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority has been created to attack the
problem, and a federal judge in Boston
has agreed at EPA's behest to enforce
cleanup schedules in the $2 billion
repair and construction project that lies
ahead.
We are gaining control over the
frightening mismanagement of toxic
substances and hazardous waste, and
correcting waste disposal errors of the
past. EPA, the states, and responsible
companies have started cleanup or
preliminary work at 46 New England
Superfuncl sites, and 36 emergency
cleanups have been completed at
Superfund sites and other toxic waste
dumps.
Good things are happening because
the "militia" of citizens, industry, and
state government wants progress and is
willing to work cooperatively to achieve
it. What was the key decision on the
part of Region 1'! A succession of
politically appointed regional
administrators each decided to be led,
not by political considerations, but by
the advice of career professionals based
on sound science and technology.
Not all the decisions have been
universally popular, but they have
earned for Region 1 the trust and public
cooperation without which there would
have been no revolution and no
progress. I thank my colleagues, the
people of New England, and their state
governments. May the next 15 years be
as productive as the last.
by Christopher J. Daggett
Region 2
Some of the greatest strides
have been made in the war
against water pollution caused
by municipal sewage
discharges.
Cleaning up environmental problems
anywhere is a challenge. Producing
results in New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands—among the
most populated areas in the nation—is a
complex battle.
Looking back over the past 15 years,
Region 2 can claim some major
successes. Some of the greatest strides
have been made in the war against
water pollution caused by municipal
sewage discharges. With impetus from
the 1972 federal Clean Water Act,
Region 2 has provided more than $6
billion in funds to various
municipalities for sewage treatment
programs.
Perhaps the most striking results of
those funds can be seen in the Hudson
River, especially in its harbor area. More
than $2.6 billion has been spent to date
to treat sewage from New York and New
Jersey. In New Jersey, communities used
that money to build four plants that
treat about 379 million gallons of
municipal sewage daily. Another 70
plants in New York treat 593 million
gallons of sewage a day that would have
been spewed untreated into the Hudson
River.
The results are startling. Goliform
bacterial levels have dropped drastically
18
EPA JOURNAL
-------
ieiv of (he Hudson Hirer from U'cs!
Point. \.Y. Progress luis hern nuir/Y in
cleaning up initiation of (/,-<• Hudson.
due to treatment, preserving the safety
of the Hudson's waters for people and
fish. With tons of pollutants gone,
oxygen levels have improved, luring
striped bass, white perch, tomcod, and
bay anchovy back to the harbor where
they are propagating actively again.
Even shellfish beds have reopened in
the Atlantic south of Rockaway
Peninsula.
The cleanup also means the beginning
of a renaissance for New York
harbor beaches. For example, Midland
Beach on Staten Island reopened about
five years ago. Even more beaches in the
greater New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area are expected to
reopen within the next few years as
pollution abatement programs continue.
Some of those beach reopenings will
come on the heels of a major
advancement in the water quality of a
seven-mile stretch of the Hudson. The;
water quality standards for the area,
spanning from the northern tip of
Manhattan to just south of the Tappan
Zee Bridge, have been upgraded to
fishable and swimmable levels as a
result of improved waste treatment on
the river.
Another more visible and massive
sign of improvements to come for the
Hudson River is the North River Sewage
Treatment Plant near the George
Washington Bridge. Starting this
December, the North River project will
treat some 180 million gallons of sewage
generated daily in Manhattan.
While tremendous progress in water
pollution control has been made over
the years, many challenges remain. Our
programs to curb conventional pollution
in the Hudson River are being fortified
with more recent efforts to identify and
control toxic chemicals.
Region 2 has kicked off an aggressive
program to pretreat industrial waste
waters—especially those contaminated
with toxics—before they ever reach
municipal sewage treatment plants and
slip into the Hudson. This program
represents a major effort for EPA Region
2 in the next decade.
N Y State Depf of Commerce
by James M. Self
Region 3
Region 3 has had a history of
responding to environmental
emergencies long before Love
Canal and Superfund became
household words.
EPA's Middle Atlantic Region has
improved the quality of the
environment immeasurably through its
emergency response activities. In fact,
Region 3 was responding to
environmental emergencies long before
Love Canal and Superfund became
household words.
In the early and mid-1970s. Region 3
participated in the cleanup of a number
of tanker accidents on the Delaware
River and the devastating aftereffects of
tropical storm Agnes. These
emergencies required the cleanup of
hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil
and chemicals.
In the late 1970s, our region also dealt
with hazardous waste emergencies
under the oil spill cleanup provisions of
the Clean Water Act (C\VA). For
example, the contamination of a
warehouse in Youngsville, Pa., by PBCs
was first addressed using CWA
emergency funding. Later, Superfund
money was used to complete removal of
contaminated soil and the monitoring of
ground water.
Since the passage of Super!mid.
Region 3 has been one of the nation's
leaders in quickly addressing hazardous
waste problems through use of the
emergency provisions of the law. Region
3 will soon reach its one hundredth
Superfund immediate removal action.
To date, this has included the removal
of 12,600 drums, 31,700 tons of
contaminated soil and sludges, and over
1.2 million gallons of hazardous
substances. Details such as these are
often overlooked in accounts of
Superfund accomplishments.
All these activities have not only had
a positive impact on the environment,
but have also helped to shape the
public's perception of EPA as an agency
that can be looked to for help in
emergencies.
NOVEMBER 1985
19
-------
by Jack E. Ravan
Region 4
By 1973, the body of water
was well on its way to being
oner, again a functioning
estuary.
In Florida's Fscambia Day during the
late l!)f)(Js, fishing nets were filled
mainly with slimy growths, a variety of
wastes, ami very few tish.
Into the HliiOs, fish kills abounded and
the estuary at I'ensacola received
nationwide attention. News pictures of
piles of dead menhaden and other lish
species were not uncommon.
Enrichment of the bay created algae
blooms which fostered millions of lish.
However, during critical conditions the
same algae caused lowered dissolved
oxygen which .suffocated the fish.
Through the efforts of Florida's
regulatory agencies and predecessor
agencies of Kl'A, efforts were
undertaken to reduce the industrial
waste being discharged into the estuary.
These eitorts were successful, and by
1973, when Region 4 .sent its Kscambia
Hay Recovery Study team to evaluate
the estuary and recommend recovery
programs, the body of water was well
on its way to being once again a
functioning estuary.
Industrial discharges no longer were
rendering fishing nets useless and
desirable spoil lish wen; beginning to
move back into the river and bay
system. Young striped bass were placed
in the river lo see if a viable fishery
could be established. They survived anil
provided a long desired sport fishery.
There is optimism that continued
improvement will lead to a
20
self-sustaining fishery of striped bass.
Also, the team studied the demise of
seagrass beds which took place during
the 1940s and 1950s, using photographs
furnished by the Florida Department of
Transportation and previous studies by
state scientists. During the 1973 study
by Region 4, the recovery team found
that seagrasses were beginning to
increase in the estuary.
Recent reconnaissance of the system
indicates an even greater expanse of
seagrasses, with coverage of several acres
in at least three areas. Fishermen are
trawling for shrimp for the first time in
many years, and there is a blue crab
fishery throughout the system.
Although Escambia Bay is recovering,
new problems are emerging in the form
of commercial development and
housing along the shoreline. A
concerted effort must be initiated to
counter this threat to the water quality
of the estuary.
by Valdas V. Adamkus
Region 5
Our efforts have, led people to
realize that there is no
"away".
EPA's fifteenth anniversary affords us
a unique opportunity to, Janus-like,
reflect on where we've been and where
we've yet to go. The first 15 years have
been a period of idealism, turmoil, and
growth highlighted by an evolving
appreciation for the complexity of the
problems we face and the development
of an increasingly sophisticated array of
tools to deal with them.
In our first 15 years, we found that
addressing the obvious issues served
only to pull back the curtain and reveal
the enormity and complexity of the task
still ahead. Concerns about parts per
million have paled as we find our
detectable limits moving to parts per
billion and even parts per quadrillion.
As the power of our science increases
we are made even more aware of how
all environmental problems overlap.
Unlike in our early years, we can no
longer treat problems from the
perspective of a single medium. Air,
water, waste, and toxics are no longer
single-issue or single-source problems.
We have had to become more
sophisticated in the way we deal with
them.
Hence, our most important
accomplishments over the last 15 years
have not been the cleaning of particular
rivers or communities. Rather, our major
achievement has been learning to use
and develop tools that will serve us
over the next 15 years as we deal with
environmental problems that are more
complex and interwoven.
The enormity of the task still
remaining will require an active
leadership role by the states. In Region
5, the concept of state-federal
partnership embodied in the very early
legislation has been aggressively
pursued by both the states and the
regional office. As the states have
acquired the necessary program
capability, they have been delegated
more control over the structure and
direction of environmental programs.
But our states have done more. They
have been innovators in a wide variety
of programmatic and administrative
areas. The willingness of our states to
assume the responsibility for
environmental management has been a
major factor in the successful
environmental programs of the last 15
years.
This willingness to take on active
leadership roles comes from an
understanding in Region 5 that our
economic well being is inextricably
linked to the health of the environment.
We have learned that we need not be
forced to choose between jobs and the
environment. We want and can have
both.
But perhaps the biggest impact which
we and the states have had is on the
people we serve. Our efforts have led
people to realize that there is no
"away". The environmental problems
we face can't be shipped downstream,
downwind, or down the road. As Pogo
declared years ago, "We have met the
enemy and he is us."
In the coming 15 years this sense of
EPA JOURNAL
-------
community and responsibility for
cooperative efforts to solve common
problems must be sustained if, at the
year 2000, we are to be able to look back
and see the kind of progress which we
see today.
by Dick Whittington, P.E.
Region 6
The referrals were of such
quality that they stand as
examples for other regions to
follow.
Vinyl chloride was listed as a
hazardous air pollutant by EPA
under the Clean Air Act in 1975. This
cancer-causing substance was one of the
first substances so listed. National
emission standards for vinyl chloride
were set in 1976.
Subsequent EPA studies showed that
almost 50 percent of the operating vinyl
chloride plants in the nation were
located in EPA's Region 6 area
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas).
