United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs .{A-107.',
Washington DC 20460 •
Volume 13
Number 10
December 1987
NAL
'
$ i '•;--
PP
-------
Environmental Perspectives
For EPA, 1987 was a year
of discovery: on the plus
side, discovery of new
environmental solutions; on
the minus side, discovery of
some new environmental
problems. This issue
of EPA journal takes a
look at some of these
discoveries.
Is a man's homo his castle?
Rembert Brown of KPA's
Office of Public Al'fiiirs
discusses recent studies that
show people may he exposed
to more pollution indoors
than outdoors. On a more
hopeful note, Greg
Supemovieh of EPA's Region
1 relates a success story in
Maine. With citi/.en input,
KPA cleaned up
contaminated soil at an
infamous hazardous waste
site, and is now beginning
cleanup of contaminated
groundwater,
Dave Ryan of KPA's press
office describes proposed
new KPA rules for filtering
and disinfecting water.
Proposal of (he rules marks
the final chapter in efforts to
mininii/e waterborne
intestinal diseases.
Lee Blackburn of KPA
Region 3 describes the
resurrection of the Potomac
River. More than 400 years
ago, the river provided an
abundance of food to Indians
who fished from its banks.
Later on. industrial pollution
nearly killed the river, but
today fish populations an:
increasing again.
A subsequent article by
Henry Thomas of KPA's
Office of Air and Radiation
describes how technological
advances have led to changes
in the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for
participate matter. In another
article, David Wann of EPA
Region 8 looks at an apparent
conflict in the State of Idaho
between two
industries—logging and
tourism—and at the
environmental impact on the
state of logging practices.
Alice Mayio of EPA's Water
Office summarizes a report
on the 1986 status of surface
waters in the U.S.
The following article, by
Norman Lovelace of KPA's
Region 9. on environmental
problems in the Pacific
territories makes clear that
beautiful tropical scenery can
mask trouble in paradise.
People often complain that
environmental factors are
making them sick. Can
scientists prove it? An article
by Robert Griffin, a science
writer, describes the use of
epidemiology to pinpoint
connections between the
environment and human
health. Next, a photo essay
chronicles the lite of the
osprey,
Concluding this issue of
the Jocrnul are a letter to the
editor; and two regular
features, Appointments and
Update. . .
The Potomac River at Great
Falls.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 13
Number 10
December 1987
vvEPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director, Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Karen Flagstad, Assistant Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Susan Tejada, Assistant Editor
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the
publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by law of
this agency. Use of funds for
printing this periodical has been
approved by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy.
Contributions and inquiries should
be addressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460. No
permission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
Home and Office:
Shelter or Threat?
by Rembert Brown 2
Water Treatment
to Combat Illness
by Dave Ryan 6
Ten Years Later:
Clean Soil Covers Maine
Waste Site
by Greg Supernovich 9
Potomac River Story:
From National Disgrace to
Source of Pride
by Lee Blackburn 13
Particulates:
Science Advances, Standards
Change
by Henry Thomas 16
Report Details Status
of Nation's Surface Waters
by Alice Mayio 19
Timber and Tourists:
Idaho Confronts Logging
Issues
by David Wann 20
Pacific Pollution:
Trouble in Paradise
by Norman Lovelace 23
Tracking Environmental
Diseases with Epidemiology
by Robert Griffin 26
Return of the Osprey: A
Photo Essay
by Rembert Brown 29
Appointments 31
Letter to (he Editor 31
Update 32
Front Cover: January tJtiu'n. Photo
by E. R. Degginger, Folio, inc.
Design Credits:
Donnu Wusylkiivskyj;
Hon Furruh;
James R. Ingram.
Correction: A.s the last issue of
EPA Journal suggests.
environmental risk is all around
us. The Journal, itself, discovered
il ivus tit risk in selecting
photographs, The front rover
phologmph dial ivu.s represented
to us (is being of clear ivuler
actually is a pool of mercury, in
fact, one of (he Juries! in (lie
world, stored by
-------
Home and
Office: Shelter
or Threat?
by Rembert Brown
Recent studies by EPA and other
federal agencies have uncovered
surprising, sometimes disturbing, facts
about the size, scope, and sources of
indoor air pollution.
Exposure to indoor pollutants takes
place in residences, public and private
buildings, and vehicles—collectively
classified as "indoor environments."
The home, workplace, school,
automobile—virtually any enclosed
structure—contains hundreds of potential
sources of air pollutants, both natural
and manmade.
Most people today spend about 90
percent of their time in environments of
this kind. Such prolonged exposure
explains, in part, the high levels of
exposure to indoor air pollutants that
take place.
Also contributing is the general
"tightening" of buildings—residential
and other—that has taken place since
the 1970s in the national effort to
reduce heating and cooling costs.
Buildings are much better sealed and
insulated than they used to be. During
that same energy crunch, heating and
air-conditioning engineers cut back on
the amount of fresh air per building
occupant. These factors have combined
to increase personal exposure to indoor
air pollutants.
"Sick building syndrome" is the name
given the health symptoms caused when
occupants of modern energy-efficient
buildings have been exposed to indoor
air pollutants. These symptoms can
mimic those of many diseases, ranging
from colds and flu to more serious
disorders. Victims have reported
headache, eye irritation, sinus problems,
runny nose, cough, shortness of breath,
and nausea. Complaints have occurred
in offices, schools, health-care facilities,
and modern buildings of other types. In
addition, some well-recognized
diseases— "Legionnaire's Disease"
among them—can be spread through
ventilating systems.
Key Exposure Sources
A number of commonly occurring
chemicals and other substances are
associated with sick building syndrome
and other ailments related to indoor air
quality problems. To help bring future
research efforts into proper focus, EPA
has pinpointed several key categories of
pollutants and sources within enclosed
environments:
• Combustion sources. Gas cooking
stoves, woodstoves, kerosene heaters,
and other unvented heating and cooking
units that employ combustion are major
sources of indoor pollutants such as
carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and
particulate matter.
Another major combustion source is
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).
This term refers to tobacco smoke
released in an indoor environment. It is
also sometimes called "passive
smoking." Chemicals in environmental
tobacco smoke include particulates,
benzene, styrene, nicotine, and a
number of other substances. ETS is
believed to pose a significant risk to
health, especially among spouses and
children of smokers.
• Materials and furnishings. Building
materials may be the source of asbestos,
formaldehyde, and other volatile organic
chemicals (VOCs). In particular, paints
and adhesives are major sources of
VOCs.
• Biological contaminants. Molds,
spores, bacteria, and viruses find
breeding grounds—and transport
mechanisms—in auto and building air
conditioners, humidifiers, ventilation
systems, and building materials.
• Human activities. The use of many
common household products such as
pesticides, paints, solvents, cleaning
agents, air fresheners, and toilet
deodorants may release significant
amounts of indoor pollutants. Taking a
hot shower can even release low levels
of radon and chloroform.
• Ambient (outdoor) environment.
Several indoor pollutants, among them
radon, some termiticides, and
combustion products from automobiles,
originate outdoors but can collect and
concentrate indoors in residences,
schools, and other buildings.
Consult the box on "Jndoor Air
Highlights" for specifics about major
indoor air pollutants, their sources and
effects, and what steps you can take to
deal with them.
How Big a Problem is Indoor Air
Pollution?
Since people spend the greater part of
their day—and their life—in various
indoor environments, it is of compelling
importance to seek accurate and early
information about the extent to which
people are exposed to indoor air
pollutants, the health effects which
those exposures may cause, and actions
people can take to reduce their risk.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Microenvironments
Total
Human Exposure
to Air Pollution
Pollutant exposure
in residences
Pollutant exposure
in outdoor air
Pollutant exposure
in buildings
(office, school, etc.)
Pollutant exposure
in vehicles
(car, plane, train, etc.
Most people spend about 90 percent of their time inside a home, school, office, car, or other closed structure. In these
enclosed spaces, they may be exposed to hundreds of natural and man-made pollutants daily.
EPA has conducted a major study
which has uncovered some surprising
and sometimes disturbing facts about
the size, scope, and sources of indoor
air pollution. "TEAM," which stands for
Total Exposure Assessment
Methodology, is an investigation begun
by EPA in 1979.
Several thousand randomly selected
individuals were screened for age, sex,
smoking habits, and occupations until a
pool of 600 individuals was located in
seven U.S. cities. Individuals selected
for the study were then fitted with vest
samplers that collected about 20 volatile
organic pollutants, including benzene,
chloroform, and other solvents, for later
analysis in a laboratory.
Participants were asked to answer a
questionnaire detailing their activities
during the day. They also provided
samples of their household water and
allowed their breath to be analyzed for a
large range of pollutants. In addition,
some household backyards were
equipped with fixed-site air monitors to
compare measurements of personal
exposure to those of ambient outdoor
air.
Analysis of the exposure data
indicated that personal exposure to
many chemicals was usually greater,
often much greater, than outdoor
concentrations of the pollutants. For
every one of the dozen or so prevalent
chemicals, the mean personal exposures
exceeded outdoor concentrations by 200
to 500 percent. This was true even in
the two most concentrated chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refining
areas in the study: Bayonne-EHzabeth,
New Jersey, and Los Angeles, California.
Results of the study clearly suggest
the major sources of these chemicals are
to be found either in the home or in
personal activities.
Common activities such as smoking,
driving, painting, pumping gas, using
air fresheners and moth repellents,
visiting a dry cleaner, and even taking
hot showers can sometimes dramatically
increase one's exposure to these
chemicals.
The TEAM study continues, and has
been expanded to cover about 40
pollutants, including carbon monoxide,
pesticides, and particulates as well as
some previously untested volatile
organic chemicals. Early findings have
been released to the public and
Congressional officials.
The variety of chemicals and
substances involved, coupled with
variations in the levels of individual
exposure to them, makes risk
assessment a formidable task. Often
there is more than one source for a
given pollutant, or a variety of different
pollutants from different sources can
interact in the same indoor
environment, with results that are
difficult to predict. However, the
Agency's Comparative Risk Project has
estimated that the risks from indoor air
pollution are among the top five
environmental problems.
EPA's Indoor Air Program
Steadily accumulating data about the
importance of indoor air pollution
convinced EPA of the need for an
Indoor Air Program. At present, the
Agency's program consists of a small,
new, and intensely busy group of five
people with an annual budget of
$200,000.
Part of the Office of Air and
Radiation's program development unit,
EPA's indoor air group is charged with
coordinating EPA's indoor air activities,
assisting in setting research priorities,
and carrying out the Agency's
responsibilities for disseminating
information about indoor air quality.
They work in conjunction with the
Office of Research and Development.
which has a staff of 15 and a budget of
approximately S3 million devoted to
indoor air research.
The goal of EPA's Indoor Air Program
is to provide information to
homeowners, consumers, state and local
governments, architects, building
managers, and others so these groups
can make informed choices about how
they can reduce exposure to indoor air
pollution.
Over the next year, in conjunction
with organizations in the public and
private sector, the program will:
• Develop a booklet for the general
public about indoor air quality.
• Develop a technical manual about
environmental tobacco smoke.
• Develop a technical manual about
diagnosing, mitigating, and preventing
building-related illnesses.
• Prepare a directory of state agencies
involved in indoor air activities.
• Provide leadership for the Interagency
Committee on Indoor Air Quality
(CIAOJ, the group that coordinates
federal indoor air activities.
• Report to Congress by October 1988
about EPA's findings and
recommendations concerning indoor air.
The Indoor Air Research Program has
among its priorities the following:
DECEMBER 1987
-------
• Developing more sophisticated and
standardized methods for identifying
the causes and remedies for indoor
pollution.
• Conducting studies in test chambers
and test houses to measure pollution
from potential sources and the
effectiveness of proposed mitigation
techniques.
• Assessing the health effects of
exposure to low levels of mixtures of
volatile organic compounds and
environmental tobacco smoke.
These formidable tasks came to EPA
in 1986 as part of that year's Superfund
amendments. These responsibilities are
largely in addition to other specific
indoor air pollution targets, such as
radon, asbestos, formaldehyde, and
pesticides.
The Agency's recently expressed
policy on indoor air pollution calls for
EPA to identify significant indoor air
problems and, where appropriate, to
carry out one or more of the following
mitigation actions:
• Issue regulations under existing
statutes including the Toxic Substances
Control Act, the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Implement non-regulatory programs
such as technical assistance, training,
and information dissemination aimed at
building the capacity of state and local
governments, the private sector, and
members of the public to take
appropriate actions.
• Refer problems to other federal
agencies with relevant authority.
• Request separate indoor air regulatory
authority from Congress if appropriate.
Asbestos and radon, two of the most
frequently encountered indoor air
pollutants with serious health
ramifications, are the subject of major
programs carried out by other offices at
EPA. As a result of special funding from
Congress, efforts to reduce exposure
levels for both these indoor air
contaminants are well advanced.
The future will undoubtedly bring
other indoor pollutants into the
spotlight as scientific knowledge and
public awareness of the various aspects
of this multi-faceted problem continue
to grow, a
(Brown is a Writer/Editor in the
EPA Office of Public Affairs.)
Non-smokers are exposed in some
buildings to large quantities of
environmental tobacco smoke, known
asETS.
Indoor Air
Highlights
There are many different sources of
indoor air pollution, and many
different ways of dealing with the
problems they pose. In general,
however, the primary mechanisms for
improving indoor air quality entail
eliminating, reducing, or sealing
sources of pollution.
When a home or other building has
a low rate of ventilation to start with,
the use of a mechanical heat recovery
ventilation system (also called an
air-to-air heat exchanger) can be quite
effective in reducing the concentration
of multiple pollutants without
substantially increasing energy costs.
Air cleaners such as high-efficiency
particuiate filters, negative ion
generators, and electrostatic
precipitators—used separately or in
series—can be effective in reducing
particulates. Care should be taken,
however, to select air cleaners which
will provide adequate air flow and can
be easily maintained. Many devices do
not do an adequate job of removing
particles, and only a few systems have
been demonstrated effective against
gaseous pollutants.
Environmental
Tobacco Smoke
Sources: Cigarettes, cigars, pipes.
Effects: Numerous—because of the
wide variety of harmful chemicals in
the smoke—including eye, throat, and
lung irritation; increased long-term
risks of lung cancer, emphysema, and
cardiovascular disease by "passive
smokers."
Steps You Can Take: Quit/prohibit
smoking or limit indoor smoking to
one area that is directly vented to the
outdoors.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
NOTE: Tobacco smoke also contains
volatile organic compounds (including
benzene and formaldehyde);
combustion gases; and particulates. For
details about these indoor air
pollutants, see below.
Combustion
Sources
Pollutants/Sources: Carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and particulates from
gas stoves, kerosene heaters,
woodstoves, malfunctioning furnaces,
car exhausts (via building ventilation
systems, loading docks, and garages
adjoining residences and offices).
Effects; Carbon monoxide: Headache,
dizziness, nausea, and death at very
high concentration. Nitrogen dioxide:
Throat, lung, and eye irritation.
Particulates: Eye, nose, and throat
irritation, bronchitis, emphysema, lung
cancer, heart disease.
Steps You Can Take: Install an exhaust
fan vented to the outdoors above your
gas range. Increase ventilation to the
local area where woodstoves and
kerosene heaters are used. Follow
manufacturers' directions and use
proper fuel in space heaters.
Materials
and Furnishings
Sources: Asbestos in insulation, ceiling
surfaces, etc.; formaldehyde in
plywood and particleboard (also
present in tobacco smoke); other
volatile organic compounds in a wide
range of building materials including
caulking and adhesives.
Effects: Asbestos: Lung, chest, and
abdominal cancer, plus scarring of the
lungs. Formaldehyde: Breathing
difficulty, eye and skin irritation,
nausea, dizziness. Volatile organic
compounds: Breathing difficulty, eye
and skin irritation, nausea, dizziness,
increased risk of serious lung disease.
Steps You Can Take: Asbestos: Call
EPA's TSCA (Toxic Substances Control
Act) hotline at 1-202-554-1404. You'll
be sent a free packet including an
asbestos fact sheet, a booklet, and
report offering "Guidance for
Controlling Asbestos-Containing
Materials in Buildings." It is important
to remember a few basic principles: Do
not remove or disturb
asbestos-containing material that is in
good condition. When such materials
are frayed or in poor condition, call in
a professionally trained contractor to
handle the problem. Formaldehyde:
Purchase materials labelled
"low-emitting formaldehyde." Coat
pressed-wood surfaces to reduce
emission of formaldehyde. Follow
manufacturers' directions and ventilate
before and after use of materials
containing volatile organic
compounds.
Biological
Contaminants
Sources: Air conditioning systems,
humidifiers, cooling towers, household
pets.
Effects: Pneumonia-like respiratory
infections, allergic reactions.
Steps You Can Take: To avoid
harboring and distributing biological
microorganisms, clean air-conditioning
systems and empty humidifier water
trays frequently. Keep surfaces clean
and dusted.
Human
Activities
Sources: Hazardous substances in
pesticides, paints, solvents, cleaning
agents, polishes, air fresheners, toilet
deodorants, copying machines, hot
water, textiles, the dry-cleaning
process.
Effects: Breathing difficulty, eye and
skin irritation, nausea, dizziness,
increased risk of serious lung disease.
Steps You Can Take: In the home, use
integrated pest management techniques
instead of chemical pesticides. Use
consumer products according to the
manufacturers' directions and ventilate
during and after use. Remove unused
spray cans, paints, etc. Store remaining
cans in garage or room vented to
outside. Use a fan vented to the
outdoors when you take showers to
reduce exposure to organics released
from hot water.
Ambient (Outdoor)
Environment
Sources: Contaminants such as radon
and termiticides that originate
outdoors in the soil but collect,
penetrate cracks in structures, and
concentrate indoors.
Effects: Increased risk of cancer.
Steps You Can Take: Have your home
inspected and modified, if necessary,
by a qualified contractor. Radon: Test
your home for radon. EPA conducts a
Radon Measurement Proficiency
Program. This voluntary program
allows laboratories and businesses
engaged in radon detection to
demonstrate their capabilities. The
names of firms participating in this
program can be obtained from your
state radiation program or from your
EPA regional office. Termiticides:
Testing for pesticides is expensive and
is recommended only if you suspect
that high levels may be present. To
locate a commercial laboratory
qualified to test your indoor air for
traces of termiticides, call the National
Pesticide Telecommunications
Network (NPTN) at 1-800-858-7378.
You may also want to contact EPA's
Public Information Center for
additional information about radon
and termiticides: 1-202-475-7751.
DECEMBER 1987
-------
Water
Treatment to
Combat Illness
by Dave Ryan
Aerial view of drinking water filtration plant near Washington, D.C. Most United
States surface water supply systems are disinfected, but many are not
filtered.
Our drinking water...we never think
twice about it. When we fill our
glasses from the tap or drink water from
a glass set before us in a restaurant, we
drink with assurance that the water is
safe and there is no cause for concern.
And that's the way it should be.
But while it's true that we do have
some of the safest drinking water in the
world, it may come as a surprise to
learn there are over 10,000 cases of
waterborne illness a year in this
country, costing us hundreds of millions
a year in medical costs and job-time
loss.
Some 3,000 supply systems using
water sources from the surface of the
earth still do not filter their
water—about one-third of all treatment
works using surface water. These
unfiltered systems serve over 21 million
Americans and include such major
cities as New York, Boston, San
Francisco, and Seattle. Some of these
systems stringently protect their surface
water and have very clean source
waters. Others are more questionable.
Therefore, EPA has just proposed new
rules for determining when filtration
should be required and, if required,
what criteria should be used for
determining its effectiveness. This
marks the final chapter in a remarkably
successful public health effort that
should further minimize water-caused
intestinal diseases in the United States.
The proposal requires states to
evaluate the 3,000 surface water systems
to see if they need to install filtration.
EPA expects that up to 75 percent of
these utilities will either have to start
filtering their water, or switch to an
alternative source of water. (This may
involve using ground water or
purchasing water from another supply
system.)
Besides the requirement for filtration,
which is basically the process of
removing particles of solid matter from
water, usually by passing the latter
through sand or other porous material,
the proposal requires water systems to
disinfect and to meet criteria which
assure effective control of pathogenic
(disease-causing) organisms.
Disinfection is a chemical or physical
process that kills pathogens in water.
Disinfection methods include the use of
chemicals such as chlorine or ozone.
(Ironically, though ozone may
contribute to air pollution, it's an
effective chemical for killing germs in
water.)
About 97 percent of U.S. surface
water supply systems already disinfect.
(Most facilities use chlorination.) EPA
expects that under the proposal, very
few systems will have to begin
disinfecting for the first time, but some
might have to upgrade already-existing
disinfection processes.
It's important to note that filtration
and disinfection must be used together
for maximum protection of public
health. Neither process is fully effective
by itself. Filtration eliminates
large-sized microorganisms, which may
be resistant to disinfection, and solid
particles that can interfere with
chlorination. Chlorine can kill
microorganisms which filtration may
not remove.
Filtration is nothing new. Even the
ancients had some understanding of
rudimentary water treatment; historical
records show that they improved water
quality by storage and by boiling and
filtering.
A Sanskrit manuscript from 2000
B.C. gives evidence that people in India
used boiling, pots of porous clay, and
wick siphons to filter cloudy water. (A
wick siphon is a cord or strand of
loosely woven, twisted, or braided fibers
that water is sucked through for
cleansing.) The Sus'ruta Samhita, a
body of Indian medical lore also dating
from 2000 B.C., declares: "Impure
water should be purified by being
boiled over a fire, or being heated in the
sun, or by dipping a heated iron into it,
or it may be purified by filtration
through sand and coarse gravel and then
allowed to cool."
Similar techniques were used by the
Egyptians as early as 1500 B.C. In the
fourth century before Christ,
Hippocrates, the Greek "Father of
Medicine," advocated the boiling and
straining of rainwater before drinking.
In the oriental world the ancient
Chinese cleared up water with alum, an
aluminum salt commonly used today for
chemical pretreatment prior to filtration.
Water supply engineering among the
ancients reached its apogee under the
Romans, who transported fresh water
over long distances by aqueducts, but
was largely neglected in the Middle Ages.
In 1742, while visiting Paris, a
Frenchman named Joseph Amy drank
water from the Seine River that had
stood in jugs made from baked clay. He
suffered no ill effects. Returning to Paris
EPA JOURNAL
-------
years later, he drank Seine water that
had been stored in copper containers.
This time, however, he got symptoms of
poisoning and suffered a long illness.
He concluded that it was not Seine
water, but the green or bluish deposits
of copper carbonate on the drinking
vessels that made strangers in Paris sick.
He replaced the copper container with a
wooden boxlike contraption for purifying
water. Because of his pioneering work,
Amy was granted by France the first
water filter patent ever issued
anywhere. He also published the first
book on filters ever to appear in the
world, and founded the first filter
factory.
Early in the 19th century, people
became increasingly concerned about
the pollution of water supplies. They
started recognizing that specific diseases
could be transmitted by water, and
realized the need for bacteriological
examination of water. The honors for
much of the pioneer work in mass
filtration go to England and Scotland.
The first filter used to treat water
supplied to a whole town was
completed by John Gibb at Paisley,
Scotland, in 1804; but, unlike today,
water had to be carted to consumers'
homes. A mere three years later,
however, filtered water was being piped
directly to consumers in Glasgow. The
companies that built these two systems
constructed a half dozen filter plants
within the next 20 years, but,
surprisingly, none was a success.
Water filtration started on a truly
large scale in 1829, when James
Simpson, an engineer of the Chelsea
and Lambeth water companies of
London, introduced a "slow" sand
process. In this type of filtration,
basically the same process still being
used today, solid matter is removed
from water by passing it through porous
material such as sand. A filter normally
consists of a bed of sand or crushed coal
(from 20 to 40 inches thick), supported
on a bed of gravel or some coarse
porous material, and contained in a
basin with various operating
accessories.
The two basic filtration processess in
use today are "slow" sand and "rapid"
sand. They are basically similar. The
difference between the two is, as the
names imply, how fast the water passes
through.
"Slow" sand is a much simpler
process, where you don't have to
pretreat the water with chemicals before
filtration. However, it can only be used
in waters with small amounts of
EPA estimates that the cost of
a single Giardia outbreak can
range from $23 million to $55
million dollars.
particles. With "rapid" sand, you have
to pretreat before filtration; the level of
pretreatment depends on how dirty the
source water is.
Also with "rapid," you don't need as
much land area for the treatment works,
so it's more appropriate for cities.
"Slow" needs more space for treatment,
so it's better for rural areas. Not
surprisingly, considering we're an urban
nation, 90 percent of all U.S. systems
are "rapid" sand.
In the 1850s in London, what has
come to be called the Broad Street
Pump Incident gave credibility to the
notion of linkage between contaminated
drinking water and disease outbreak. In
this case, considered by some to be the
birth of epidemiology, people living
near a local brewery were getting
cholera at an alarming rate, while those
working in the brewery seemed immune
to the disease.
A local physician, Dr. John Snow,
noticed that those working in the
brewery were using their own water
supply rather than drinking from the
pump used by citizens living around the
brewery. Snow believed the pump was
being contaminated by human waste. He
decided on a very practical application
of his theory of a working connection
between environmental factors and
health effects: he simply removed the
pump handle. As a result, cholera in the
neighborhood was eradicated. In 1855,
the filtration of all river-source water
supplies of London was made
compulsory.
The wisdom of mass filtration was
further confirmed in 1892 when Dr.
Robert Koch traced a cholera epidemic
in Hamburg, Germany, to its unfiltered
raw water supply. He did this by
observing that a town called Altona on
the opposite bank of the Elbe River from
Hamburg, used the same river water but
filtered it, and therefore had no disease.
Filters were not introduced in the
United States until about 1870 and were
of the "slow" sand type; the first
"rapid" sand filtration plant was built in
1902 at Little Falls, NJ, and is still in
use today.
Disinfection, or germ-killing, has been
practiced for millennia, with people
using heat, copper, silver, chlorine,
ozone, and ultraviolet rays to kill
microorganisms. For instance, boiling
has been employed since the beginning
of civilization to disinfect. Aristotle is
said to have advised Alexander the
Great: "Do not let your men drink out of
stagnant pools. Athenians, city-born,
know no better. And when you carry
water on the desert marches it should
first be boiled to prevent its getting
sour."
However, nothing in the field of water
disinfection came into use as rapidly
and as widely as chlorination.