In early 1982, the region began a
major vinyl chloride enforcement
program to bring these plants into
compliance with the standards.
During the following year and a half,
Region 6 staff evaluated the data on file,
obtained additional information from
industry, coordinated numerous policy
decisions with its Washington, D.C.,
counterparts, and developed necessary
technical and legal documents for
referring cases to EPA Headquarters and
the Department of Justice for litigation.
The referrals were of such quality that
they stand as examples for other regions
NOVEMBER 1985
to follow—and Region 6 often is
consulted by other regions about case
preparation.
As of August 1985, 15 vinyl chloride
cases, based on referrals from the
region, had been filed in various district
courts—13 in Louisiana, one in
Oklahoma, and one in Texas. Five cases
have been settled, producing a total of
$800,000 in fines. Fines ranged from
$50,000 to $625,000.
Since the first regional case was filed
in July 1983, the states have taken a
more aggressive enforcement stance, and
there has been a marked decrease in
vinyl chloride relief valve discharges.
For example, one company dropped
from 40 such discharges between 1980
and 1983 to four between 1983 and
1985. Another company dropped from
ten to two such discharges during the
same period.
Region 6 is continuing its aggressive
vinyl chloride enforcement program and
is expanding the program to cover other
hazardous air pollutants.
by Morris Kay
Region 1
Charcoal kilns no longer spew
forth the heavy clouds of
particulates that hung low in
the Ozark Mountain valleys.
Environmental quality changes
usually evolve almost imperceptibly
and are often hard to measure, but in the
late 1960s and early 1970s the outfalls
below large meat packing plants located
in Omaha, Neb,, and Council Bluffs, la.,
ran red with blood and offal. Large
grease balls clogged water intakes many
river miles below the plants on the
Missouri River. Farther west, runoff
from huge cattle and swine feedlots ran
unchecked into small streams and
rivers, killing literally thousands of fish.
Enter EPA. With the aid of the states,
regulations were developed to control
runoff from feedlots. Effluent guidelines
were established for the meat packing
industry and the effect on water quality
in Region 7 has been dramatic.
Not so obvious has been the
considerable improvement in air quality
in the region during the last 15 years.
Charcoal kilns no longer spew forth the
heavy clouds of particulates that hung
low in the Ozark Mountain valleys.
Fugitive dust from the sentinels of the
plains, the grain elevators that dot the
countryside across the region, is now
captured before it escapes to the
environment. Emissions from lead
smelters have been reduced
significantly, and the quality of air in
those areas is markedly improved.
Open, burning dumps have virtually
been eliminated in the region. Dumps
that have boon closed are monitored
closely to detect any leaching that may
pose a threat to that precious natural
resource, ground water, Nearly 80
percent of the drinking water supply tor
the entire region comes from ground
water. In most instances, it's good.
clean, sweet water and every effort is
being made to keep it that way.
Ground-water protection continues to be
a high priority in the region.
Nearly five years ago one of the most
complex environmental problems the
region has ever faced began to emerge.
Dioxin contamination has now been
confirmed at more than 40 sites in
Missouri. Refinements in sampling
techniques, grid sampling to assure
acceptable cleanup levels, quality
controlled and quality assured data, and
community relations techniques are just
a few of the experiences we have to
share with other regions from this
extremely resource-intensive effort.
Perhaps the most exciting
environmental achievement, ami one
that has not only regional and national
implications but international impact as
well, is the successful destruction of
dioxin in the field by the agency's
mobile incinerator. Man had created
this unwanted byproduct, dioxin. but
not until this year in a remote rural area
of northern Barry County, Mo., did the
mobile incinerator prove that man couid
indeed, destroy this toxic chemical
successfully and safely. Truly an
environmental achievement.
21
-------
by John G. Welles
Region 8
Region li's most significant
contributions to environmental
protection are the ways we get
the job done.
On October 1. 1971, EPA's Region 8
was non-existent. But by
mid-month, a crew of almost 45 had
started shaping the process of
environmental protection in the Rocky
Mountain Prairie Region. During the
years since, Region 8 has felt growing
pains, stretched, grown stronger, and
had many environmental successes.
While single actions or
accomplishments are vital in gauging
environmental protection, we believe
that Region 8's most significant
contributions to environmental
protection are the ways we get the job
done.
The major way we get the job done is
through partnerships with states in
accordance with national policy. This
integrated approach to environmental
management is complex, and it is not
always easy. But, better than anything
else we know, given good
communication and good will, it works.
Coupled with our state/EPA
agreements, enforcement agreements
and tribal agreements, state delegation is
the firm foundation on which
environmental protection is supported
and carried out in Region 8. While we
take our oversight role seriously, we
believe the most environmentally
beneficial way to work with our
delegated states is as responsible
partners.
Cooperative processes also greatly
facilitate environmental problem-solving
in the region. For example,
contamination believed to have
originated from a part of the Lowry
Landfill east of Denver threatens a local
aquifer. A task force established by the
Governor of Colorado in 1980 and
moderated by the League of Women
Voters is the forum through which the
many interested parties are working
toward solutions: city, county, state and
local agencies, an estimated 200
potentially responsible parties.
neighborhood associations, and local
and national citizen advocacy groups.
Recently, (Mean Sites, Inc.. was engaged
by private parties to assist in efforts to
apportion costs. Before these
cooperative processes were in place,
progress was eclipsed by confrontation.
Another example: a situation
involving an estimated 4,000 people in
a Denver suburb began to unfold in
1982. An unusually high number of
cancer cases apparently existed in area
children. Some residents feared another
Love Canal and requested EPA help.
Within weeks, EPA, state and county
health departments, area and national
advocacy groups, and Congressional
representatives linked together to
attempt to identify the cause of the
cancers. Although several months of
extensive investigation found no
environmental cause for the disease, the
lingering fear that exposure to some
unidentified contaminant triggered the
disease was removed because the
investigation had credibility. This case
demonstrated how combined efforts for
environmental fact-finding and
understanding can produce results
acceptable to all in the problem-solving
process.
The challenge to protect the
environment will not grow easier. As
population and tourism grow in the
mountain states, the need for
environmental protection will expand
proportionally. In the final analysis,
successful delivery of environmental
services in the future will depend on
dedicated people both within EPA and
in organizations with which we work
closely to get the job done.
by Judith E. Ayres
Region 9
Supported by EPA's resources
and technical skills, the
state-managed construction
grants program has yielded
major water quality payoffs.
Region 9 takes great pride, at this
fifteenth anniversary of EPA, in the
attainment of a highly productive
state/EPA partnership in environmental
management. This successful program
grew out of the 1970s' sudden
population growth, dynamic economic
and technological changes, and
environmental challenges undreamt of
15 years ago.
While the public was demanding
increased federal programs to contend
with omnipresent environmental issues,
the availability of resources did not
increase to meet those demands if we
were to continue to operate in a
centralized federal mode.
A shift to shared management became
an option for meeting Congress' and
EPA's imperatives for environmental
protection. Program delegation to the
states was seen as one solution to the
environmental challenges.
Over 15 years, delegation agreements
between the regional office and-,states
were fostered and developed. We saw
delegation as strengthening programs at
the state and local levels. By making
federal resources available to the players
close to conditions within their states,
we were able to respond more quickly
to the environmental concerns and
priorities of an awakening public:
awareness.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Fiiiiilnv dust irnin gaiiii elevators like
these run he rap:
tiir en\'iionment.
The pioneering delegation to
California of the construction grants
program in 1972, and, by 1982, to all of
the states in Region 9, established a
precedent-setting national model. This
single event symbolizes and validates
the inherent strength of our states.
The effectiveness of Region 9's
delegation program is demonstrated by
the fact that about 80 percent (more
than $3.5 billion) of all construction
grant funds Region 9 has provided to its
states under the Clean Water Act have
been obligated through the delegation
process.
Supported by EPA's resources and
technical skills, the state-managed
construction grants program has yielded
major water quality payoffs: the
preservation of pristine Lake Tahoe, the
revitalization of the American River and
other recreational waterways, and the
protection of our West Coast beaches,
bays, and marine ecosystems.
From the construction grants program
(has emerged the concept of delegation
as a tool for creating federal/state
partnerships to implement
environmental mandates. By utilizing
our combined resources to forge an
effective operating partnership. Region 9
has provided the environmental
leadership to advance state pollution
control programs. EPA and the states
have made significant progress together
in cleaning up our air and water and in
protecting and preserving the natural
systems which create the beauty of the
Pacific Southwest and sustain its
people.
by Ernesta B. Barnes
Region 10
Throughout the region, the
pattern of enforcement
established back in 1977
continues to this day.
If there has been a single moment in
the past 15 years when the
environmental movement fully came of
age in the Pacific Northwest, it was on
the October afternoon in 1977 when a
U.S. District Court judge in Seattle
ordered two Puget Sound pulp mills to
comply with the terms of their
•
wastewater discharge permits issued by
the State of Washington.
The two mills were among the last of
the pulp mills in the Pacific Northwest
which had failed to meet the: July 15)77
deadline for adhering to the discharge
requirements of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Lawyers from EPA and the U.S.
Attorney's office had gone to court to
insist that the national effluent
limitations for pulp mills wore to be
obeyed by all members of that industrial
category.
The judge's ruling—and subsequent
agreements by all Puget Sound mills to
pay more than $1 million in penalties
for missing their permit deadlines—not
only upheld the law, but also
demonstrated that EPA could work
successfully with the U.S. Department
of Justice to fulfill the law anil to
protect the environment.
Nowhere in tho Pacific: Northwest has
this teamwork been more evident than
in efforts to preserve Pugut Sound. This
year, for example, through efforts of
EPA and the U.S. Attorney, criminal
convictions—producing jail terms and
penalties in excess of Si million—were
obtained against a Seattle corporation
and its officers for discharging
hazardous waste into Puget Sound.
Throughout the region, and for all the
laws EPA administers, the pattern of
enforcement established back in 1977
continues to this day. Q
NOVEMBER 1985
23
-------
The Light Touch: A Selection of Cartoons
"How should I refer to you in my chronicle, us (he discoverer
of fire, or as the first man to pollute the atmosphere?"
Sliirvaniail. H)B:i. in AI'DI'HO.V M.iR.ixini'
TMEV
BE INTEU-I&&4T" ! TUEV NEs/EfZ. LAND.'
Ashley. 1U74. THK 1O1.KIX) HI.AIJK.
You've Come A Long Way, Baby!
Draper Hill. 1973. in The Commercial Appenl [Memphis],
'PssstJ dump your toxic wastes?
Shirvsnian. iya4. in At'Dt-'BO.V
LKJTWRP
Lf=»TEN, I NEEP ft KXlAK AMP 57 CBJTC
BMC TO T>€ COSTUME SHOP).'"
OR
24
Willis, 1985. HtilJus Times Hfiralri.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Earth Day, April 22, 1970
. 197.',. ni The Washington l'<
"And to make things ivorse the water's polluted.
Oliphanl. I'J7(). in till' Dci:«
"Don't von love being miles from anywhere, nlf coxy by the
fire, listening to the gentle pitter-patter of suljiiric iicid on
the Cabin rOOf/ ' K,.pri,iiral l,v pnnnission ul Al'DrfiOV M.^a/in
aiul Ht'nr\' Mcirhli ' HriiK M.unn 1VIH1
lurden, 19/4. in The Wi/rninglon .Vcu's-founiul
.-FIGHTIUG THE GULF STREAM
CURRENT AND TWE PAIN OF
JELLYFISH STINGS,
ALMOST GAVE UR TMEN FORTUNE
SMlUED, Anf, t-lnTIN<3 AKI OIL SUCK
SHE
'«. 1879. The Oiarlutb' t)l>srr\vi
NOVEMBER 1985
-------
UPelley m Thfl Christian Scicncr- Monltoi • 197:1 TCSl'S
IJaul Conrad. 197<), Los Anaeies Timi's. Reprinted wntn parmission.
ON THe BRisui §iPe. PioxiH KILLQD
BacTeRia irt Trie WaTeR, Toxic
FuMeg, gOLVeD ouR TeRMiTe
3MD TH3NKS To RaDoM S3S, NoTHiN6
even SPOILS IN THe ReFRioeRaToR.
Slcin. l'IH:l. ill lllB HIM kl" Mciunliliii N'i'iv.
Itnini.h, 1902. in Thp f-"xpre.ss-N'eivs (San Antimio
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
In the Public's Eye
Photographs by Murv h'llrn (Jiuiy and
Steve Delanev
For several years, this magazine has
been reporting to the public the
accomplishments of the Environmental
Protection Agency. On the occasion of
the agency's fifteenth anniversary, we
turned the fabJes and asked the public
to report to us.
Three members of the EPA Office of
Public Affairs—Mary Ellen Guuy in
Dallas, Dave Pickman in Boston, and
Susan Tejadu in Washington, D.C.—hit
the streets to ask people the following
question:
What do you think the
Environmental Protection
Agency has accomplished
in 15 years?
Here is what the: people answered.
George H. Butler, Jr.
Farmer
Germantovvn, Md.
Scare groups affect EPA more than they
should. And the farmers don't affect
them enough.
For example, there's a big scan: now
about Alar, the material sprayed on
apples to make them get ripe sooner.
Somebody's come out and said that if
you eat apples that have Alar on them,
you're one hundred times more likely to
get cancer. Somebody's clone some
research, but it really hasn't been
followed through. But it will still scare
some people away from eating apples. It
just kills your business.
We're required to take a course and
pass a test to use restricted pesticides,
and 1 think that's good. We probably
handle the materials a little more
carefully for our own safety.
The bottom line is, nobody wants to
eat fruits or vegetables with worms in
them, but nobody wants to eat any
chemicals either.
Butler
Gale Bradford
Photo shop operator
Weatherford, Tex.
We need a "watchdog," so to speak.
EPA has made strides, insofar as trying
to determine if the air is healthy to
breathe, ef cetera. But I also feel that
EPA probably doesn't act on the
information that it gathers. I feel then:
are many, many situations that happen
every single day, that probably the
agency is aware of but doesn't take care
of, doesn't act on. No one wants to hurt
industry.
Bill Yeager
Retired
Weatherford, Tex.
EPA should be congratulated on the
progress it's made in cleaning up the
water, especially in the polluted streams
where the fish are dying. I know there's
more to be done. I think they should
keep on. We need to have the cleanest
water in the whole United States right
here in Texas.
NOVEMBER 1985
27
-------
Margaret Chung
Secretary
Alexandria, Va.
The exhaust from cars still makes the
air filthy. There's still some work to be
done in that area.
I eat a lot of fish. I do worry a little
bit about that. EPA should keep the
rivers clear of toxic elements. But I still
eat the same amount of fish. That's my
favorite dish, you know.
James Blackerby
School teacher and part-time farmer
Ft. Worth, Tex.
They've made the air cleaner, due to
emission controls on automobiles and
restricting the lead in gasoline. I think
that's the best and the biggest
accomplishment.
There was some asbestos in the
building where I work. They made 'em
seal the cracks. I'm sure it was the EPA
that made 'em do it. 1 feel better about
that.
Ken Fassler
Caretaker
Glen Echo, Md.
You can't have an organization that is
trying to do something good, which is
what I assume that EPA is doing, and
have the rest of society on a whole
different track. In order to really deal
with environmental problems, you also
need a lot of volunteer help from the
whole community. For example, one of
our members (of the Sycamore Island
Club on the Potomac River) is a
volunteer walker—he walks streams
looking for clues to pollution. There are
a lot of activities like that, that people
can indulge in, as a community service,
without pay. Until we have that
attitude, anything EPA tries to do will
be in vain. Because it's not big enough
to take care of the damage that millions
and millions of people have been
causing.
I've lived on the river for more than
10 years. 1 can see things that go on in
the river that are undesirable, but all the
pollution can't be attributed to EPA
because the real problem is this: if
somebody puts something into the,
system somewhere, it's very hard to
trace. Still, if things don't go right, the
EPA is at least somebody to blame.
Bill Vincent
Pharmacist
Weatherford, Tex.
EPA has a stigma attached to its name.
EPA has probably meddled in other
people's business. Some people feel like
the government has no place telling a
guy what he can do or can't do in the
area of pollution control.
John Lynch
Letter carrier
Cabin John, Md.
When I was a kid, I was always down
on the C&O Canal. It was pretty dirty
and it smelled a lot. Now the Potomac
seems cleaner to me. It seems like
there's more fish down there; you see
more people fishing.
Delivering mail, I come across a lot of
yards that have been sprayed. You can
always tell when someone has sprayed
their yard because, you know, you can
smell the pesticides on it.
Louis Kraniak
Engineering technician
Crowley, Tex.
EPA has accomplished quite a bit. But
they've accomplished it by dismantling
the businessman. An example I would
cite is with this lead control, where
they're making these plants shut down
after years and years of building up a
business. They're hitting the
businessman rather than settling
something with the public. It has to be a
50-50 proposition, where the
businessman concedes a little, and the
public concedes a little.
Richard Banks, Jr.
Bank employee
Boston, Mass.
EPA seems grossly underpowered in
terms of manpower and enforcement
power. Certainly in the field of
hazardous waste, EPA has not been able
to prevent people from dumping
illegally. I don't believe we'd have the
toxic dump problem we do if EPA
regulations were being followed. Also
there has been much use of pesticides
in ways which EPA has ruled out. I am
thinking especially of an incident
involving watermelons in California.
The people who ate them became ill.
The regulations EPA makes don't
seem to be feared as are the rules of
other government agencies like the
Securities and Exchange Commission
and state bank comptrollers. The
Executive Office has not adequately
backed EPA in recent years, especially
the current Administration. Air
pollution, acid rain, and toxic chemicals
cannot be adequately controlled by the
states without strong federal
involvement. We need more federal
support to enforce regulations by
policing industry and punishing the
offenders.
Michael J, Gilbert
Legal assistant
Washington, D.C.
EPA has created an awareness of things
that need to be cleaned up. As with all
things, the process is slow, and the
progress is slow. But people are more
aware, and they're trying to do their
share.
Lillian Marsh
Registered nurse
Weatherford, Tex.
People are not aware of the amount of
damage that's being done to the human
body by things that are happening in the
environment—things like the aldicarb
mess with the watermelons; the Bhopal,
India, event; and other chemical spills.
It's becoming an almost daily event
where people are evacuated from
somewhere for a tanker truck that has
spilled with a pesticide or a chemical in
it. We're really going to have to look at
our practices here before we wipe out
too large a segment of our population.
James Kirtiand
Automotive service writer
Arlington, Tex.
The restrictions they've put on the cars
for smog pollution—they organized that
at EPA. During the first years, they
didn't do too bad. They were still young
and small. But now in the later years,
they've put such restrictions on the
automakers that it's detuned the
engines, taken away their horsepower,
and it doesn't help the running of the
cars as well as it used to. It's restricted
everything that you can do to a car.
Harold Goldstein
Muffler shop operator
Gaithersburg, Md.
We used to have a tremendous number
of requests to remove catalytic
converters. That has tapered down to
almost none at all now, although we
still do get a very rare request. People
are much more aware of the strictness of
the law, and are less apt to ask us to
break it than they would have been 15
years ago.
I find that people have become
educated to the pollution idea now,
which they were not 15 years ago. They
really couldn't see any more than just
bureaucratic interference. But today
people have not only come to accept
EPA; I think they have also come to
respect EPA, because most people feel
the way I feel, that the air is noticeably
cleaner, and that each individual is
contributing to that situation.
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NOVEMBER 1985
-------
Maureen Erwin
Interior design specialist
Marblehead, Mass.
Environmental consciousness is now
mainstream and no longer the exclusive
concern of the birdwatchers. The
agency's greatest accomplishment is
cleaning up old industrial rivers where
salmon and other game fish are now
returning. But EPA has slighted the
most crucial air pollution problem, acid
rain. The popular support for pollution
control is very strong. The average
taxpayer would like to see even more
money spent on environmental
protection.
Francis J. Veale, Jr.
Environmental engineer
Attlehoro, Mass.