Chlorine was first used in a crude
way to disinfect water supplies in
England in 1897. Then, in 1909, liquid
chlorine was developed for disinfection.
Subsequent development of equipment
for its automatic application has made
this procedure standard practice in most
modern treatment processes, and has
drastically reduced waterborne disease
throughout the world.
Chlorine now is normally applied
both before and after filtration.
Pre-chlorination controls the growth of
algae, reduces biological growth in
filters, and contributes to improved
filter efficiency. Post-chlorination
appreciably reduces the number of most
types of bacteria and viruses entering
the distribution system.
In this century, the ability of
disinfection and filtration to remove
bacteria from drinking water was
demonstrated by the virtual elimination
of waterborne typhoid fever and cholera
in the United States. For example, the
typhoid fever death rate in Pittsburgh
dropped precipitously in 1907 when a
waste treatment plant went into
operation. In addition, these cleansing
processes have brought under control
such debilitating diseases as amoebic
dysentery, shigellosis, and
salmonellosis.
In less developed nations, disinfection
and filtration are not widely practiced,
and diarrhea resulting from waterborne
microorganisms in both drinking and
bathing water remains one of the biggest
causes of death for infants and small
children. It has been estimated that
25,000 such deaths occur each day in
these countries.
"Throughout this century, remarkable
strides have been made in the United
States in protecting people from
dangerous waterborne pathogens,"
comments Lawrence J. Jensen, EPA's
Assistant Administrator for Water, "but
we still see outbreaks of giardiasis and
virus-caused illnesses. These cases
occur in situations where inadequate
DECEMBER 1987
-------
treatment is in place or a problem has
occurred in the distribution system."
In a dramatic move to minimize these
drinking water problems in America,
EPA last October began writing a new
chapter in the history of water quality
by announcing a proposal to further
reduce the risk of waterborne illness.
Specifically, the regulations consist of
two separate proposals that expand
regulatory control over microbiological
contaminants.
One proposal consists of surface-water
treatment criteria. These apply strictly
to public treatment systems that draw
water from sources that are exposed to
the atmosphere. The proposal requires
all surface-water systems to provide
disinfection; they will also be required
to filter unless they can meet specific
conditions.
The filtration requirement will require
greater adjustments than the
disinfection requirement. At present,
about 97 percent of all surface-water
systems already disinfect; only about
two-thirds filter. The proposed rules
contain criteria for states to use in
determining which water systems will
have to install filtration, or upgrade
existing filtration facilities.
The rule calls for increased protection
against waterborne sources of disease
su.ch a,s GicmJia, viruses, heterotrophic
bacteria, turbidity, and
LegioneJlu bacteria.
Giardia are protozoa in human and
animal waste that cause giardiasis, also
known in popular parlance as
"Backpacker's Disease." Giardiasis
usually involves diarrhea, nausea, and
dehydration that can be severe and last
for months. There have been over
20.000 water-related cases reported in
the last 20 years. EPA's new rules
require 99.9 percent removal or
inactivation of Giardia cysts.
("Inactivation" means making the virus
unable to function.)
Viruses are sub-microscopic
organisms that cause infection. Common
waterborne diseases caused by viruses
include hepatitis and gastroenteritis.
The new rules require water systems to
achieve 99.99 percent
removal/inactivation of intestinal
viruses.
Turbidity is a measure of the
cloudiness or clarity of the water, and
can indicate the presence of harmful
microorganisms. Heterotrophic bacteria
are indicators of water quality and can
include disease-causing bacteria.
LegioneJla bacteria can cause
Legionnaire's Disease.
The other rule relates to coliform
bacteria, and pertains both to surface-
and ground-water systems. Coliform
bacteria often come from human and
animal waste, but are also common in
the environment. Generally coliforms
are not harmful themselves, but their
presence indicates that water may be
contaminated with disease-causing
organisms.
Both the surface water and coliform
proposals require all water systems to
be operated by qualified operators, as
determined by the state. In addition,
operators of local water systems must
report to their state government every
month on their progress in meeting the
federal rules.
As a result of these proposals, and
later disinfection requirements for
ground water, EPA expects cases of
waterborne disease to drop by many
thousands every year.
Nationally, the surface-water
treatment rules are expected to cost
water systems currently without
filtration about $1.6 billion in capital
costs and $225 million in annual costs.
Systems that already have filtration but
need to upgrade it to meet the new
federal requirements are expected to pay
about $333 million in capital costs and
$95 million annually. These national
costs translate into monthly water bill
increases of about $4.00 for citizens
served by large water systems (greater
than 10,000 people served), and about
$17 to $32 for consumers served by
small systems (less than 500 served).
But these costs must be seen in light
of the proposal's economic benefits.
Based on a study of a 1983 Giardia
incident near Wilkes-Barre, PA, EPA
estimates that the cost of a single
Giardia outbreak, for a system serving
over 10,000 people, can range from $23
million to $55 million. These estimates
are probably low since they don't
include costs for litigation and for
intangibles such as pain and suffering.
In conclusion, EPA sees the filtration
and disinfection proposal as the
beginning of an important new chapter
in the history of water purification that
will culminate when all Americans can
drink from any public water supply
with confidence in its safety, n
(Ryan is a press officer in the EPA
Office of Public Affairs.)
Drinking water is checked by a chemist
at a Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission laboratory in Laurel,
Maryland. Two methods used in
preparing drinking water are filtration,
which removes particles of solid matter,
and disinfection, a chemical or physical
process to kill pathogens in water.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Ten Years
Later: Clean
Soil Covers
Maine Waste
Site
by Greg Supernovich
What a difference a decade makes.
Ten years ago local officials
discovered a small hazardous waste site
in Gray, Maine, that EPA later listed as
one of the worst toxic sites in the
United States.
Today the McKin Superfund site is
hailed as one of the most successful
cleanups in New England and the
nation. During a recent media event at
the site, town, state, and federal
officials, political leaders, and citizens
gathered to celebrate.
Everyone remembered the site as it
was 10 years ago: an old gravel pit, an
unlined lagoon filled with liquid wastes
and oily debris, a makeshift incinerator,
more than 20 large storage tanks (some
of them leaking) sitting on the ground,
hundreds of 55-gallon drums, and
unburied sludge. They also recalled a
decade of studies, frustrations, fears,
hopes, and cleanup efforts. Most of all,
they celebrated what, working together,
they had achieved. They had drained
the lagoon, removed the drums and
tanks, and dismantled the incinerator.
They had used an innovative soil
technology on-site to dig up and treat
approximately 12,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil—roughly enough soil
After. By September 1987, a freshly planted meadow grew where the dump site had been. Next comes the cleanup of
contaminated ground water. A utility pole remains on site to provide power for the ground-water remediation system.
DECEMBER 1987
-------
Before. Gray, Maine, residents had long
been concerned about the McKin Site.
When this picture was taken in
September 1982, there were 20 empty
storage tanks, an unlined lagoon filled
with oily debris and liquid wastes, plus
these drums.
to cover a football field 10 feet deep.
Now they stood on a freshly planted
meadow once covered by toxic wastes.
And they knew that the cleanup of the
contaminated ground water would soon
begin.
"Citizens were able to participate,"
said Cathy Hinds, a former resident of
the semi-rural neighborhood that
surrounds the McKin site. "We had
scientists review the cleanup. A lot of
changes were made. We had something
to celebrate. When you've been involved
so long—no matter how small the
victory—you need to celebrate to
recharge yourself."
"We have a piece of land that can be
returned to beneficial use. We have
clean soil in which children can safely
play, and wildlife can feed. It is once
again in the form it was before mankind
messed it up," said Michael Deland,
EPA's Administrator in Region 1.
Anyone seeing the McKin Superfund
site for the first time in 1987 would find
it difficult to imagine the toxic brew of
wastes that once existed at the site, or
the human tragedy that is part of its
history. In 1977, officials first became
aware that Richard Dingwell's small
waste collection business had
indiscriminately and randomly stored,
burned, and dumped hundreds of
thousands of gallons of hazardous waste
oils, chemicals, and sludge on the
seven-acre site.
Nearby neighbors complained of
headaches, loss of balance, dizziness,
difficulty concentrating, rashes after
showering, and a burning sensation in
the eyes. These symptoms led them to
seek the initial water tests that
eventually prompted officials to inspect
the McKin hazardous waste site. The
inspection showed that the wastes had
contaminated massive areas of sand and
gravel and had tainted 16 private
drinking water wells, which officials
capped.
Residents of Gray, a town of 5,000
people approximately 12 miles from
Portland, were shocked. The town
temporarily halted construction of new
homes within a two-mile radius of the
site. State officials groped for the
money, the expertise, and the authority
to clean up the site.
Hazardous waste was an unknown
danger in 1977. Maine had no laws
governing it. The United States had not
yet enacted a national Superfund
program to clena up toxic wastes. And
engineers had not developed the
technology to solve the hazardous waste
problem.
Meanwhile, people like Cathy Hinds
and her family had been drinking and
bathing in water containing toxic
poisons. They had been breathing toxic
vapors. Some children had been playing
in toxic soils. The residents feared that
their exposure to the wastes would
harm their health and might even kill
them and their children.
It was a typically cold Maine winter
10 years ago when Hinds and her
neighbor drove daily to the town office
of Gray to fill empty milk jugs with
water from an outside spigot. Their own
private wells had been polluted by
contaminants from the McKin site.
As the two women filled their bottles,
the near-freezing water from the faucet
spilled onto their hands. They hurried
m
EPA JOURNAL
-------
back to the car with their water and
warmed their cold hands over the
defroster. They looked at each other and
cried, The task seemed overwhelmingly
difficult. They had no energy left for
simple chores. They were consumed
with the fear that their children were
going to die from having drunk
contaminated well water for several
years. Later that winter the town began
trucking in emergency water supplies to
McKin residents. Subsequently the town
installed a new water main to the area.
Hinds' family had moved near the
McKin site in 1975. Soon after she and
her family began suffering severe
headaches, temporary blindness, rashes,
respiratory problems, and even
paralysis, "My daughter would sit on a
chair at the table and lose her balance
and fall off the chair. She'd walk into a
wall like she was drunk. I was afraid my
children were going to die. I didn't
know if these things would get better or
not. We went to doctors and they didn't
know what was wrong," she said. In
1977, Hinds suffered a miscarriage. In
1978, her prematurely born, two-day-old
son died.
According to Hinds, about eight
families including her own who lived
near the McKin site filed a lawsuit in
the late 1970s against approximately a
dozen companies allegedly responsible
for the McKin contamination. The
lawsuit was settled out of court in 1984.
But she noted she could not reveal the
nature of the settlement because
nondisclosure was part of the
agreement.
Currently, the Environmental Health
Unit of Maine's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) is
analyzing potential links between the
contaminated well water and health
problems of 128 McKin neighbors,
compared to a "control group" of 260
residents from other parts of Gray.
Researchers collected data for analysis
by questioning participants about a
specific list of health problems, then
confirming whether reported problems
appeared in the respondents' medical
records.
Steve Serian, EPA's remedial project
manager for the site, said the health of
the McKin neighbors was foremost in
his mind. "It was tragic that local
residents drank and bathed in the
contaminated water and didn't even
know it. The human side really affected
me. It gave me the added motivation to
carry out EPA's mission. I wanted the
job done right, and openly and fairly,"
he said.
Yet there were certainly times that
citizens were unhappy with the
government's performance at McKin.
"At the public hearings, the people
expressed a high emotional level after
dealing with government without
tangible results. They would say, 'All
you do is study, study, study. When
will you bring out a spade and clean
up?' It was frustrating for me too," said
Hank Aho, the site project manager at
McKin for the DEP.
But Aho also understood that there
weren't any government mechanisms in
place to deal with hazardous waste in
the late 1970s. And he knew that McKin
was one of the first waste sites to be
examined. Therefore a thorough study
was a necessary prerequisite to any
action.
The McKin site had been used as a
collection and transfer station for waste
oil and other industrial wastes, handling
between 100,000 and 200,000 gallons
annually from 1972 to 1977. Several
areas within the site were contaminated
with oily debris, cleaning and
degreasing solvents, and other
chemicals. In some places, the
contaminants seeped into the earth 40
feet to ground water.
The cleanup at the McKin site was a
gradual, step-by-step process. In 1979,
the DEP removed more than 30,000
gallons of liquid waste from the storage
tanks. In 1980, the U.S. Congress passed
Superfund. In 1982, EPA ranked McKin
as one of the worst sites in the nation
Contaminated soil was treated in the
on-site aeration plant. David Webster,
EPA environmental scientist, inspected
progress regularly. The "smoke" is just
steam which was generated on cold
days.
DECEMBER 1967
11
-------
on its national priorities list. In 1983,
EPA and DEP supervised the removal of
the storage tanks, 10,000 gallons of
waste liquids, and 68 drums of sludge.
"Taking the first tank off—that was a
good moment. The wheels had begun to
turn. We were out of the planning and
study process, and we were actually
doing something," Aho said. Officials
completed soil treatment in 1987.
One of the most successful projects at
McKin was the soil treatment. Under
EPA and DEP supervision, Canonie
Environmental Services Corporation of
Indiana dug up and treated more than
12,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil.
Workers handling the soil wore
breathing masks and protective overalls.
The company used bulldozers and a
boring tool attached to a crane to
excavate the soil. It employed a
technology to treat the soil known as
soil aeration, a process that involves
some of the same equipment found in
portable asphalt batch plants.