EPA recognizes that industry needs time
to develop technology, especially to
meet water quality-based standards such
as will be required of us on the Ten
Mile River in Attleboro. EPA is putting
the pressure on major corporations like
ours to develop the technology. This
will then be transferred downward to
small companies, and benefit the entire
economy. We realize this is our moral
responsibility. All of us here at Texas
Instruments understand this, all the
engineers and other employees. We
want to cooperate all the way down the
line, because we live here and we want
a good environment. We try to make
sure that environmental concerns are
worked into project design and are
closely reviewed and monitored.
Joe Graham
Construction superintendent
Merryfield, Va.
I don't have any use for EPA. They want
me to get my truck inspected all the
time.
Really, though, they're alright. The
inspections are a pain, but they seemed
to have done quite a bit to clean the air
up.
Toney Head
President, consulting firm
Washington, D.C.
The accomplishments have been
significant. There's been a substantial
improvement in waste treatment
throughout the country, and the cleanup
that's taken place in water—in the lakes
and streams—has also been significant.
The type of chemicals you put on
your lawn has a great deal to do with
the type of chemicals that end up in
your water. The effect of those
IVhilfill
chemicals may not be known for 15 or
20 years. And to what extent those
chemicals cause cancer is unknown at
the present time. In that respect, what
EPA is doing (to regulate chemicals) has
a direct impact, and a favorable one. on
my life.
Jim Walters
Long distance trucker
Mt. Juliet, Tenn.
If EPA is protecting the environment. I
haven't seen any of it. If they're doing it.
they need to make themselves more
known.
Barbara Whitfill
Secretary
Dallas, Tex.
They got the lead smelter in Oak Cliff
closed. I think they could do more to
stop dumping of waste and pollution of
the waterways.
hair
Harry Fair
Telephone repairman
Boyds. Md.
I can tell you one thing they did—they
must have got rid of the good bee killer
we used to have. We run into a lot of
bees working outdoors. Whatever they
got rid of, it was good stuff. The stuff
we've got now, you can spray and it
doesn't do much of anything.
Al Moscardelli
Manager, hotel barbershop
Boston, Mass.
People today are aware of the
environmental problems of modern life.
EPA has done a good job and the people
know it.
This country belongs to all the people
to share, not to just a few. And the
people are willing to be regulated by the
government. We have to control our
automobiles and the sewage and the
toxic waste. I think EPA is very-
important and very effective.
Walters
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
The Environmental
Movement
Since 1970
by Robert Cahn and Patricia L.
Cahn
The year the Environmental
Protection Agency was born, 1970,
stands as a landmark in America's quest
for a cleaner and healthier environment
and improved quality of life. On the
first day of that year, the President ot
the United States signaled the political
importance of environmental cleanup
when he announced that his first
official act of the new decade would be
the signing of the recently passed
National Environmental Policy Act ot
1969 (NEPA). Improving the quality of
the environment, added President
Richard M. Nixon, would be a major
goal for the nation.
Four months later, people by the
millions celebrated Earth Day by
marching in parades and participating
in teach-ins, rallies, and meetings all
over the nation to express their
determination to have a better
environment. They had become
increasingly aware of a wide range of
problems affecting their lives, such as
the air carrying dangerous loads of
pollutants and water supplies being
threatened by pesticides and other toxic
substances.
Earth Day, April 22, 1970, involved
more than 2,000 communities and an
estimated 20 million participants. It
showed that the "conservation
movement," which had for many years
involved only a small number of
organizations with principal interests in
fHofierf (,'(i/in received n PulJ(/er Prize
ivhiJi.1 he iviix on environmental reporter
for flu; Christian Science Monitor, mid
mis uppomfed In' President Xixon us
one of the ongj'iKiJ members ul (he
Council on Environmental Quality
[ ]
-------
Of 1 2 r».n.s in (Ills picture hiid \iy ihu ks
t/uil IKK! If i n fed a 1)1)'!' iirenkdou n
product, only one Jidli lied. Three tvere
thin-shelled mid i mcked: ci.uli! others
lulled In develop. One of U'l'llimn
HuckeJshuiis" eurlr moves ns (lie first
KPA Administratoi ivus in i !), for instance, when the Nixon
Administration budgeted only $214
million of the $1 billion authorized by
Congress for sewage treatment plants,
the people reacted. Environmental
groups, cities and counties, labor, health
organizations, and the League of Women
Voters organized the Citizens' Crusade
for Clean Water to fight for adequate
funding for sewage treatment plants.
Intensive lobbying by citi/ens across the
nation led Congress to increase the
appropriation to $800 million, and the
President was forced to accept it.
fii M)7(», members of (i.ASP d'nls
Agnin.sl Smog find Pollution march in
(i nickel line to protest pollution from u
puper miJI lien; Missouri. M(.
Early in the 1970s, the environmental
movement was sparsely funded and
possessed few lawyers, scientists, and
lobbyists. But it gradually increased its
financial base and built up its ability to
further its goals. The Nixon White
House, meantime, lost interest in the
environment as a political issue.
Although the President signed
environmental messages to Congress in
1971 and 1972 that included
encouraging statements and strong
legislative proposals that had been
prepared by the CEQ, he cast his lot
with industry, paid little heed to other
recommendations of the CEQ, and did
not seek its advice, nor did he work for
enactment of most of the legislative
proposals included in the
environmental messages.
The environmental movement
intensified its activities to meet the
challenge. Washington staffs of national
organizations worked closely with
environmental leaders in Congress and
their staffs, helping in the development
of new legislation or adding
amendments to strengthen existing laws.
They did their own research and
sleuthing to uncover instances where
governmental agencies or industry were
breaking pollution control laws or were
planning major projects that threatened
to destroy or harm natural resources.
While industry spent millions lobbying
EPA to draft lenient standards and
regulations or to avoid enforcement
actions, the environmentalists prowled
the halls of EPA to find out what was
going on. They managed to get involved
early enough to submit evidence on
behalf of the public in order to bolster
environmental protection within EPA.
To add to their individual clout,
environmental and citizen groups
banded together to form such
organizations as the Clean Air Coalition.
the Energy Conservation Coalition, the
Alaska Coalition, and other alliances to
work on environmental issues. By the
middle of the 1970s, the major
environmental organizations had
assembled potent grassroots citizen
support throughout the nation. The
Sierra Club, the National Audubon
Society, and The Wilderness Society, for
instance, brought activist members to
Washington for seminars on key issues
and for training in lobbying and
networking. The organizations compiled
computerized lists of members and
other activists in each Congressional
district so that on a given piece of
legislation thousands of letters,
telegrams, and phone calls could be
directed at certain members of Congress
who might hold key votes.
Industry, of course, had long
possessed this capability. In addition to
highly paid professional lobbyists with
large expense accounts, industry had
access to its own stockholders and
could also afford to buy direct mail lists
to get its message to thousands of
people on a particular vote to counter
the environmental lobby. But the
hometown environmental lobbyists
visiting their Congressmen or writing
and phoning from home often proved
more influential than industry's
campaign contributions or lobbying by
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
senior corporate executives. The
movement may have lacked funds, but
was well-equipped with foot soldiers. It
also found the media receptive to its
issues and received good news coverage.
If no other alternatives were available,
the environmental movement resorted to
the expensive, time-consuming use of
lawsuits to force compliance with
environmental laws and regulations.
While industry spent millions
lobbying EPA, the
environmentalists prowled the
halls of EPA to find out what
was going on.
When the CEQ was unable to get a
satisfactory environmental impact
statement (EIS) from a government
agency on a major action affecting the
environment, lawsuits were filed.
As a result, many proposed
governmental actions were modified to
avoid environmental problems, and in a
few cases projects were abandoned
entirely after courts upheld the EIS
procedure prescribed in the National
Environmental Policy Act. Frequently
when one organization filed a case,
other environmental organizations
would join in umicus proceedings, or
help with research or funding. Other
legal actions were facilitated through
amendments to existing laws or by new
environmental legislation which
allowed lawsuits to be filed on behalf of
citizens.
During the formative period of EPA,
environmental leaders found
encouragement in some of the early
positions and decisions of
Administrator Ruckelshaus, and
recognized the challenges be faced in
trying to assemble a well-motivated,
capable organization from personnel,
most of whom had been transferred
from a half-dozen federal agencies. In
the area of water quality, KPA
established standards for compliance
under strict enforcement of the;
long-neglected Refuse Act of 1899, and
filed more than 150 criminal actions
during 1971. EPA reconvened five
regional enforcement conferences and
initiated two new ones to obtain better
compliance with water pollution
abatement regulations. The agency
forced cleanup of the Houston ship
channel and cited three major U.S.
cities—Atlanta, Cleveland, and
Detroit—for water quality violations.
Ruckelshaus issued notices of
cancellation of all registrations for
pesticides containing DDT, though hi;
did not take the stop urged by
environmentalists—suspension of
use—until later when he was persuaded
to do so by public demand plus court
actions initiated by environmentalists,
as well as the evidence produced at
EPA's own hearings. Tin' KPA Office ol
General Counsel assumed an advocacy
role, presenting the strongest cases
possible, with the Administrator as
ultimate judge, and sought to initiate
enforcement proceedings, although this
advocacy attitude was not given much
support by tin; agency's program
executives. The environmentalists gave
Ruckelshaus high marks in his lirsl
major rulemaking activity under the
1970 Clean Air Act Amendments, when
he promulgated strong national primary
and secondary ambient air quality
standards.
Then, in the spring of 1971,
environmentalists were distressed to see
Ruckelshaus, under pressure from
industry, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and certain While House
NOVEMBER 1985
33
-------
^.
officials, make serious compromises and
reverse the agency's earlier proposed
standard for state implementation of air
quality. The Sierra Club and other
organizations promptly went to court,
claiming that the proposed regulations
did not satisfy requirements of the 1970
law. About this time OMB was
designated by the President to oversee
all EPA activities through a so-called
"Quality of Life'' review. From then on.
OMB frequently tried to weaken EPA
EPA has cast itself in the role
of balancer between
environmental and industry
positions.
proposals that were opposed by
industry and began to impose economic
tests on regulatory actions.