The temporary aeration plant was
installed right on the McKin site.
Workers placed the contaminated soil
onto an enclosed conveyor belt leading
into the large aeration plant. The soil
entered the dryer unit of the plant,
where it was heated to 300 degrees
Fahrenheit. It was mixed and aerated to
allow the volatile contaminants to
evaporate. The gases were then driven
off and treated in a series of air
pollution control devices.
After lab analysis verified that the
contaminated soil had been adequately
treated, it was returned to the McKin
site. The soils removed by the boring
tool were stabilized with cement and
then reburied. The cement prevented
the soil from collapsing when adjacent
soil was excavated. The soil project took
a year to complete.
"Our search for technology paid off.
We found a way to clean up the soil
on-site without having to truck it
someplace else, thereby creating a
potential problem for somebody else,"
Deland said.
Many new technologies, including
soil aeration, soil incineration, and
vacuum extraction are now available to
treat contaminated soil at Superfund
sites. When Congress reauthorized
Superfund at a level of $8.5 billion last
year, it asked EPA to find more
permanent on-site remedies that do not
threaten human health or the
environment. As Deland pointed out,
"now that we have demonstrated that
the cleanup can be done, future
cleanups will be easier because we're
beginning to master the intricacies of an
enormously complex problem and are
steadfastly developing new
technologies."
Serian said overseeing the soil
aeration project at McKin was a
monumental task sometimes comparable
to riding a roller coaster. "The
potentially responsible parties needed a
quick turnaround to minimize costs. We
needed to approve actions based on
public health criteria, treatment
effectiveness, and quality assurance. We
made decisions daily," he said.
Anyone seeing the McKin
Superfund site for the first
time in 1987 would find it
difficult to imagine the toxic
brew of wastes that once
existed at the site.
Patty D'Andrea, EPA coordinator for
Superfund Community Relations, said
the most crucial job for her in the
McKin site cleanup was to encourage
EPA to keep the public informed, and to
urge citizens and town, state, and
federal officials to work together.
"You can never give people too much
information. The more information you
give them, the more they feel
comfortable. If you keep them in the
dark, they get suspicious," she said.
D'Andrea said people were initially
afraid of the air emissions during soil
aeration. However, EPA allayed those
fears by monitoring emissions in
people's driveways. To address other
areas of public concern, EPA set up a
hotline at Gray's Town Hall with
weekly updates on action at McKin, set
up an observation tower at the site for
the public, held public meetings,
provided fact sheets, and kept the media
informed.
The McKin site has left lasting scars
and has caused dramatic changes for
Cathy Hinds. She has become actively
involved in toxics issues and is now the
New England organizer for the National
Campaign Against Toxic Hazards. She
said the hazardous waste problem has
resulted in a strong citizens' movement
that is winning victories because
citizens are persistent and putting
pressure on elected officials.
"One of the most successful moments
at McKin was when we found out that
when citizens joined together they
could get a response from officials. We
used the press to make the site more
inaccessible to kids. It felt good because
we cared and banded together and were
able to make something happen," Hinds
said.
The human cost at the McKin site
may never be measurable. The financial
cost is. Thus far the cleanup has cost $6
million. Under a consent decree, the
parties potentially responsible for the
contamination of the site will pay this
bill. They also provided engineering
skills that contributed to the cleanup.
Ground-water cleanup at McKin will
begin by spring 1988. The settling
parties will also reimburse the
government for the cost of the operation
and will operate the ground water
remediation system until public health
levels have been achieved.
Meanwhile, Gray officials have spent
$350,000 to extend a water main to the
McKin area, worked numerous hours
coping with the problem, and have lost,
at least temporarily, the use of one of
their aquifers.
"Prevention is far cheaper than
cleanup. If we are to prevent the need
for future Superfunds, we must make
two major societal changes. We must
learn how to more efficiently destroy
hazardous waste so we don't simply
move it from one site to another. And
we must dramatically reduce the
volume of hazardous waste that we as a
nation produce," Deland said.
The McKin site has changed the way
Gray conducts its business. The town
has passed zoning restrictions to protect
aquifers, issued hazardous waste
licenses, and implemented a recycling
program for used oil. Town manager
Janis McGrath said, "In the 1970s
people didn't realize what they were
doing at McKin. Now people in Gray
realize you can't dump things into the
ground and expect problems to just go
away."
The McKin site is just one of
thousands of cleanups expected to occur
across the nation. But the people who
cleaned up McKin will never forget this
particular site. They fought to protect
public health and the environment, and
they succeeded.
"It was an exhilarating moment to see
the site closed up, graded, loamed, and
seeded. 1 was able to stand out there in
my suit and Sunday shoes at the recent
media event on what was once a
hazardous waste site. All of us—local
and state officials and the public—had
come together to celebrate that the site
was cleaned up," Serian said. D
fSupernovich is a Writer/Editor in the
EPA Region 1 Office of Public Affairs.)
-------
>^^
Potomac River Story:
From National Disgrace
To Source of Pride
by Lee Blackburn
"If the Great River had proved to
be an excellent place to live, it
must be because the tribes had
always fought to protect it."
Description of the
Potomac River by
James A. Michener in
Chesapeake.
To many of the four million people
who reside in the Potomac River
Basin, the Potomac is only a source of
70 percent of metropolitan Washington's
drinking water. To others, it is much
more: a source of oysters, striped bass,
and white perch; a place for boating and
sailing. To yet others, the resurrected
Potomac is primarily a success story,
testimony to the determination of
people who refused to let a river die from
abuse and neglect.
The northeastern United States is
traversed by many rivers ravaged by
industrial pollution. The Potomac has
boon spared from the chemical soup
-------
that has plagued many streams.
Nonetheless, it has been endangered by
man.
As the Potomac winds through
mountains and farms, it is generally
rural. When it reaches metropolitan
Washington, millions of gallons of
wastewater and run-off pour into it.
More than a century's worth of
untreated wastewater and run-off nearly
killed this great river.
In the late 1950s, U.S. Public Health
Service officials described the Potomac
as "malodorous...with gas bubbles from
sewage sludge over wide expanses of
the river." Fish kills were
commonplace. In 1965, President
Lyndon B. Johnson declared the
Potomac River a "national disgrace."
Were it not for the concern of federal,
state, and local officials, who have
parlayed over $1 billion into a
successful effort to reduce discharge
levels, the river would today be an open
sewer.
To understand how a river like the
Potomac could have come so close to
death, and require such intense efforts
to revive it, it is important to look at the
history of man's involvement in the
river's life.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, the
Potomac River was home to many
Indian tribes who fished for bass and
perch and dove for oysters and crabs.
The establishment of our national
capital created a vast population center
along the Potomac's banks and
tributaries. By the latter half of the 19th
century, urban sprawl characterized the
capital area. At the turn of the century,
the District and its suburbs teemed with
people, and the waste they generated
began to cause major disposal problems.
Little concern was given to the river.
Sewage collection trenches grew into
networks. Eventually, raw sewage
emptied into the river. The 20th century
saw pipes replacing trenches, but the
end result was the same: the Potomac
was an open cesspool. In the 1930s,
sewage treatment operations were begun
in many areas of the District, Maryland,
and Virginia, but Potomac water quality
grew worse.
To reverse the damage to this vital
waterway, the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) was
formed in 1940. Later, in the 1960s, the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Federal
Water Quality Administration (one of
EPA's predecessors) and the states in
the Basin began closer monitoring of the
Potomac's problem. Their purpose was
to find proper ways to control these
problems and, where possible, eliminate
them. Combined cooperation of all
levels of government was crucial to the
success of the Potomac cleanup.
In June 1967, the District of Columbia
adopted water quality standards for its
interstate waters.'The standards took
into account planned water uses, quality
standards to protect them, and a plan
for implementation and enforcement.
The standards were approved by
Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel
in January 1969.
When progress in implementing the
standards slowed, Hickel pulled
together the Conference on the Matter of
Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the
Potomac River and its Tributaries in the
Washington Metropolitan Area (also
called "Potomac Enforcement
Conference") in April 1969.
The 1983 algae bloom aside,
all indications are that the
Potomac is recovering nicely.
Representing the water pollution control
agencies of Maryland, Virginia, and the
District of Columbia, the ICPRB, and the
Federal Water Quality Administration,
the Conference made recommendations
to enhance water quality in the Potomac
Basin.
Perhaps the most significant
recommendation called for design and
construction of advanced wastewater
treatment plants. The District took the
lead and proceeded to implement its
plans for construction of a major facility
at Blue Plains. On October 7, 1970, a
Memorandum of Understanding was
completed, clearing the way for the Blue
Plains project to get underway. The
Memorandum was directly responsible
for the initiation of many other major
wastewater treatment projects in the
Potomac Basin.
Since municipal wastewater, rather
than industrial or nonpoint source
pollution, was primarily responsible for
the Potomac's woes, improved treatment
of wastewater was the key to the river's
return to health. The District of
Columbia metropolitan area, where 75
percent of the Potomac Basin's
population lives, contributes 80 percent
of the wastewater discharged, treated
and untreated, into the Potomac.
Owned and operated by the District of
Columbia and municipalities in
Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties in Maryland, and Fairfax
County in Virginia, Blue Plains is the
largest municipal wastewater treatment
facility in America. It is also one of the
most technically advanced and effective.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 set
effluent discharge standards, permitting
requirements, and provided hundreds of
millions of dollars' worth of federal aid
for projects like Blue Plains. The $500
million in combined federal, state, and
local funding is staggering, but the
success of the Blue Plains project, more
than anything else, is responsible for the
return to health of the Potomac Basin.
By the 1980s, water quality in the
Potomac had improved markedly. It
seemed as if the Potomac's problems
were over for good until 1983, with the
occurrence of a massive, 20-mile-long
bloom of microsysfis oeruginosa algae.
Massive, sudden algae blooms threaten
marine life because algae robs the water
of essential oxygen. In the past, it was
believed that such blooms were caused
by nutrients in municipal wastewater
discharge. This time, however, official
measurements indicated that effluent
control programs were working. In 1983,
nutrients were entering the river at the
lowest rate since measurements began,
certainly at too low a level to account
for the algae bloom.
How could the observed high levels of
phosphorus be accounted for? EPA
concluded that the phosphorus was the
result of a phenomenon originating in
the sediment on the river's bottom.
Numerous hypotheses were
developed. The one that seemed most
plausible relied on a new theory which
held that algal absorption of carbon
dioxide raised the water's pH to a point
where phosphorus was released from
the sediments and became an additional
food supply for growing algae.
It was decided that the Potomac
Eutrophication Model computer
program (developed to estimate the
effects on river aging of algae growth
and dissolved oxygen from both point
and nonpoint sources) could be
14
EPA JOURNAL
-------
modified to examine the possibility of
preventing future algae blooms by
enhancing alkalinity. A study was
begun, which is still in progress.
The 1983 algae bloom aside, all
indications are that the Potomac is
recovering nicely. In 1983, submerged
aquatic vegetation returned to the
Potomac, after several decades' absence.
Aquatic vegetation thrives in clean
water environments, and provides food,
shelter, and a natural habitat for a
variety of aquatic life.
According to the ICPRB, commercial
and sport fishing has made a storybook
comeback. ICPRB representatives
interviewed fishing guides along the
river, who described the great increase
in fish populations. Guide Ken Wilson
said, "Fishermen are surprised at the
cleanliness of the river. The biggest
expansion is in bass fishing. The South
Branch is famous for large-mouth bass."
There has been an increase in other
recreational activities along the
Potomac's banks. Yearly festivals
celebrate the river's abundance. Each
year, the District of Columbia sponsors
Riverfest; Alexandria also shows off its
waterfront with a special festival. The
Chesapeake and Ohio National
Historical Park, America's second
largest, welcomes thousands of visitors
each year to special events like C & O
Canal Days in August.
Riverfront communities have always
felt a pride of ownership toward their
waterways, because they are sources of
water and life. That is no less true
among the Potomac's neighbors today.
Not only is the Potomac a source of
pride; it is also a source of hope for the
continued return to health of the
Chesapeake Bay. The Potomac feeds the
Bay, where waters have often been less
than palatable.The problems that have
plagued the area's rivers are magnified
many times in the Bay.
The Chesapeake is still troubled, in
spite of the Potomac cleanup. The
Potomac success will be difficult to
replicate in the Bay, but it is a start.
Cutting off the sources of the
Chesapeake's woes is a vital
requirement for a return of the Bay to
the conditions seen by the native
Americans who plied its waters. Putting
an end to the problems of municipal
wastewater discharge is simply a matter
of constructing modern, efficient
treatment facilities and ensuring their
maintenance and proper operation.
Nonpoint source pollution must also
be controlled and that will be more
difficult. The effects of nature and
thousands of years of agricultural
practice are not easy to counteract.
There must continue to be efforts to
encourage modern land management
practices and alternatives to chemical
fertilizers and insecticides throughout
the Potomac Basin.
The magnitude of what has been done
for the Potomac cannot be underplayed;
it was, historically, one of the biggest
contributors of Bay pollution. But
similar success stories are being played
out along many other tributaries. They
too must continue, c
(Blackburn is public ciffairs specialist,
EPA Region 3, Office of Public Affairs.
Senny Ponomarenko, intern and senior
journalism ma/or. Temple University,
assisted ivith research.)
A raft race on the Potomac below the Memorial Bridge, Washington, D.C.
DECEMBER 1987
15
-------
Particulates:
Science
Advances,
Standards
Change
by Henry Thomas
Many air pollution sources are likely to
come under new particulate matter
standards recently issued by EPA. The
picture below is of a paper mill—one
source category being considered
for such review.
Earlier this year. EPA announced
changes to its ambient air standards
for particulate matter that have
far-reaching implications. Particulate
matter may pollute ambient air in the
form of dust, soot, smoke, and other
visible and invisible particles emitted
by factories, power plants, construction
activity, and other sources. Particulate
matter also includes natural windblown
dust and the particles formed in the
atmosphere as the result of the
transformation of gases such as sulfur
dioxide and volatile organics.
In the 1950s and 60s, many areas of
this country suffered from high
concentrations of particulate matter. In
some urban areas, suspended particulate
matter was a very visible problem. In
addition, numerous studies had shown
that these airborne particles were
damaging to human health. The major
health effects associated with high
exposure to particulate matter include
changes in lung function and increased
respiratory symptoms, aggravation of
existing respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, alterations in the body's
defense systems against foreign
materials, damage to lung tissue, cancer,
and, in extreme cases, premature death.
One of the very first actions which
EPA took as a new Agency was to set
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter: the
Total Suspended Particulate Matter
(TSP) standards established in 1971. In
the years that followed, attaining the
TSP standards was a major priority for
the Agency's air program staff. EPA and
state regulations resulted in major
reductions of TSP. Between 1970 and
1984, inventoried emissions fell by 60
percent. With so much measurable
success in the TSP program, why did
the Agency recently find it necessary to
rethink its national standards for
particulate matter? The answer to this
question illustrates the dynamic nature
of challenges faced by a modern
regulatory agency.
When it set the TSP standards in
1971, the technology used for measuring
ambient particulate matter levels was
something called the "high volume," or
"hi-vol," sampler. The hi-vol sampler
effectively measured all particles
ranging in size up to 25 to 45
micrometers (um). (A micrometer is one
millionth of a meter or 1/25,000 of an
inch. By way of comparison, common
bacteria are about 1-2 um in length,
while human hair is 100-200 um thick.)
To meet the TSP standards set by
EPA, state and federal controls were
placed on a wide variety of industrial
sources. In those early days, sources in
many areas had been operating with
little or no control. The focus of the
early control programs was generally on
basic industries, and the results were
often dramatic. For example, particulate
matter emissions from the iron and steel
industry fell by some 85 percent from
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
1970 to 1985, and the emissions from
coal-fired power plants dropped by
almost 75 percent. These very dramatic
emissions reductions led to marked
improvements in air quality as well.
The composite average of TSP levels
measured at some 1,400 sites decreased
by almost 25 percent from 1976 to 1985.
At many sites the improvement was
even more pronounced.
As a result of the combined efforts of
EPA and the states, wide areas of the
country now enjoy air quality levels
better than those set out in the original
TSP standards. Even in the
approximately 97 counties which did
not meet the health-based primary TSP
standards earlier this year, air quality
levels had registered considerable gains.
All of this has meant a reduction in the
health risks incurred by millions of
Americans.
Nevertheless, in today's society,
regulatory programs must be constantly
reevaluated, in light of progress made in
science and technology, to ensure that
the goals which society wants to
aghieve are realized. The fundamental
goal of the TSP program was to protect
the public health and welfare from
particulate matter pollution. The
original 1971 NAAQS for TSP were
based on data analyzed in a 1969
"criteria document," which summarized
and assessed the data then available on
the health and welfare effects of
particulate matter. Much of this data
came from epidemiological studies
dating back to the 1950s. Scientific
research and study, of course, did not
stop when the standards were set.
During the period when EPA and the
states were making such progress at
reducing particulate matter emissions,
progress of a different sort was being
made in our understanding of the health
and welfare effects of those emissions.
In particular, the relationship between
particle size and health effects was an
area where the Agency's understanding
progressed significantly since 1971. The
original standards treated all particles
the same, regardless of their size or
chemical composition. Given the
monitoring capability and information
available in the early 1970s, this
represented a sound public health
policy, and indeed the implementation
of the TSP standards reduced health
risks. More recent work on particles,
however, has enabled a more refined
approach. Some experts called for the
use of chemical-specific indicators of
particulate matter (e.g., sulfates), while
others suggested that size-specific
indicators ought to be used. The
arguments for a size-specific indicator
rested on studies showing that the
smaller particles penetrated more
deeply into the human respiratory tract
and were therefore more likely to pose a
health risk. In fact, occupational
standards had for some time recognized
the importance of particle size.
In addition, since the early 1970s,
new epidemiological studies had been
initiated, and the data used in some of
the older studies had been reanalyzed.
In 1976, as a result of an internal
Agency review and the
recommendations of the Agency's
Science Advisory Board, EPA decided
to revise the existing health and welfare
criteria document prepared in 1969 by
EPA's predecessor in air pollution
control, the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Since some
important research was still in progress
and since other pollutants were then
deemed a higher priority, the review
process was scheduled to begin in 1979.
Once it began, the review involved a
fundamental reappraisal of the
particulate matter NAAQS. In the
process, EPA provided numerous
opportunities for review and comment
by the scientific community, industry,
and the general public.
Although there was general agreement
that a particle size indicator ought to be
used in place of the TSP indicator,
agreement on the specific size cut to be
used, and on almost all other aspects of
the NAAQS, came slowly. Agency staff,
the public, and the policymakers had to
come to grips with a scientific data base
that was inconclusive on some key
questions. In many cases the data
provided no evidence of a clearly
PMlO will focus control efforts
on the smaller particles which
can reach the thoracic or
lower regions of the respiratory
tract
defined threshold, but suggested instead
the possibility of a continuum. Many of
the epidemiological studies used
measures of particulate matter that did
not correspond to any of the particle
size indicators being considered.
Compounding these problems was the
fact that the chemical makeup of
ambient particulate matter in the United
States today is not the same as it was
when the studies were done (the
difference being due to the change in
the mix of sources from the 1950s to the
present).
In sum, the new NAAQS for
particulate matter was one of the most
difficult decisions which the Agency
has confronted. In his March 1984
proposal to revise the standards, the
Administrator chose to propose ranges
rather than specific values. This was
done to illustrate and highlight the
difficulties in selecting the present
•standard. Following the proposal, the
Agency decided in 1985 to further
update its criteria document in order to
take account of certain new studies that
had emerged since the criteria
document was finished in 1982,
On July 1, 1987, EPA announced its
final decisions regarding the particulate
matter NAAQS. The old TSP indicator
was replaced by a new indicator that
includes only those particles that are 10
um or smaller. The new indicator for
airborne particulate matter has been
dubbed "PMlO." PMlO will focus
control efforts on the smaller particles
which can reach the thoracic or lower
regions of the respiratory tract—the
particles which are likely to be
responsible for most of the adverse
health effects. The new 24-hour primary
(or health-based) standard limits PMlO
to 150 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) of air. In addition, a new
long-term primary standard limits
annual averages of PMlO to 50 ug/m3.
New secondary (or welfare-based)
standards were set equal to the primary
standards and are meant to protect the
public from adverse soiling and
nuisance effects.
These new standards will necessarily
lead to a thorough reappraisal of current
air quality and particulate matter
control strategies. Even while the
standards were still under review, the
states and EPA began developing a new
PMlO monitoring network. In addition,
the Agency developed statistical
methods for using TSP data to gauge the
probability of violating the PMlO
NAAQS. The measured data and
probability estimates were used to help
design an implementation policy that
allows states some flexibility in
addressing their problems. Only areas
with measured violations, or a high
probability of violation, are required to
begin immediate regulatory actions.
Other areas have been asked to
"commit" to a course of appropriate
regulatory action once sufficient
ambient data have been collected, and a
problem has been demonstrated. This
DECEMBER 1987
17
-------
phased approach was adopted to protect
the public health in truly polluted areas,
while at the same time allowing
sufficient time to design more reasoned
strategies in areas with borderline
problems.
Although the new standards will
represent a significant challenge to the
states and EPA to implement, their
meaning to the many thousands of
sources which emit particulate matter is
not yet clear. The new standards limit
the amount of small particles in the
ambient air, but all sources tend to emit
both small and large particles in varying
proportions. It is unlikely, therefore,
that any of the controls now in place for
the TSP NAAQS could be removed
without adversely affecting attainment
of the new PM10 NAAQS. The question
of which sources will be required to
institute further control measures will
depend on the ambient PMlO levels
around the source, the proportion of
smaller particles in the source's
emissions, and how much each source
contributes to a violation of the
NAAQS. These are factors that the states
and EPA are beginning to look at right
now. Preliminary studies have indicated
that as many as 250 industries may be
afieclfid by the new NAAQS and that
control costs may reach $640 million
per year. Many industries, such as iron
and steel, cement, mining, and
utilities—which were already
controlling to meet the TSP
standards—may have to control further
to attain the PMlO standard.
Additionally, some "new" source
categories may be added to the control
strategies in some sreas. Controlled
burning in some national forests and in
some agricultural areas, for example,
adds significantly to local PMlO levels.
The use of woodstoves in some
communities has led to PMlO levels in
excess of the NAAQS. Sources such as
these will pose new problems to the air
pollution control community. In the
past, control of particulate matter was
largely a matter of specifying emission
rates and control devices, but open
burning in national forests will
obviously require a more innovative
approach. Dealing with thousands of
homeowners heating their homes with
woodstoves will be a different matter
from meeting with a plant engineer at a
steel facility. These are the kinds of
challenges which lie ahead.
The story of the revision to the
particulate matter standards illustrates
the challenges faced by EPA today. The
TSP standards, which were put in place
in 1971. led to major reductions in
particulate matter emissions,
improvements in air quality, and
reductions in public health risks.
However, while these improvements
were being made, our understanding of
the composition of particulate matter
and its impact on public health and
welfare was increased through scientific
research. Thus, despite the successes of
the TSP program, sound public policy
concerns required that it be revised. In
July 1987, the Agency made major
changes to the NAAQS and is in the
process of making other changes to its
implementation program. To truly
protect the nation's health and welfare,
EPA must always be ready to change its
program when science shows that such
change is needed. o
(Thomas is an Environmental Protection
Specialist, Ambient Standards Branch,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, at Research Triangle Park.
North Carolina.}
Relationships between particle size and
health effects are considered differently
now than they were in 1971 when EPA's
original Total Suspended Particulate
Matter (TSP) standard was established.
:e Sizes and Sources
10
20
30
O
O
O
O
O
O
Automobiles
Smokestacks
PMio
\ 8
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Report Details Status of
Nation's Surface Waters
by Alice Mayio
How clean are America's rivers, lakes,
and estuaries? Are they safe for
swimming and fishing? If not, what's
being done to clean them up and to
protect them from future degradation?
These are some of the questions
answered in EPA's biennial report to
Congress, which summarizes what the
states and territories reported on the
quality of their rivers, lakes, estuaries,
and ground waters in 1986.
While finding significant
improvement in water quality over the
past 15 years, the report also reveals
that persistent pollution problems
remain. Pollution from nonpoint or
diffuse sources—e.g., runoff from
agricultural fields, construction sites,
and city streets—appears to be an
increasing concern. Other major
concerns reported by the states include
toxic substances control; ground-water
protection; wetland loss; acid rain; and
limited money for pollution control.
Nevertheless, the report contains
positive "signs: the nation's ability to
treat its wastewater has increased
substantially, thanks to expenditures by
EPA, the states, and localities for
construction and upgrading of sewage
treatment facilities; and the states are
developing and implementing a variety
of ground-water protection activities.
Highlights of EPA's water quality
assessment follow.
One common measure of water quality
is the degree to which rivers, lakes, and
estuaries are clean enough to be used in
the ways for which they've been
officially designated, e.g., for activities
such as fishing, boating, and drinking.
The report finds that about
three-quarters of the nation's assessed
waters are usable for their
state-designated purposes.
Where water qualtiy is impaired and
waters cannot be used for recreation,
fishing, or drinking, the causes most
commonly reported by the states
include fecal coliform bacteria
(indicators of disease-causing
organisms); excess nutrients such as
phosphorus and nitrogen; turbidity;
oxygen-demanding substances; and
toxic pollutants.
For the first time, the states have
indicated that nonpoint sources of
pollution may be the leading
contributors to water degradation.
Nutrients from fertilizer
runnoff, animal wastes, and
inadequate septic systems were seen as
the leading pollutants of nonpoint
origin in lakes.
At the same time, point sources of
pollution—that is, factories and sewage
treatment facilities that discharge wastes
to waterways through a pipe, conduit,
or other easily identifiable
point—remain as significant problems in
many waters, especially estuaries and
streams.
Twenty-two states found that 8,500
miles of rivers and streams were
affected by elevated levels of toxics
(above health or environmental
protection standards); 16 states reported
elevated levels of toxics in 362,000 lake
acres; and six states reported that 190
square miles of estuaries were affected
by toxics. Industrial dischargers and
agricultural runnoff were reported as the
leading sources of these toxics.
The states impose advisories or bans
on fishing when toxics are found in fish
tissue at elevated levels. These levels
include limits set by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration; 24 states reported
imposing 286 fishing advisories, and 15
states reported 108 fishing bans
affecting portions of their waters.