By mid-1972, environmental leaders
felt that EPA had lost much of its early
advocacy and even much of its initiative
in working toward improving
environmental conditions. In addition to
the problems of political interference
from the White House and OMB, EPA
was receiving little; support from other
federal agencies. EPA was further
hampered by the energy crisis of 1973
and 1074 and subsequent pressures for
weakening environmental regulations
thai were perceived as preventing
development of new energy supplies.
Had it not been for the unusual political
strength of Russell Train, the only EPA
Administrator to come out of the
environmental movement, EPA during
1973-1976 probably would have caved
in completely to White House pressure
to favor industry. In 1974, Train was
able to resist White House demands that
HP A support sweeping amendments to
John t fveren
weaken the Clean Air Act. During that
period, Train's threat of resignation
forced White House and OMB officials
to allow EPA more independence in its
actions.
EPA and the environmentalists both
entered an unusual period during the
early years of the Carter Administration.
For the first time, a President actively
supported environmental issues. Carter
gave EPA a large increase in the fiscal
1978 budget. A number of experts from
environmental organizations accepted
high-level positions at EPA. But in the
last two years of the Carter presidency,
EPA again felt the budget squeeze when
it was denied sufficient funds to
accomplish the additional workload
imposed by new legislation. And
support from the White House faded
somewhat, again in the face of an
energy crisis. Elements of the Carter
White House even promoted an Energy
Mobilization Board which would have
been empowered to waive
environmental laws.
In the five years since 1980, both EPA
and the environmental movement have
faced unprecedented adversity.
Environmentalists claim that under
cloak of regulatory reform, the
Administration not only has attempted
to weaken EPA through budget and
personnel reductions, but has sought to
emasculate or revoke environmental
protection regulations, policies, and
laws. Environmental leaders say that the
effects of Administration policies on the
agency, especially in the 1981-83 years,
have been a serious drop in staff morale,
diminished ability to accomplish
objectives because of the firing or
resignation of many of its best
executives, planners, and scientists, loss
of stature within government, and
damaged credibility with the public.
Responding to actions by Interior
Secretary James Watt and EPA
Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford.
thousands of citizens joined
environmental organizations or donated
funds to the environmental cause. And
the movement has reached into new
issues—occupational health, indoor air
pollution, world population stability,
tropical forest loss, biological diversity,
and other global problems. New areas of
activity include helping to prevent harm
EPA JOURNAL
-------
dliiuiuJ lis/icniu'M fry llicir luck in
the Houston ship channel, (.'iramip ol
the rlmnni'l u'us un curly I'.l'A priority.
from the peacetime dangers involved in
nuclear weapons production, testing,
transportation, and deployment, and the
long-term biological effects of nuclear
war ("nuclear winter").
Also, environmental groups, while
maintaining their own individual
objectives, are working together and
coordinating efforts more effectively
than ever before. For instance, the heads
of 10 major environmental
organizations, who now meet regularly
to discuss priorities, recently outlined a
course of action for the rest of the
century, which has been published as a
book, An Environmental Agenda for the
Future.
In the early 1980s, the environmental
movement rallied behind the "Save
EPA" campaign initiated by several
former EPA officials and led by former
Assistant Administrator for Plans and
Programs William Drayton. In addition
to lobbying, they released to the public
a secret OMB plan to cut EPA personnel
by almost two-thirds. They prepared for
Congressional committee consideration
reasonable alternative budgets for fiscal
1981 through 1983 which played a
major part in averting the OMB plan
and holding the cuts to the lower but
still severe level proposed by
Administrator Gorsuch.
Environmental organizations have
also brought hundreds of citizen
lawsuits to help restore some degree of
compliance which they believe has been
severely neglected since the start of
1981. They claim that voluntary
compliance—the most critical element
in the regulatory system—has broken
down because industry has been getting
signals that neither EPA nor the
Department of justice would enforce the
laws or regulations, and states are
unable or unwilling to do it. Perceiving
this, the Sierra Club, the Natural
Resources Defense Council, and
individual environmental attorneys
started a campaign in 1983 for citizen
prosecutions as authorized under
provisions of environmental protection
statutes. Under the Clean Water Act, for
instance, environmental attorneys obtain
a company's own records of
noncompliance with water quality
regulations—as required to be filed with
EPA—and the attorneys use them to
bring suits. They have won more than a
hundred court-approved settlements and
have collected penalties for local public
uses without the cases ever coming to
trial.
The environmental movement
sees itself as operating in the
best interests of the public.
Environmental leaders see EPA's
credibility on enforcement as somewhat
improved since the return of Bill
Ruckelshaus and under the current
administration of Lee Thomas. But they
believe it is by no means restored
because industry knows that EPA does
not have the resources to carry out the
laws, and that the signals from the
White House and OMB remain the
same—environmental regulatory actions
against industry should be eased or
abandoned.
EPA, meantime, finds itself in the
middle, and has cast itself in the role of
balancer between environmental and
industry positions.
"In trying to balance all the interests,
the net result has been heavily
compromised decisions," says William
Butler, government affairs vice president
and counsel of the National Audubon
Society. "The Department of Agriculture
doesn't do that; it does what it believes
is best for the farmers. The Bureau of
Reclamation does what is best for the
water developers. If EPA was playing
the game on behalf of its real
constituency, it would be acting for the
public at large which is concerned
about environmental quality. Instead,
EPA sees its role as requiring the
balancing of various interests among its
perceived constituency, with a wary eye
cocked on a hostile OMB, and with no
Administration allies whatever."
Thomas Jorling, Professor of
Environmental Studies at Williams
College, Massachusetts, who was
Minority Counsel of the Senate Public
Works Committee in the early 1970s
and EPA Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials from
1977-1980, says that "EPA is now a
professional agency that has no
environmental soul, and as a
consequence, its performance will bo
consistent with the political ideology of
its Administration, That means that in
this Administration it is a balancer that
gives stronger weight to economic
values than to environmental values."
The environmental movement sees
itself as operating in the best interests of
the public, and believes that the public
wants a deeper commitment to
environmental values from government.
and especially from EPA.
"In the environmental area, the
dynamic of change in recent years has
always been in one direction: the
American people get tougher and
tougher and more adamant and more
shocked about the state of
environmental cleanup," stated pollster
Louis Harris recently. "And they an;
literally furious that there has been so
much perceived foot-dragging on the
part of those with the power to get
things done. Thus the majorities in any
sound poll conducted on this subject
are simply huge and staggering." n
NOVEMBER 1985
-------
A secondary rlurifirr. jmrt ol lite
U'dsfcuulrr tn;ntm
-------
and solid waste management. The
private sector bears almost 79 percent of
the total cost of pollution abatement in
this country.
Whichever method of computation is
preferred, the numbers are still large
and proportionately more than
anywhere else in the world. It lends
support to the adage that only affluent
countries can afford environmental
protection, another reason we must
work to sustain a growing economy.
I appreciate why some feel the
environment is still unclean and
unhealthy or that progress is too slow.
The only problem with holding that
view is that the facts keep getting in tin:
way. All of us must appreciate that as
science improves, especially analytical
chemistry and molecular biology, it
becomes easier to detect new effects,
particularly on a micro-scale. Such
findings should not, by themselves, be
used as a basis for stiffer laws and
regulations. At the same time, such
findings should stimulate all of us to
become more inquiring and seek an
intellectual understanding of the
problems as a prelude to prudent
environmental management.
Two brief examples will illustrate the
challenges before us. First, consider the
reports of trace amounts of potentially
harmful materials in the environment,
We often read of concentrations of less
than one part per billion (1 ppb). It is
astounding that these concentrations
can even be detected because finding 1
ppb is equivalent to picking out one
second in almost 32 years. The
mathematical probability of these few
molecules being inhaled, ingested or
absorbed may be low, and it is only
through these routes that material can
be potentially of harm.
Second, consider a hypothetical
circumstance that an industrial manager
may have to struggle with. Suppose that
a plant leaks 100 kg of a chlorinated
solvent. Heavier than air, it settles as a
dense vapor and moves along the
ground. It reaches the plant fence line.
the entrance to a community, at a
concentration of perhaps 20 parts per
million. The compound is a suspected
animal carcinogen; that is, it does not
consistently, with the required
statistical significance, cause an increase
in the incidence of carcinoma in tests
on two species and two sexes of
mammals. However, it does cause an
increase.
What certainty can there he that this
vapor, entering the community at this
concentration, will disperse or not—or,
if it does disperse, that it will or won't
expose one or more persons to a
concentration for a sufficient period of
time to cause any illness or pathology,
that those exposed would not have
developed anyway?
It sounds complex and it is. But this
is just the sort of question or standard of
ethical behavior our society seeks. In
the absence of certainty, we want
prudence. But the extrapolation of
prudence is certainty. Neither EPA nor
its regulated industries can promise or
achieve certainty in environmental
protection. Hence, the suspicion and
polarization between I'iPA, industry, and
NOVEMBER 1985
37
-------
h'mplnvrr.s of l)iik(- J'mvrr Co. in \ortli
Carolina making a smvcvo/ lish In
(ompony lakes.
environmentalists is exacerbated. And
that's unfortunate. It's unfortunate
because much of the friction could be
avoided if EPA and the public would
step back and take a more realistic look
a! the situation.
I believe thai newly discovered
environmental problems can be
categorized in three broad groups. The
first, or lowest priority, are those
findings that are of interest from a
research or future tracking viewpoint.
The opposite extreme, or third category,
are those that require an immediate
response because of an obvious inherent
and substantial throat to public health.
An example would be the evacuation of
Times Beach, Mo., in 1983 due to
dioxin contamination—a prudent action
even though uncertainties still surround
the human health effects of dioxins.
The middle category is more difficult
to define but should include those
findings that have a potential for harm
Another popular
misconception is thai the
environment is still dirty, in
spile of all sorts of published
statistics to the contrary.
and must be the objects of continuing
research and scrutiny. An example is
the possible depletion of the ozone layer
as a result of chemical reaction with
fluorocarbons. An early hypothesis and
theoretical calculation showed that the
potential for harm might be great and a
massive research effort ensued. This
was good. The research lias now shown
that more information is needed but the
original hypothesis and calculations
have been corrected to show that the
threat is far from imminent.