Elevated levels of PCBs, mercury, and
chlordane were most often cited as the
reason for the advisories and bans.
These findings are incomplete, since not
all states provided information on
fishing restrictions, and methods of
reporting vary among states.
More than half of the U.S. population
draws drinking water from ground-water
supplies. Mississippi, Florida, Hawaii,
Nevada, and the Northern Marianna
Islands depend on ground-water sources
for at least 90 percent of their drinking
water needs. In these states and many of
the nation's rural areas, alternative
sources of water may not be physically,
legally, or economically available.
Monitoring of ground-water
conditions by the states revealed that
failing septic tank systems, leaking
underground storage tanks, and
agricultural activities such as fertilizer
applications are leading sources of
ground-water pollution.
The report included specific examples
of pollution control efforts that clearly
benefited the nation's surface waters.
For example:
• Vermont reported that sewage
treatment plant construction and
upgrading improved the quality of the
Dog, Winooski, and Connecticut rivers
and Lake Memphremagog.
.• North Dakota reported a dramatic
reduction in levels of
oxygen-demanding substances in the
Red River since industrial controls were
imposed.
• Kentucky's Reformatory Lake, once
impaired for recreational fishing due to
low dissolved oxygen levels and high
levels of nutrients, improved when
better methods of livestock management
were instituted.
• In the Great Lakes, phosphorus
control programs such as phosphate
detergent bans successfully reduced
levels of this nutrient and improved the
condition of nearshore waters. Although
contamination of fish tissue and
sediments by toxic substances
continued to be a problem in many
areas of the Great Lakes, some declines
were noted in fish tissue, especially for
DDT and mercury.
Other examples can be found in
almost every other state.
New EPA and state initiatives in
pollution control include incorporation
of toxicity testing requirements into
discharge permits; development of
regulations for the use and disposal of
sewage sludge; and programs to pretreat
industrial discharges to municipal
sewage treatment facilities. Another new
initiative was the issuance of a 1986
strategy to identify the best way to
manage nonpoint sources and to
identify waters affected by nonpoint
source pollution. The report also
discusses a new, long-term EPA plan to
protect estuarine and coastal waters.
In February 1987, Congress revised
the Clean Water Act and gave EPA and
the states a number of new pollution
control responsibilities.
With such enhanced water pollution
control efforts in mind, EPA feels the
nation is getting closer to the day when
future reports will say yes, the waters of
the United States are clean. Q
(Mayio is an Environmental Specialist,
Monitoring and Data Support Division,
EPA's Office of Water.)
DECEMBER 1987
19
-------
Timber and Tourists:
Idaho Confronts Logging Issues
by David Wann
The slide showed a sunny, sandy
beach on the banks of an apparently
pristine Idaho stream. But looks can be
deceiving. "This," said biologist Don
Anderson to the class of elementary
school sudents, "is a stream that is
dying from too much sediment.
Nonpoint source pollutants such as
sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic
matter, and metals can have major
impacts on rivers and streams. In Idaho,
we get a lot of sediment from logging
activities. This sediment can be
especially harmful, not for the aquatic
death it causes, but rather the life it
prevents. When sediment builds up in
our streams and rivers, the fish can't
reproduce, insect life doesn't thrive, and
the whole ecosystem suffers."
A fisheries biologist (the locals call
him a "fish cop") with the Idaho Fish
and Game Department, Anderson is one
of many state and local specialists
working with EPA to remedy nonpoint
source problems. In Idaho, those
problems stem in large part from the
effects of timber harvesting and
associated road building.
Past water quality management
programs, such as Section 208 of the
Clean Water Act, provided for pollution
abatement plans and led to the
regulation of forest practices in some
states. Since the late 1970s, however, it
has become apparent that these
programs have not been adequate to
protect beneficial uses such as fisheries.
As a result, many states are currently
reevaluating the impacts of forest
practices on fish habitat.
Idaho is a national focal point for this
trend because of its attempts to develop
a viable strategy for implementing both
water quality standards and
"antidegradation" requirements for
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Anderson, a fifth-generation Idahoan,
has observed first-hand the effects that
sediment can have on watershed quality
and productivity. His district is located
in the Payette National Forest in central
Idaho, where logging activities have
caused the primary sediment impact. In
fact, one of the country's more
disturbing sedimentation "blow-outs"
occurred there in 1965. The South Fork
of the Salmon River at one time
produced 50,000 adult chinook salmon
per year—or more than half the salmon
population of the entire Columbia River
drainage system. In 1965, massive
mudslides caused by a major "rain on
snow event" washed out roads built on
unstable soils and slopes. (About
three-quarters of sediment impacts
result from road construction, a large
percentage of it in the first year.)
According to congressional testimony,
"Along 25 miles of the South Fork, the
soil seemed to dissolve and run like wet
concrete. The forest opened to reveal
swatches of naked bedrock as dislodged
trees flowed away." In some stretches of
the 25-mile section, the sediment
accumulated to a depth of 12 feet.
Anderson recalled the creek being "a
gold-covered ribbon with a ripple of
water running over it—no rocks, no
holes, and certainly, no salmon habitat."
An estimated $100 million was lost in
salmon and steelhead trout fisheries,
and as few as 300 salmon now remain
in that stretch of the river.
Logging affects fisheries habitat in
several ways. When erosion and runoff
are heavy, sediments settle into the
cobbled spaces ("interstices") in the
streambed. Oxygen can't get into the
spawning nests, and the offspring can
become physically entombed in their
own birthplaces. Those that do survive
must cope with reduced hiding cover as
well as a reduced food supply of insects
and other invertebrates. The interstices
also provide cover from turbulence so
that energy is not expended
unnecessarily, and, in early spring,
cover from hurtling chunks of ice. By
removing shade, logging can also raise
the temperature of the stream beyond
fish tolerance.
The whole ecosystem, in fact, can be
diminished by clearcutting practices
which leave too little deadwood, since
many micoorganisms, insects, and
mammals rely on forest debris. The
South Fork blowout and similar
occurrences—as well as the perceived
need to maintain some pristine
land—have resulted in Idaho becoming
a national focus for the issue of
nonpoint-source pollution from
silvicultural (logging) activities.
Conservation groups across the nation
are intently watching the progress in the
state; in effect, it has become a test case
for environmental action on non-point
source pollution.
Yet the issue is slippery, both
scientifically and politically. It has been
difficult to pinpoint the best methods to
quantify the impacts of a pollution
source that is generally not a single
event, but rather a slow, insidious
development. There is no such thing as
a "sediment meter," and furthermore,
sediment itself is not a criteria pollutant
in state water quality standards,
although many states have turbidity
standards.
But how are scientists to distinguish
naturally occurring sediment from
human-caused impacts? How can the
public be made aware of the severity of
the problem, especially in a traditional
logging state? How to best enforce and
strengthen federal and state regulations
which must be generic in scope, while
.nonpoint sources themselves are very
site-specific?
The Clean Water Act Amendments of
1987 require states to identify nonpoint
sources of pollution and set forth
actions to control these sources. Thus,
the states work in conjunction with
EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, and the timber
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
industry to ensure that Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are
implemented during logging and road
building to protect beneficial uses and.
in general, protect water quality in
accordance with congressional and EPA
"antidegradation" requirements.
The National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) has been particularly
valuable in upholding an ecosystem
approach to land management. Three
recent litigations, based largely on
NEPA, have clarified the Forest
Service's mandate to address and
mitigate the cumulative impacts of
logging activities. Environmental groups
(especially the so-called "Group of
Ten'') have made their intentions clear
to EPA to pursue a legal course of action
if state water quality standards are not
A timber harvest which did not leave a
buffer strip between the stream and
cutting. When erosion and runoffs are
heavy, logging sediments settle into
strearnbeds' cobbled spaces or
"interstices." This provides less oxygen
for fish spawning nests, plus fewer
hiding places for fingerlings and little
protection for them from turbulence and
ice chunks.
met, beneficial uses are not protected,
and BMPs not adequately implemented.
BMPs include both structural and
non-structural controls: devices that
drain water more efficiently from logged
areas; sturdy bridges reinforced with
boulders on the streambank; careful
reseediug of logging roads after their
use; buffer strips of uncut trees and
understory vegetation between lugged
areas and streams; alternate methods of
harvesting (such as helicopters or
skyhooks when feasible); careful
planning and engineering of road
construction to avoid fragile soils and
land types.
However, Don Martin, nonpoint
source coordinator with EPA's Idaho
Operations Office in Region 10, believes
that BMPs have sometimes tended to ho
a distracting focal point rather than the
means of genuinely protecting beneficial
uses. Rather than rely solely on HMPs,
he advocates a "feedback loop"
consisting of vigilant monitoring of the
ecosystem itself to make sure that the
goal of environmental quality is actually
being met.
One of the major players in the
logging/sedimentation issue is the U.S.
Forest Service, which manages about
190 million acres of national forest. The
National Forest Management Act of
1970 (NFMA), sometimes referred to as
"the largest and longest-running natural
resource planning effort undertaken
anywhere in the world," is designed to
lay out projected uses and impacts for
the national forests for the next 50
years.
While there has been increasing
attention paid by the Forest Service to
the importance of fisheries in the
national forests, Martin points out that
the 100-plus management plans thus far
received in draft or final form have
generally emphasized increased timber
cutting and road construction,
"Nationwide, sport fishing is a $20
billion dollar industry, and here in
DECEMBER 1987
21
-------
The middle ground is
represented by people who
believe that there is a way to
have both logging and
environmental conservation.
Idaho we have some of the country's
best fisheries," he says. "There are times
when it makes more sense to leave the
trees standing to protect those
fisheries."
According to a recent Wilderness
Society report, Forests of the Future, 73
of the 123 national forests are currently
losing money on their timber
operations: "Taxpayer losses will exceed
$2 billion over the next decade as the
Forest Service pushes logging onto ever
more steep, erosive, and remote
forestland." Concerning the Idaho
forests in particular, the report says,
"All 12 forests in Idaho—with the
exception of the Challis—sustained
annual losses on their timber programs
from 1979 through 1984."
Martin has been working directly with
the Forest Service as well as the other
players in the Idaho forest planning
issue, including the state, BLM,
environmental and industry groups, and
Indian tribes.
"We're learning to listen to each
other," he says. "And we're coming to
consensus on the types of techniques
that will make it far easier for us to
quantify sediment impacts. For
example, analysis of streambed
composition and biological indicators
such as numbers of insect larvae per
square foot are proving to be good,
workable tools." Some of the techniques
now used permit biologists to make
direct correlations between sediment
and fish habitat quality. An example is
the nitrogen-cooled probe that lifts
small, frozen cross-sections right out of
the streambed to permit careful analysis
of the sediment's impact on salmon
"redds"—or spawning nests.
Martin, whose background includes
10 years of field work in nonpoint
source pollution, feels that raising
public awareness is an important first
step in the process of finding solutions.
"It takes a lot less sediment to impact
fisheries than most people realize," he
says.
In an undisturbed, mature forest, .5
tons of sediment erode per acre per
year. In carefully managed logging
activities, 1-15 tons per year can erode,
while in intensely and carelessly logged
areas, sediment runoff can exceed 100
tons per year.
"By carefully studying fish ecology as
well as the physical and biological
properties of these watersheds," Martin
explains, "we've realized that good
BMPs have got to be enforced or we're
going to lose a virtually irreplaceable
resource. People need to realize, too,
that drinking water supplies are being
impacted by sediment. Some towns
have been forced to go to alternate
sources of water because it became too
expensive to filter the sediment from
the water."
Local residents seem somewhat
divided on the issue. Some drive cars
with bumper stickers that say
"Wilderness: Land of No Uses" and
refer to BMPs as "Biologically Malignant
Pillage." This sector pushes for
upgrading the infrastructure in the state
to attract industries other than logging.
One of the more outspoken residents of
McCall, Idaho, said, "You've got to beat
the timber industry over the head, with
fish, to make them realize that
recreation is Idaho's best option for the
future."
To the Native American population,
the fisheries represent something more
than recreation. Having once relied on
bountiful supplies of "anadromous"
(ocean-migrating) fish, they have a
cultural and economic need for the
"tshawytscha" (chinook salmon), and
have become very active in the issue.
Like the other major players, they have
hired fisheries experts to help make
Native American participation more
effective.
Other residents are more in line with
the traditional thinking about
logging—reminding environmentalists
that the industry employs 11,000 people
in the state, and provides a tangible
commodity that can be diced up and
shipped off for profit.
The middle ground is represented by
people who believe that there is a way
to have both logging and environmental
conservation. One of these is lumber
mill owner/operator Bob Hitchcock, who
runs a state-of-the-art mill near McCall.
The mill is designed to use different
dimensions of lumber, which makes the
operation less reliant on cutting old
growth. In some cases, the high-grade
ponderosa pine is located so far up on
steep slopes that cutting it would likely
result in environmental impacts.
Hitchcock's mill uses laser scanning
technology to get the most lumber out of
a given log. It also employs ultra-narrow
saw blades to waste as little as possible,
and what little waste there is gets
converted into electricity via
cogeneration and sold to Idaho Power
Company. "We can co-exist without
destroying each other," says Hitchcock,
referring to the ongoing dialog with
environmental agencies and groups.
Underlying the whole issue, however,
is the larger issue of risk assessment.
Essentially, we need to decide what
level of environmental degradation we
are willing to accept for the sake of one
industry and its products.
Essayist Wendell Berry exhorts us to
"love the board before it becomes a
table, love the tree that yields the board.
and love the forest before it gives up the
tree."
Bearing in mind all the tangible and
intangible benefits contained in them,
and the statutes that are designed to
protect them, the essential question
remains, "How much do we love our
forests?" Q
f Wcmn is a Writer/Editor with EPA's
Region 8.)
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Pacific
Pollution:
Trouble in
Paradise
by Norman Lovelace
EPA's environmental responsibilities
extend into the Pacific Ocean well
beyond our 50th state. To the west and
south of Hawaii are hundreds of islands
where EPA has an active and direct
role. Most people do not realize that
there are now six separate and distinct
island jurisdictions, in addition to the
State of Hawaii, that are part of EPA's
Region 9. These island jurisdictions
consist of the three U.S. territories of
Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI). as well as the emerging
sovereign nations of the Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM), the
Republic of Palau (HOP), and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI1.
Each of these island areas has a
distinct history, culture, and leadership
structure. They differ from each other.
and they differ significantly from the
mainland states in subtle and profound
ways.
The political relationship of these
areas with the United States is as varied
as their history and culture. Two of
them are U.S. territories, one is a
commonwealth, two of them have
become freely associated with the
United States, and one of them is in tin-
process of arriving at a final status, Kach
status has its particular meaning in the
parlance of international recognition.
sovereignty, self-government, and in
other important ways; but the status
does not change the environmental and
public health tasks that remain to be
done.
EPA's Pacific responsibilities present
the agency and our island counterparts
with a varied menu of environmental
and public health challenges. These
challenges range from those associated
with sound environmental management
of rapid, modern-day development and
life to those of providing basic
sanitation and drinking water facilities
to individual families. It is important to
DECEMBER 1987
23
-------
appreciate the geopolitical factors that
influence the area and the way we
conduct our business. The areas in
which EPA has responsibility currently
consist of over 2,000 islands with an
approximate total land mass of 1,000
square miles. These islands are scattered
over an expanse of the Pacific Ocean
that exceeds the area of the contiguous
United States. Approximately 310,000
people call these islands their home.
The CNMI, Guam, FSM, RMI, and
ROP are in the Western Pacific Ocean in
an area called Micronesia, which is
slightly north of the equator and west of
the international dateline. The ROP is
the westernmost point, roughly 7,000
miles west-southwest of San Francisco.
American Samoa is in the South Pacific
Ocean and is considered part of the
Polynesian island group. American
Samoa is roughly 4,200 miles southwest
of San Francisco. As a partial
consequence of the geography, many of
the influences in these areas do not
come from the U.S. mainland; they
come from the Asian countries and
other countries within the Pacific Basin.
In addition, the geography, travel
limitations, and communication systems
make doing our "regular business" a bit
different. The task of making a phone
call to many areas can be a trying
experience, and it can take over 24
hours of constant travel to go from San
Francisco to the ROP (plus an extra day
because of the international dateline).
Taken together, all of these factors make
the Pacific a truly exciting and
challenging place for EPA.
All of the Pacific is varied in history,
political evolution, and culture. Those
familiar with the Pacific theater of
World War II will recognize the island
areas of Peleliu, Truk Lagoon, Guam,
Saipan, and others as sites of major
battles during the war. American Samoa
was once a coaling station for trading
ships in the South Pacific. And, of
course, there is a rich history of culture
and migration that is unique to these
islands and not yet fully understood by
students of the area. The complex
history and tradition of the islands
greatly influence the present day and
make each a unique experience.
Guam and American Samoa have
been U.S. territories since the late
1890s. They each now have
well-established forms of democratic
government. Guam's first popularly
elected governor was elected in 1970;
American Samoa's in 1978. Each
territory also has an elected legislative
body, a judiciary system, and an elected
non-voting representative to the U.S.
House of Representatives. Guam and
American Samoa are each
unincorporated territories. They are
recognized as U.S. possessions and are
under U.S. control. All of
EPA's programs apply to Guam and
American Samoa.
More recently, a major area of the
Pacific, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands (TTPI), has been undergoing a
dramatic political transformation.
Originally established in 1947 as a
United States-administered strategic
trusteeship by the United Nations, the
TTPI was composed of the CNMI, RMI,_
FSM, and ROP. Two of the principal
goals of the trusteeship are for the
United States to foster self-government
and self-determination for the area's
peoples. These goals are now being
realized as each area selects and
finalizes a new political status.
In 1976, the United States approved
the covenant to establish the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands and the area was
administratively separated from the
TTPI, although it was still covered by
the trusteeship. In 1986, the United
States terminated the trusteeship with
respect to the CNMI and commonwealth
status became formally effective. As a
commonwealth, the CNMI owes
allegiance to the United States, but
Although the Pacific's face is
changing quickly, there is still
the opportunity to "do it right
the first time."
exercises greater self-government and
sovereignty than a U.S. territory. EPA
programs will continue to apply to the
CNMI.
Also in the mid to late 1970s, the
RMI, FSM, and ROP each formed
governments and began separate
negotiations with the United States on
future political status. The RMI and
FSM have elected to become freely
associated with the United States.
Under this arrangement they are
recognized as self-governing, sovereign
nations. The United States, however,
will retain certain strategic and
international relations interests in the
areas. The details of the arrangement
have been negotiated betweeen the
United States and the RMI and FSM. In
1986, the trusteeship was terminated for
the RMI and FSM-and their new status
became effective. Some EPA programs
will continue to apply until 1989 as part
of a three-year transition period.
The ROP has also indicated that it
wishes to become freely associated with
the United States under the same
general parameters as the RMI and FSM.
The formal approval process for this
new relationship is still underway.
All of the islands are undergoing
dramatic changes that create a diversity
of environmental challenges. Beneath
the serene, tropical beauty of the
islands, there are turbulent currents of
economic development and social
change. The world is looking to the
Pacific as a new economic frontier, and
the areas where EPA has responsibility
have not been left out. The islands face
the dual problems of managing rapid
modern-day development in an
environmentally responsible manner
while meeting the basic public health
needs of their people.
In some areas, life is relatively
unchanged from what it was 100 years
ago. In others, luxury resort hotels,
shopping centers, tract homes, and
traffic jams have taken the place of palm
trees over the last 10 years. The face of
the Pacific is rapidly changing and
added pressures are being placed on the
environment:
• More drinking water is needed and
the limited supplies of fresh water must
be carefully managed and protected.
• More solid and hazardous wastes are
being generated which must be safely
collected and disposed of.
• More wastewater is generated that
must be treated and properly disposed
of.
• More construction is occurring that
must be carefully managed to reduce
damage to rivers and reefs.
• More power will be generated and the
existing pristine quality of the air must
be preserved.
• More oil and hazardous materials are
being transported, thereby increasing
the danger of spills.
In addition to problems that are
rapidly emerging, the islands must also
cope with a backlog of existing ones.
Many people living in population
centers as well as small villages do not
have safe and dependable supplies of
drinking water or adequate waste
disposal facilities. Basic infrastructure
(water, power, wastewater) in the
population centers is often inadequate
for today's demands, let alone those of
24
EPA JOURNAL
-------
the future. On top of this, most island
governments are very young and still in
the process of establishing their policies
and institutions to protect the
environment and public health.
Although the Pacific's face is
changing quickly, there is still the
opportunity to "do it right the first
time." For the most part, the
environmental challenges and
opportunities connected with economic
growth and activity are those of
preventing problems rather than
correcting existing ones. The limited
land and fresh-water resources of the
islands demand that these challenges be
met. For example, a ground-water
polluting industry will not only pollute
an aquifer: it could pollute the aquifer.
The next closest source of potable
ground-water could be on another
island 200 miles away! So the task of
comprehensive and sound
environmental management is critical
for island environments.
Does EPA have a role in these tropical
paradises? Yes, EPA has several roles
and responsibilities. Aside from the
formal responsibilities assigned to EPA
by Congress, we have an equally
important obligation to understand the
real problems and needs of the islands
and to find ways to address them. Our
most fundamental obligation is to form
partnerships with our island
counterparts and work together to solve
and/or prevent environmental and
public health problems.
Meeting these obligations takes many
forms, some of which do not readily fit
into the mold that has been cast for EPA
in its dealings with the 50 states. An
example of this is the recently
completed "Micronesian Water Supply
Initiative." This initiative was a
multi-agency project that included
participation and assistance from the
U.S. Department of Interior, the
University of Hawaii, the University of
Guam, private consultants, and the
island governments. Through the
initiative the RM1, FSM, and ROP are
being provided with technical,
programmatic, and instructional
materials to improve the status of water
supplies, including individual
household supplies. The initiative even
included development of a 12-year
school curriculum for environmental
health education.
Other examples of appropriate
assistance are the "Rural Sanitation
Projects" that are underway in the RMI,
FSM, and ROP. These projects are
designed to provide basic sanitary
facilities to households that are located
on remote islands or outside major
population centers. The origin of these
projects and EPA's participation in them
is a vivid and tragic illustration of the
basic public health needs that exist in
many areas: the Truk Islands
experienced a major outbreak of cholera
in 1982 and 1983 that claimed over
3,000 victims and took over 20 lives.
In addition to the many differences
that arise because of geography, culture,
and political status as well as public
health needs, the U.S. Congress has
made special allowances for the islands
that directly affect the way in which
EPA administers programs. In general,
EPA must look at these islands in a
different way than we look at California
or New York.
In Region 9, an Office of Pacific
Island and Native American Programs
has been formed to oversee and manage
EPA involvement in the islands, and to
provide for appropriate program
delivery. Also, within the community of
federal agencies and departments, a
special Oceania Regional Response
Team has been formed. This team will
assist in responding to oil and
hazardous materials spills as well as in
preparing emergency contingency
plans.
The future looks good for the island
counterparts. EPA must continue to be a
strong voice for the environment and a
resource for the island communities. -
(LoveJace is Chief, Office of Pacific
Island and Native American Programs,
EPA Region 9.J
COMMONWEALTH ^—
OF THE
\ NORTHERN
MARIANA REPUBLIC
ISLANDS OF THE
MARSHALL ISLANDS
REPUBLIC
OF PALAU
'""'' *
Rota «
0
Guam
•<. »
* fc>*
A
0
1 * Maiuro
t Sonsoroi
FEDERATED STATES
?<*, Of MICRONESIA
•
EPA's Region 9 has responsibilities for Pacific island areas with 310,000 people.
The islands are scattered over an area larger than the 48 contiguous states.
DECEMBER 1987
25
-------
Tracking
Environmental
Diseases with
Epidemiology
by Robert Griffin
Epidemiology is the study of the
behavior of disease in populations.
As a separate discipline, it first arose
from the urgent need to make scientific
sense of the frightening and seemingly
capricious attacks of infectious illnesses
such as cholera and typhoid. Scientists
found, however, that the techniques
developed to study infectious diseases
also could be applied to chronic
diseases—for example, diabetes, heart
disease, and certain other conditions
including alcoholism and mental
illness. Now, these same techniques are
proving useful in studying the
association of disease with
environmental problems as well. Some
cancers, for example, have been linked
to exposure to chemical pollution.
Environmental epidemiology, however,
usually presents much greater difficulty
for investigators than does the study of
infectious disease.
According to Dr. Chad Hemick, a
medical epidemiologist with the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta,
most diseases caused by environmental
problems are of a chronic nature.
"Infectious diseases usually have
short incubation periods and victims of
acute illness can often point to recently
ingested foods, or other factors that may
prove to be the culprit," Hemick points
out. "Everyone who eats a tainted
cheese will know it within a few hours!
But chronic diseases usually develop
from a combination of risk factors,
unlike infections, which can be
attributed to a single, clearly identifiable
organism."
"Concerns about the environment
aren't necessarily based upon getting an
acute illness—at least in the short run,"
Hemick says. "Diseases caused by
factors in the environment may develop
over long periods of time, and they may
show up only as a greater-than-expected
number of cancers, or frequent
incidence of other chronic disease
within a population." In any
epidemiological study, one of the most
basic steps is to identify the common
circumstances, or "risk factors,"
associated with victims of the disease.
(See box.) Working backward from the
risk factors, epidemiologists can deduce
the cause and even suggest preventive
measures.
Sometimes an examination of health
statistics will alert officials to the
possibility of an environmental health
problem. Unusual "clusters" of chronic
disease victims may be cause for
suspicion. Sometimes the existence of
an environmental problem will be first
suspected by concerned citizens or
practicing phyicians, whose evidence is
merely anecdotal, or based on "hunch."
In either case, the environmental origin
of a disease problem can be proved only
by a rigorous epidemiologic study.
But, even in cases where statistics
reveal a geographic clustering of disease
that could be of environmental origin, it
is sometimes difficult to prove the case.
Long latency periods in development of
chronic diseases, the fact that people
move from place to place, and the
difficulty in identifying all risk factors
to which they have been exposed over a
lifetime, serve to complicate the
environmental epidemiologist's work.
There are, however, exceptions: the
occurrence of illnesses such as mercury
poisoning or mesothelioma (a cancer
which is associated with asbestos
exposure) immediately suggest the
existence of an occupational or
environmental hazard.
Epidemiologic studies may be either
prospective or retrospective, and both
are applied to health problems that are
known or suspected to be caused by
factors in the environment.