I hope that in the future EPA will
somehow categorize its efforts this way
and help teach the public that every
finding is not cause for leaping into a
new regulatory program.
It is the responsibility of business and
industry to provide the economic
growth and employment that improves
the quality of life. Growth can be
achieved with environmental systems
management to protect the environment
from damage and to mitigate the effects
on nature that began when homo
sapiens first stood erect.
The systems approach must include
two essential elements. Each must be
understood in public policy
decisionmaking,
The first element is management of
effects and risks. The former can be
controlled end-of-pipe or by making
appropriate process design and practices
changes. Regulations should not lock in
technology so as to prohibit or retard
these kinds of technological changes.
Risk management must include the
setting of environmental health goals
and standards which reflect this
approach to managing effects on people,
animals, and biota. Periodic review of
primary standards, as now required by
some laws, is essential. The standards
should be moved up or down according
to the best scientific understanding, not
according to a political agenda or
confrontation.
The second key element is the
differentiation between goals and
strategies. Once the environmental and
health goals are set, management
strategies are established through
legislation or regulations. There is a
mistaken belief that the stricter the
strategies, the cleaner the environment.
Actually, the stricter the strategies, the
more difficult and longer the process to
achieve the goals. Overly strict strategies
are the antithesis of environmental
quality.
The membership of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce includes the regulated and
the non-regulated business
communities. It includes those
industries that control the majority of
effluents and spend the majority of
money. Perhaps their only competition
in this regard are the federal, state, and
local expenditures for sewage treatment
plants.
Briefly stated, the business
community's viewpoint is multiple use
The American business
community accepts its
responsibility to achieve
growth with proper
environmental management.
of resources and their protection
through environmental systems
management, using strategies and
methods that are simple enough to
protect human health and the
environment. The converse is avoiding
complex, prescriptive over-regulation
for its own sake. Sometimes such
regulations, especially when written
into law instead of being left up to EPA,
become the hallmark of a misdirected
and delayed national program.
Special incentives are not needed.
Rather, our members argue for removal
of disincentives, such as the
•:•
EPA JOURNAL
-------
unnecessarily complex strategies, delays
in permitting or in issuing regulations,
uneven enforcement, or technically
unrealistic standards. All of these lead
to uncertainty and inefficiency.
The American business community
accepts its responsibility to achieve
economic growth with proper
environmental management and it
accepts its corporate responsibility to be
a leader in this field, All of us despair
the few scofflaws who spoil everyone's
nest.
Environmental quality is now part of
the American ethic. It is independent of
party, state of residence, profession, or
other demographic factors. The ethic
does not have to be justified or excused;
it is practiced and taught to our
children.
All citizens, individuals and
corporations, have the incentive and
ethic to achieve environmental quality.
Disincentives placed in their way by
governments are unfortunate and
fairness alone dictates that they be
removed.
I look forward to the continued
maturing of EPA as truly the
Environmental Protection Agency and
away from being the environmental
regulatory agency. 1 wish the agency
well in what I now perceive as a
metamorphosis in this direction—and I
offer the U.S. Chamber's full
cooperation to achieve our mutual goals
for the nation, o
NOVEMBER 1985
39
-------
John Muir:
Environmental Pioneer
by Jack Lewis
Most Americans would probably
stumble for an answer if asked:
Who launched the "conservation" or
"environmental protection" movement
in the United States? Those with short
memories might say Rachel Carson;
those with a deeper knowledge of
American history might say Theodore
Roosevelt or Gifford Pinchot.
But these great names are dwarfed by
an even greater: John Muir, the man
who saved Yosemite, the California
Redwoods, the Grand Canyon, and the
Painted Desert, just to mention the most
famous natural wonders he battled to
preserve. To save them, Muir had to
learn the ways of lobbying and political
infighting, but it was as a writer and
even more as a legendary outdoorsman
that he was able to mold public opinion
in his day.
Muir left such a huge mark on the real
world that it is easy to get the feeling
that he compares not to historical
figures but to such giants of American
folklore as Paul Bunyan and Johnny
Appleseed. Muir's wanderings over the
face of the United States have about
them a super-human quality, larger Shan
life, like the landscape he favored.
The terrain Muir loved best came to
be almost synonymous with his name:
the High Sierras of northern California.
From 1868 to 1880, Muir made his
home in a humble shack nestled amid
the mountains of Yosemite. From that
shack, he ventured forth regularly for
prolonged nature hikes. During these
treks, Muir gathered a wealth of
information about the ancient glaciers
that once molded that landscape as well
as its present-day flora and fauna.
Muir recorded his impressions in a
rich series of articles and books that
were enormously popular from the
1870s to the 1920s. Through these
writings, he has continued to be a major
40
EPA JOURNAL
-------
influence on conservationists and
environmentalists, though his name is
no longer familiar to the general public.
Muir's books would be more popular
today if readers had a better idea of the
extraordinary eloquence and conviction
that is the hallmark of his writing.
Muir paints a picture of a California
so pristine that "it was one sweet bee
garden throughout its entire length,
north and south, and all the way across
Muir's wanderings over the
face of the United States have
about them a super-human
quality.
from the snowy Sierra to the ocean." He
was thrilled by the natural wonders he
saw, and he conveyed that excitement
in writing that made the beauty "stand
out through the words like a fire on a
hill." Muir's goal was to break through
the apathy of his readers, to get them
out of their armchairs and into the
habitat he loved. "No amount of
word-making," he argued, "will ever
make a soul to know these
mountains. . ..One day's exposure to
mountains is better than cartloads of
books."
True to this perspective, Muir
postponed his own "word-making" until
he had years of exploring under his belt.
He was 35 before he published his first
article and 50 before his first book
appeared. The hoopla that greeted those
publications surprised Muir: "Though 1
never intended to write or lecture or
seek fame in any way," he remarked in
the 1890s, "I now write a great deal and
am well known—strange is it not that a
tramp and vagabond without worldly
ambition should meet such a fate."
In any country other than the United
States, such a fate would have been
strange indeed. But by the time John
Muir first set pen to paper, American
literature had already produced at least
two vagabond authors: Henry David
Thoreau and Walt Whitman. Both
Thoreau and Whitman look pretty tame
compared to Muir, who favored "pure
wildness" in all things. "Even
open-eyed Thoreau would," in Muir's
opinion, "have done well had he
extended his walks westward to see
what God had to show in the lofty
sunset mountains."
Muir came by his passion for
mountains naturally. Both his father and
his mother were descended from
Scottish Highlanders. John himself was
born in the Lowland port of Dunbar in
April 1838. Muir took his Scottish roots
seriously. He did not even become an
American citizen until 1903—at the age
of 65! One of Muir's closest American
friends, John Burroughs, described him
as a "rank, cantankerous, and withal
lovable Scot." Yet Muir spent only 11
years in Scotland before abandoning it
forever to seek a better life in the New
World.
It was Muir's father Daniel who took
John and his brothers to Wisconsin to
prepare a home for the women of the
family. Daniel can best be described as a
religious fanatic. When he began
farming in Wisconsin, he expected
complete obedience from his sons in
matters religious as well as agricultural.
John Muir rebelled against the gloom
of a life based on ceaseless labor as the
antidote to sin. From an early age, the
younger Muir showed ingenuity in his
patterns of rebellion. His father wanted
no book studied in his home but the
Good Book, so John got up at one
o'clock every morning and read
scientific books until dawn. He also
invented labor- and time-saving devices
such as a self-adjusting sawmill, a lamp
lighter, and a bizarre "early-rising
machine." The latter consisted of a bed
mounted like a seesaw on a fulcrum.
Ropes and pulleys held the bed in a
horizontal position until the alarm went
off. Then it lurched Muir up and onto
his feet in seconds.
Muir was 22 when he left the farm to
attend the state fair in Madison. He set
up a display of his odd inventions and
quickly attracted attention, most of it
favorable. Encouraged, John decided to
stay on at the University of Wisconsin
as a student. It was not long before he
had crafted a study desk capable of
shooting one book up for inspection.
holding it in place for a time, and then
substituting another. Muir studied the
sciences in hopes of becoming a doctor.
The Civil War, however, led to a drastic
change in his plans. Muir, an ardent
pacifist, felt certain he would be drafted
to fight in the Union Army. In the fall of
1863, he fled to Canada.
His greatest influence was
always upon those who were
brought into personal contact
with him.
Thus began the years of wandering
that were to become the basis of the
Muir legend. From the very beginning,
Muir was no ordinary vagabond.
Everywhere he walked, he sought
samples for his growing herbarium—or
collection of plants. But Muir had to
travel light and travel alone, and
sometimes despair crept up on him.
On one particularly depressing day in
1864, as he was slogging through a
Canadian swamp, Muir came on a sight
that restored his faith in God. nature.
and himself. Nestled apart from other
vegetation, he found two rare white
orchids shimmering against a
background of yellow moss: "1 never
NOVEMBER 1985
41
-------
before saw a plant so full of life; so
perfectly spiritual; it seemed pure
enough for the throne of its Creator. I
felt as if I were in the presence of
superior beings who loved me and
beckoned me to come. I sat down beside
them and wept for joy."
Fortified by this experience, Muir
settled briefly in a factory town on
Georgian Bay. After a fire destroyed his
herbarium, he returned to the United
States and took a job at a machine shop
in Indianapolis. Shortly after he began
working there, Muir suffered a serious
accident that broke him loose from
conventional moorings once and for all.
It happened late one night in March
1867. Muir let a file slip from his hand,
and it flew up and pierced the cornea of
his right eye. Muir lost all sight in both
eyes. For three months, he lived with
the fear that his sight was "closed
forever on all God's beauty." When he
suddenly regained his sight, he felt like
a man totally reborn. "I bade adieu to all
my mechanical inventions, determined
to devote the rest of my life to the study
of the inventions of God."
Liberated from worldly care, Muir
embarked on "a grand sabbath day three
years long." He set himself no other goal
than building up "a .stock of wild
beauty." Muir gathered samples for a
new herbarium as he walked from
Indiana to Texas. He had reached the
Gulf Goast of Texas when a terrible fever
halterl his travels in the fall of 1867.
Muir came close to dying. Oddly,
however, his recovery propelled Muir
toward a break with Christianity.
Henceforward, Muir professed a
passionate pantheism: not in public but
in tliii privacy and safety of his journals.
Everywhere in nature he saw the hand
of God, but he rejected the
Judeo-Christian notion that nature exists
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Giant redtvoods llirhv in Muir
XuticMKiJ Monument in C.'u/iionim,
to serve man and man alone. To Muir,
animals and vegetation had an equal
claim to glory. Especially after his
migration to California in 1868, Muir
seemed to cultivate a mystical faith in
nature. "There is no mystery," he wrote,
"but the mystery of harmony, no
inexplicable caprice, no anomalous or
equivocal expression on all the grandly
inscribed mountains."
Muir set as his goal in Yosemite a life
lived in harmony with the greater
harmony of nature. His contempt for the
vast majority of humans, incapable of
achieving such harmony, came through
in Muir's chilling commentary on an
1875 flood in the Sierra foothills: "True,
some goods were destroyed, and a few
rats and people were drowned, and
some took cold on the house-tops and
died, but the total loss was less than the
gain."
Years of living apart from mere
mortals trapped in "lowland confusion,
degeneration, and dust," gave Muir
psychic powers that fueled his personal
legend. The California mountain man
claimed to have developed an "other
self" that guided him at crucial times, a
sort of telepathic alter ego.
In 1868, while sketching near the
North Dome of Yosemite, Muir
suddenly was seized by an
overpowering conviction that one of his
Wisconsin professors had just entered
the valley near the base of the great El
Capitan rock. After racing for hours,
Muir found James Davie Butler at
Vernal Fall. The same unfailing
telepathy sent Muir hurrying to the
deathbeds of his mother and father
without any advance warning that they
were even ill.
On an everyday basis, Muir's "other
self" intervened to keep him surefooted
in wilderness dilemmas that would
have killed a lesser man. The most
celebrated of these narrow escapes
occurred in 1880. On an expedition to
Alaska, Muir wandered away from his
companions and found himself stranded
on a shelf of ice surrounded by
crevasses too wide for jumping.
Strengthened by his "other self," Muir
managed to crawl along a 70-foot-long
sliver of ice joining the shelf to the
glacier. "At such times," he noted,
"one's whole body is eye, and common
skill and fortitude are replaced by
power beyond our call or knowledge."
Muir was able to pique the
environmental conscience of
all the Presidents from
Benjamin Harrison to
Woodrow Wilson.
Just because such a power was
"beyond our call or knowledge" was no
reason, Muir believed, to give way to
base superstition. He was sure that
phenomena "now called supernatural. . .
are as natural as any other forces with
which we are acquainted . . . There is
yet at the bottom of all such humbugs a
basis of truth, founded on natural laws,
which perhaps some day we may
discover."
Strong-willed and eccentric, Muir
appeared to be a poor candidate for
domestication. But he found a woman
tolerant of his quirks and married her in
1880. John and his oddly named wife,
Louie, had an extremely happy
marriage. Louie gave Muir a home and
two beautiful daughters, but also free
rein to roam when the spirit moved
him. Louie also encouraged John to
record his adventures in books and
articles. John hated to write, but he was
thrilled when his early efforts met with
resounding success. Muir's writing gave
him something far more important than
wealth: unmatched prestige and
influence in the American conservation
movement.
Muir parlayed his newfound
influence into a noteworthy
environmental achievement: he
masterminded the intense lobbying that
led to the founding of Yosemite
National Park in 1890. The lobbyists
encountered virulent resistance from
those intent on leveling the forests and
plowing the meadows of Yosemite. It
was not until Muir published two
articles in the Century magazine that the
tide of public opinion turned and
Yosemite became a national park. The
same Muir-induced burst of public
enthusiasm led to the founding of
Sequoia National Park and General
Grant National Park, also in IH'fO.
In May 1892, Muir brought together
the first members of the Sierra Club. As
the first president of that influential
body, Muir was able to pique the
environmental conscience of all the
Presidents from Benjamin Harrison to
Woodrow Wilson.
Muir's most powerful ally during the
Harrison Administration was John W.
Noble, the Secretary of the Interior.
Noble sneaked past Congress the
so-called "Enabling Act" of 1801. This
permitted President Harrison in
February 1893 to set aside as "forest
reserves" 13,000,000 acres of wilderness
land not yet cleared for designation as
national parks. Four years later, Crover
Cleveland used the Enabling Act to
bring 21,000,000 acres of wilderness
land into the forest reserve system.
Muir's influence was particularly
strong during the Administration of
Theodore Roosevelt. In li)03 Roosevelt
personally asked John Muir to be his
guide on a tour of the High Sierra. The
two men went off alone for three days of
roughing it among the giant sequoias of
the Mariposa Grove. Muir had "a
perfectly glorious time" with T.R.,
whom he considered the most
"interesting, hearty, and manly
companion" he ever had.
NOVEMBER 1985
43
-------
Muir and his "beautiful cathedral" of
Mariposa redwoods made an equally
strong impression on Roosevelt. 'The day
after the two men parted, President
Roosevelt instructed his Secretary of the
Interior to extend the Sierra reserve
northward all the way to Mount Shasta.
During his Administration, America's
greatest conservationist President
doubled the number of national parks
and almost quadrupled the national
forest area, from 4fi,000,000 to
195,000,000 acres. At Muir's personal
suggestion, Roosevelt saved the Grand
Canyon and the Petrified Forest by
declaring them national
monuments—the first step toward
national park status.
One highly personal tribute gave Muir
particular gratification. In 1907, William
Kent, a wealthy Californian, gave a huge
tract of Marin County real estate to the
federal government. Rising on the most
prominent feature of that land—Mount
TumalpaLs—was a priceless stand of
giant redwoods. Kent requested that the
forest be named "Muir Woods," in
honor of America's greatest naturalist.
Muir thanked Kent heartily for
performing "in many ways the most
notable service to God and man I've
heard of since my forest wanderings
began."
Muir's forest wanderings were coming
to a close. The death of his wife in 1905
had dealt him a .stunning blow, and he
no longer found it as easy as he once
had to range through the wilds of the
Sierra. Only the never-ending struggle to
protect the American wilderness kept
Muir vigorous. He knew from bitter
experience that getting a region
designated a national monument or park
was often only the beginning of the
battle. "Ever since the Yosemite
National Park was established in 1890,"
Muir complained, "my own real work
has been sadly interrupted in trying to
assist in its preservation. While a single
peak or dome, tree, or cascade is left,
the poor stub of a park will still call for
protection."
These words, written in 1907,
accurately predicted the crisis that
clouded Muir's last years: the threat to
Yosemite posed by the proposed Hetch
Hetchy Dam. The justification for the
dam was San Francisco's growing need
for drinking water. Muir ascribed
equal—if not greater—value to the needs
of his trees, flowers, and wildlife, which
he knew the dam would harm severely.
In his book Yosemite, published in
The lli'tch lletrhv Duin iHi( Purk
(nil (iff oiuied ruul used by fh :
Snii Francisco. Muir/ought id s
cmi.sfriK ti'oji
-------
Memorable
Moments
at EPA
by Roy Popkin
On December 2, 1970, 5,650 people
scattered throughout six federal entities
coalesced into the initial EPA staff.
Many people have come and gone
during the past 15 years as the agency
has grown to more than 14,000
employees. But some 1,900 of the
original group remain. We talked to a
sampling of these "old timers" to find
out what events seemed most
memorable in their careers with EPA.
Their responses incJuded everything
from scientific breakthroughs to
enforcement crackdowns, from sharing
knowledge with other countries to the
people-to-people relationships which
bound EPA's employees together in a
common concern for the well-being of
the world around them.
For some, the past is only prologue (is
they see worked-for programs or
scientific developments offering the
opportunity for even more memorable
future experiences.
It is unfortunate that the Journal
cannot report on all 1,900, but we
believe these memories and sentiments
are a fair and interesting representation
of all who have been in the agency
since Dav One.
(Popkin is a ivrilcr in (lie EPA Office oj
Public Afjoirs.)
Augustine E. Conroy II, Director. Office
of Compliance Monitoring in the Office
of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
Headquarters, came to EPA as Branch
Chief of the Pesticides Enforcement
Branch.
"The pesticides program in EPA was
the first to initiate the enforcement
action and civil penalty process." he
says. "It was a great clay for me \vhen I
went to Alabama to testify in the very
first such case.
"Pesticides and Toxics led the way
into hardball enforcement by initiating
the civil penalty processes that are now
a part of most of the agency's
compliance efforts."
Robert Dodson, Branch Chief, Financial
Reports and Analysis, Office of the
Comptroller. Headquarters, started as an
accountant assigned to help set up the
Finance Office for the Research Triangle
Park unit in Durham, X.C.
"In 1974. ! was one of ten people
assigned to establish the agency's fund
and document control processes." lie
remembers. "We worked night and day
for months to come up with a 200-page
manual that governs the movement of
about five billion dollars a year through
EPA's various programs.
"Many people working in
enforcement, regulation, research,
community planning, and emergency
response may not think this exciting,
but when we completed that task, we
had given to all of them a system that
assures the fiscal integrity that is
important to what every program does."
Richard J. Guimond. Director, Criteria
Standards Division, Office of Radiation.
Headquarters, one of (K)0 Public Health
Service officers transferred to EPA,
started out instructing federal, state, and
local officials on radiation problems.
"The most exciting EPA experience,"
he says, "is one in which I'm involved
right now—the; investigation of indoor
radon nationally and particularly in
Pennsylvania, New York, and \ew
Jersey.
"This is one of the most significant
public; health problems I've run across
in the past 15 years, because of the si/.e
of the threat to the public and because
of the difficult policy problems related
to the fact that the threat is in private
homes. Ten years from now I hope I'll
be able to say this was my most
memorable experience because we were
able to deal successfully with a difficult
policy issue and an intriguing scientific
problem."
Robert Hardaker, Chief, Planning and
Implementation Branch. Planning and
Analysis Division, Office of Municipal
Pollution Control, Headquarters, began
as a program analyst in the Federal
Activities Branch of the division.
"\Ve were a small group whose job it
was to create and initiate the National
Pollution Discharge Standards
Program," he recalls. "We accomplished
a great deal with very little in the way
of resources. We had to establish the
whole permitting and standards setting
process, and we did. What's more, we
met our deadline of issuing permits to
all major dischargers by 1974.
"What we began with just ten people
at headquarters in 1971 now involves
about 1.000 throughout EPA."
Kenneth Hokanson. Research Aquatic
Biologist at the Environmental Research
Laboratory. Dulutli, Minn., came to EPA
as a researcher, rose to be chief of the
laboratory, and is now back at the
scientist level.
"My specialization is studying the
thermal requirements of fish." he
explains. "This may sound esoteric, but
it is directly related to EPA's mission of
controlling lake pollution to protect fish
and other living organisms.
"Our research has found that EPA
standards and criteria for certain kinds
of pollution that affect water
temperature have been greatly
overestimated in the laboratory. By
doing our research in the real world of
the lakes, we found that the standards
can probably be lowered without
harming the fish. This could lower
industry costs for meeting EPA
anti-pollution standards. What is
memorable about this is that our
research team has sharpened EPA's
scientific methods and degree of
accuracy as it relates to risk assessment
and, ultimately, to risk management."
Joseph Lafornara, Chief. Analytical
Services, Emergency Response Team,
Kdison, N'.J.. joined EPA as a research
chemist in the Office of Research and
Development at Edison to work on ways
to detect the source of mysterious oil
spills.
"In March 1979, 1 was sent to
Hagerstown, Md., to help deal with 89
drums of reactive white phosphorus that
had been damaged in an accident," he
recalls. "They were sitting in two
trailers, cooking and waiting to go off in
the heart of downtown Hagerstown. I
was able to help use the authority of
EPA to get the Army to move them to
NOVEMBER 1985
45
-------
Fort A. I'. Hill in Virginia when; they
were safely blown up.
"Although the arrangements involved
wtinl all (lie way up In the White House,
the incident received little public
attention because it happened at the
same time as the accident at Three Mile
Island."
Francis T. Mayo, Director, Water
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio, joined the EPA water
pollution enforcement program in
Region 5, Chicago, III.
"The most exciting years were my six
as Administrator of Region 5," he
remembers. "And the most memorable
time was the sequence of events leading
to court actions that resulted in closing
down the open hearth furnaces at U.S.
Steel's South Works at Clary. Ind., at
Christmas in 1974 and the coke ovens at
the same plant a year later. Those
actions were taken because of the;
massive air pollution the facilities
caused. In a way, we won; giving the
people in the area clean air to breathe
for Christmas."
Patsy McKenzie, Equal Employment
Opportunity Officer at the
Environmental Research Laboratory, Las
Vegas, Nev., with EEO "area director"
responsibilities for labs in Las Vegas;
Ada, Okla.; Corvallis, Ore.: Denver,
Colo.; Duluth, Minn.; Gulf Breeze, f'la.;
Athens, Ga.: and Narragansett. R.I..
joined EPA as Personnel Assistant to the
Director of the Las Vegas lab.
"For me, the most memorable
experience is the way EPA employees
were involved in the agency's early
development," she recalls. "People came
from Headquarters to tape interviews
with employees in the field about how
we felt about everything from the
symbol—we had a lot of jokes about the
flower—to the agency's goals and how
to reach them. Then, on a single day, we
all met in our locations across the
country and heard from the first
Administrator, saw a slide series in
which we could identify colleagues
from our lab, and were told about the
EPA and its future, Afterwards, our
local administrator talked to us about
how we fit into the EPA picture.
"I've spent all my working life in
government, but this was the first
time—maybe the only time—an agency
pulled in all its people to tell them
where the agency was going, why it was
doing so, and how it hoped to get there.
For a bunch of people with
environmental concerns and
consciences, it was a memorable
beginning."
Wayne Ott, Team leader in Air Toxics
and Radiation Monitoring Research,
Office of Research and Development at
Headquarters, began with EPA as a
junior engineer in the Air Pollution
Research laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
"In those days, we'd dream of the
kinds of studies we'd like to do," he
recalls. "One dream was to do human
exposure studies that would help us
learn just how much exposure to toxics
an individual had suffered, how much
that individual's body had absorbed and
accumulated."
"In the 1980s we finally achieved the
advanced technology and the funding to
begin such studies. Seeing the results
has been exciting. What they tell us
about indoor air pollution is opening up
that field of environmental concern. The
results produced to date have the
potential for revolutionizing the way we
collect data on environmental
conditions."
William L. Richardson. Chief, Large
Lakes Laboratory, Grosse He. Mich.,
came io EPA as Chief of Field and Lake
Operations in Region 5, Chicago, 111.
"Although one of my most significant
assignments was being on the team that
negotiated U.S.-Canada environmental
agreements," he says, "my greatest
personal satisfaction comes from
46
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Following detonation of one drum of
u'hile phosphorus in 1!)79. a p/tmte
spreads 1..">()(! feet over on Army post
near Richmond, \'a. FP.-Vs foi
LaFornura rectdls (fiat a total ol Hi)
drums damaged in
-------
V^IJvlCI Lv* A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
AIR
Ethylene oxide and
chloroform
EPA announced its intention
to list both ethylene oxide
and chloroform as hazardous
air pollutants under the
(Mean Air Act.
This action triggers the
collection of data leading to
the probable proposal of
standards for these
pollutants.
Ethylene oxide is classified
as a probable human
carcinogen readily absorbed
through the respiratory and
gastro-intestinal tracts.
Several studies have shown
that it is widely distributed
in various tissues following
inhalation exposure.
Chloroform is classified as
a probable human carcinogen
based on ingestion exposure
studies. Though there are no
inhalation exposure bioassay
studies currently available,
KPA takes the position that
chloroform should also be
considered carcinogenic by
way of inhalation and
believes it prudent to assume
inhalation potency is the
same as that derived for
ingestion.
1,3-Butadiene
Actions have been taken
involving the chemical
1,3-butadiene under both the
Clean Air Act and the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
The agency intends to list
the chemical as a hazardous
air pollutant under the Clean
Air Act. This action triggers
further evaluation that could
lead to the proposal of
standards limiting emissions
of 1,3-butadiene.
In addition, EPA is
submitting a report to the
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
(OSHA) concluding that
workplace exposures to
1,3-butadiene present an
unreasonable risk of injury,
and formally referring the
chemical under the Toxic
Substances Control Act to
OSHA for possible regulatory
action.
The major use of
1,3-butadiene is in the
manufacture of synthetic
rubbers, plastics, and resins.
Some of the end products
include automobile tires,
high impact plastic used in
autos, appliance parts and
pipe, and synthetic fibers.
The chemical is also used as
an intermediate to produce a
variety of industrial
chemicals.
PESTICIDES
Wood Preservatives
A settlement agreement on
regulatory measures covering
the distribution, sale, and use
of pesticides for preserving
wood has been reached by
EPA and major parties
representing the wood
preserving industry.
However, the issue of what
hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(HxCDD) contaminant level
will be imposed for
pentachlorophenol products
was not resolved by the
settlement.
Specifically, the settlement
agreement includes
provisions for restricting
most uses of wood
preservatives to certified
applicators; label changes
governing the use of the
preservatives; and measures
to reduce worker exposure,
including the wearing of
protective clothing. For the
limited number of creosote
uses not restricted to certified
applicators, the industry has
agreed to adopt stringent
packaging and labeling
restrictions for the affected
products and to institute a
mandatory, EPA-approved
training program for all
applicators.
Grain Fumigants
EPA announced that three
fumigants used to control
insect infestation in stored
grain—carbon tetrachloride,
carbon disulfide, and ethylene
dichloride—are going off the
market.
Sale and distribution of
these products will end on
December 31, 1985. Leftover
stock may be used through
June 30, 1986. All of these
products are being
voluntarily cancelled or have
been suspended because EPA
received no response to its
test requirement notices.
TOXICS
Chemical Imports
The agency is fining 12
companies a total of $90,000
for failing to comply with its
chemical import certification
requirements. Three other
companies also were fined a
total of 375,000 for violating
chemical testing
requirements. These are the
first enforcement actions to
be taken by EPA for import
violations under Section 13
of the Toxic Substances
Control Act and testing
violations under Section 4.
WATER
Drinking Water Protection
EPA announced it is
proposing recommended
maximum contaminant levels
(RMCLs) for 37 chemical
(plus 2 by-products) and 4
microbiological contaminants
that could be harmful if
found in the drinking water
supplies at significant levels.
The proposed goals are the
first step in restricting levels
of chemical and biological
contaminants sometimes
found in drinking water
sources. Twenty-six synthetic
organic chemicals are
covered in this proposal
including PCBs
(polychlorinated biphenyls)
and numerous pesticides
including aldicarb. PCBs are
used as liquid coolant and
insulating material in
electrical equipment.
Aldicarb is a highly toxic
pesticide that has been found
in some ground water in
agricultural areas.
The proposed rule also
covers 11 inorganic
chemicals including lead and
mercury.
In addition, EPA
announced RMCLs and
proposed maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs)
for a group of eight chemical
compounds that could also
cause health problems if they
are found in drinking water
supplies at significant levels.
The agency also proposed
monitoring requirements for
51 additional compounds for
public water systems.
Pesticide Industry Rule
A final rule has been issued
by EPA to control the
discharge of wastewater
pollutants from the pesticide
chemical industry.
The rule covers effluent
limitations for three
subcategories of pesticide
industry plants: organic
pesticide chemical
manufacturers,
metallo-organic pesticide
manufacturers, and pesticide
chemical formulators and
packagers. EPA developed
the final limits and standards
from data collected by the
agency and supplied by the
pesticide industry.
Implementation of the rule
will remove annually an
estimated 1,983,500 pounds
of pollutants, including
1,139,500 pounds of toxic
pollutants, n
Adirondack mountm'n strwim. Photo l>\
/on Hik'v. Folio, Inc.
48
EPA JOURNAL
-------
•
V'' - • , • -v
* '"
.-.-
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use S300
Third-Class Bulk
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
------- |