In a prospective study, a "cohort," or
population group, that has been exposed
to a suspected "risk factor" is followed
for a period of time—often many years.
The health of this population group is
carefully monitored and compared with
that of-a non-exposed population, or
"control group." Health problems that
are unique to the first group, or that
occur in statistically significant
numbers, may be attributed to the risk
factor(s). An example of a long-term
prospective study is the continuing
follow-up on survivors of the atom
bomb blast at Hiroshima.
In a retrospective study,
epidemiologists begin with a known
disease condition. The challenge is to
deduce the set of circumstances shared
by all those with the disease, and
determine which of these may b'e
properly identified as risk factors.
Environmental epidemiologists point
out that their work can have immense
psychological value. A thorough
investigation sometimes will disprove
the existence of a suspected
environmental problem. For example,
citizens in South Carolina who lived
near a nuclear plant became alarmed at
reports suggesting they were at greater
risk of developing polychlhemia vera, a
relatively rare blood disorder. They
suspected that its occurrence among
their neighbors was due to their
proximity to the plant. A careful
epidemiological study, however,
revealed that the blood disease was no
more frequent in South Carolina than
elsewhere.
Environmental epidemiologists
point out that their work can
nave immense psychological
value.
EPA is involved in a number of
epidemiology programs. According to
Gunther Craun, with EPA's Health
Effects Research Laboratory in
Cincinnati, the Agency offers assistance
to the Centers for Disease Control in
investigating outbreaks of suspected
waterborne disease. More importantly,
through a cooperative agreement with
the University of Pittsburgh, EPA
supports a Center for Environmental
Epidemiology. "The Center was
established in 1979 especially to
address the nation's long-term research
needs in the areas of human mortality
and morbidity from exposure to
environmental contaminants," Craun
observes. "It performs epidemiologic
studies, and works to improve
epidemiological study methods,
including statistical and analytical
techniques. The Center staff also
assesses environmental exposures in
support of epidemiologic investigations,
and assists EPA in identifying areas
where the science of epidemiology can
support the agency's mission."
Examples of the Center's work
include such projects as assessing the
26
EPA JOURNAL
-------
exposure to volatile chemicals from
contaminated water, developing
mathematical models to permit
extrapolation of environmental
exposures back in time, and developing
computer software to perform risk
assessment of occupational groups
exposed to arsenic.
It is unlikely that the science of
epidemiology can ever identify
environmental problems with the same
precision and confidence it has shown
with infectious disease. This is partly
due to our imperfect knowledge of the
environment and its complex
interaction with the human organism.
But epidemiology remains an
indispensable tool in the continuing
effort to extend our knowledge of the
environment and protect human life and
health. Q
(Griffin is a Washington-based science
writer.]
Reid Work
Among the methods employed by
the epidemiologists, none has been
more fruitful than "field work." An
1854 cholera epidemic in London
provides a classic example of the
value of field work and reveals
the logic employed by
epidemiologists.
The 1854 outbreak appeared
sharply localized, with the
residents of one particular section
of the city suffering the greatest
incidence of disease and the
greatest number of deaths. A
health investigator, John Snow,
seized upon the idea of plotting
the locations of cholera deaths on
a map of the city. It quickly
became apparent that not only
were the greatest number of
cholera deaths occurring in St.
James' Parish, but they were
clustered about the Broad Street
Pump. Snow discovered that
certain cholera victims who lived
outside the parish were in the
habit of drawing their water from
the Broad Street Pump. He also
determined that parish residents
who had their own wells, and who
did not use the Broad Street Pump,
were virtually free of disease.
Acting upon this evidence, Snow
had the pump handle removed.
As this example shows, a crucial
task of the epidemiologist involves
identification of risk factors.
Modern statistical methods
provide a powerful tool in this
process. Several statistical
relationships have proven
especially valuable in
epidemiologic studies:
• The mortality rate is the
number of deaths occurring in a
given year per 1,000 or 100,000
total mid-year population.
• The morbidity rate is the
number of cases of a disease per
100,000 population existing at a
Identification of risk factors is a crucial task of the epidemiologist, and
modern statistical methods provide powerful tools. When cholera was
rampant in Europe, field work was just beginning, in this engraving by J.
Roze, nursing nuns in Paris attend the sick.
particular time, or cases occurring
in a defined period of time.
• Disease incidence per 100,000
individuals is the number of new
cases occurring during a given
time period multiplied by 100,000
and divided by the mid-year
population. Incidence is a measure
of the risk of developing a disease
in a given time period.
• Disease prevalence is the
number of existing cases at a
specified moment, or during a
specified time period, divided by
the total population.
• The fatality ratio is an indicator
of disease severity, and is defined
as the number of deaths expressed
as a percentage of the number of
cases.
DECEMBER 1987
27
-------
i
-------
."
k n environmental success story on
ithe wing, the graceful, loag-winged
osprey is making a dramatic comeback
to the coasts and waterways of the
United Stales. The photographs
chronicle the chick-rearing summer of
one osprey family on Chesapeake Bay.
As people-friendly birds, the parents are
quite content to raise their young atop
channel markers in the midst of busy
boat traffic.
In the early 1970s, the osprey was
nearing extinction, largely because its
only food, fish, had become
contaminated with the toxic pesticide
DDT, which caused the osprey's egg
shells to become thin and fragile.
shattering under the weight of the
nesting parent.
But the latest census by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service showed 8.000
nesting pairs nationwide, a remarkable
recovery for a beautiful bird. Even more
encouraging, most nests today contain
one or two healthy osprey clucks a
success story that punctuates a
combined effort to understand and
control the use of pesticides.
Osprey facts. Wingspan 4 1/2 to 6 ft.,
length 2 ft. Body is brown above and
white below. White head with dark
brown line through the eye and on side
of face. Nests as far north as Alaska,
winters in Central and South America.
-------
Previous page: Tributary waters of the
Chesapeake Bay are home to the osprey
family pictured.
Right, mother and baby wait for the
father to bring more fish. Below, baby
ospreys grow rapidly. Bottom, after the
father eats the fish head, mother and
baby share the rest. Bottom right, it's
flight time. This photo was taken on the
baby's first flight day.
—v ^»r-
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Appointments Letter to the Editor
Dr. Ken Sexton, a veteran
environmental scientist and
leader in the air pollution
field, is the new Director of
the Office of Health Research
in the Office of Research and
Development. Dr. Sexton
started his professional career
as an Air Force Computer
Systems Operations Officer
in 1972. From 1975 to 1979,
he was first a Research
Assistant and then an
Environmental Engineering
Faculty Member at
Washington State University.
In 1979, he joined the Acurex
Corporation in California as
an Energy and Environmental
Division engineer, returning
to academia a year later for a
three-year stint at the
Harvard University School of
Public Health, where he
earned his doctorate in
Environmental Health
Sciences.
Sexton became Director of
the California Department of
Health Services Indoor Air
Quality Program in 1983,
then was appointed Director
of Scientific Review and
Evaluation at the Health
Effects Institute in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, in
1985. He joined EPA
recently.
In addition to Masters
degrees from Texas Tech and
Washington State, he has a
Bachelor of Science degree in
Life Sciences from the Air
Force Academy. He is
chairman of the Air Pollution
Control Association
Committee on Air Quality
Policy, Regulations, and
Strategy, and has been active
in a number of California and
national advisory and
working groups in the field
of air quality control, a
Dear Editor:
A recent EPA Journal (Sept. '87) carried
an article on perspective on the global
environment by Albert Fry. While 1
welcome Mr. Fry's point of view in the
Journal and applaud parts of his article,
some sections, it should be pointed out.
are clearly erroneous.
It was good to see that industry
supports continued economic growth
that is compatible with a healthy
environment. It is admirable that
multi-national corporations are using
their influence in an effort to persuade
trade associations and individual
businesses to comply with the
environmental guidelines they adopted.
Mr. Fry's comment that pollution
control often pays for itself is important
to stress.
However, his statement that
"environmental rhetoric and
confrontation make headlines but
seldom clean up pollution" simply
cannot be supported. EPA's judicious
use of confrontation (enforcement
activities, such as lawsuits)
accompanied as they often are by
"rhetoric" (e.g., press releases quoting
EPA officials) produce headlines that
are very effective in reminding the rest
of the regulated community that
violating the law is not cost-free. The
result is a cleaner environment.
His argument that uniform
environmental standards should be
rejected in favor of local standards.
since the benefits depend on the local
environment and since they would not
be "economically efficient," was
rejected in this country years ago. We
saw that the states were not effectively
controlling the problem; pollution did
not respect state boundaries; and the
deleterious effects on the environment
were seen to be economically
counterproductive. In the United States
the national government had the
political will to address the problem,
whereas states that were competing
against each other to attract industry did
not. National environmental standards,
the end result, have been universally
applauded as a success since they require
all parties to compete on a level playing
field.
The international community faces
the same problem and needs global
environmental standards. The catch is
enforcement. In the absence of effective
enforcement by the United Nations, the
developed countries can help by
refusing to import products from
countries that do not comply, or more
selectively by refusing to import
products from those individual plants
that do not play by the same rules the
world requires. If we are to prevent
more Chernobyls, Rhine River disasters,
and ozone depletion, we must establish
such global laws and enforcement tools.
Charles Garlow, Attorney. U.S. EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring--Air Enforcement
In the interest of presenting a range of
opinion on various issues, EPA Journal
occasionally publishes letters to the
editor. As with other articles in the
Journal, letters express the opinions o|
the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect EPA policy. Although each letter
cannot be acknowledged, the Journal
invites readers to send letters, and
appreciates the time and effort that »oes
into them. Letters become the property
of EPA Journal and will not he)
returned. Letters are published at the
discretion of the Journal, tvhich reserves
(he right to edit them for clarity or
brevity.
DECEMBER 1987
31
-------
A review of recent major EPA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
AIR
Stronger CFC Regulations
Proposed
New domestic regulations
restricting production and
consumption of
ozone-depleting
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
have been proposed by EPA
Administrator Lee M.
Thomas. Imposed under
Section 157 of the Clean Air
Act, the rules would
constitute this country's
implementation of the
"Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer," which was
signed by the United States
and 23 other countries in
September 1987.
SO2 Standards Finalized
EPA on December 1 issued
its new source performance
standards for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from new,
modified, or reconstructed
coal- and oil-fired
steam-generating units of
greater than
100-million Btu per hour
heat-input capacity. Facilities
using conventional
technologies must reduce
SO2 emissions by 90 percent
and meet an emission limit
of 0.6 Ib. SO2/miIlion Btu if
they burn coal, or 0.8
Ib./million Btu if they use oil.
Facilities using new or
emerging technologies must
reduce emissions by at least
50 percent and meet
emission limits of 0.6
Ib./million if coal-fired and
0,4 Ib./million Btu if oil-fired.
There are special
requirements for units being
used at less than 30 percent
of capacity, units using very
low-sulfur oils, and those in
non-continental areas.
Visibility Protection
Plans Disapproved
The EPA Administrator on
November 10 signed a final
rule disapproving state
implementation plans (SIPs)
of 29 states and incorporating
federal plans to meet
visibility requirements. The
states involved failed to
comply with EPA regulations
calling for protection of
mandatory Class I areas such
as national parks and
wilderness areas from
visibility impairment caused
by "plume blight" traced to a
single source or small groups
of sources.
Truck Emissions Standard
Delayed
Responding to a November
District of Columbia Court of
Appeals decision, EPA has
deferred nitrogen oxide
(NOx) exhaust and emissions
standards for all three-ton or
larger gasoline- and
diesel-powered trucks until
the 1990 model year.
The decision allows
manufacturers to continue
certifying heavy trucks under
the existing 10.7 grams NOx
per brake horsepower per
hour standard (g/BHP-hr.)
through the 1989 model year.
In 1990, the standard will be
6.0 g/BHP-hr. The light truck
standard is now 2.3
g/BHP-hr; it will also be
tougher in 1990.
ENFORCEMENT
Bid-Rigging Repayment
Officials of Chattanooga,
Tennessee, have agreed to
pay EPA $600,000 of the $3.7
million the city has
recovered from contractors
who participated in illegal
bid-rigging for sewer
construction jointly funded
by EPA and the city.
Although EPA has recovered
money from bid-riggers on
EPA-funded sewer projects
before this, Chattanooga is
the first municipality to take
the initiative in recovering
illegal profits involved in
such joint efforts.
HAZAR DO US WASTES_
Regulations Extended to
"Miscellaneous" Facilities
New permitting rules issued
by EPA November 30 bring
"miscellaneous" hazardous
waste facilities—treatment,
storage, and disposal
facilities that don't fall
within traditional
definitions—under Agency
regulation. The regulations
will apply to such hazardous
waste facilities as those used
for open burning, open
detonation of explosive
wastes, some thermal
treatment units, and some
underground disposal
geologic repositories like salt
formations, mines, and caves.
PESTICIDES
WATER
New Limits On Alachlor
EPA has placed a number of
restrictions on use of the
pesticide alachlor, following
a special review that began
in 1985, when concerns were
raised about the chemical's
potential to cause cancer.
These restrictions are
primarily intended to reduce
risks to persons involved in
the alachlor application
process.
EPA will soon propose a
Maximum Contaminant Level
for alachlor in public
drinking water. However, a
determination on the risk to
ground water has been
deferred pending completion
of an EPA-required
nationwide monitoring study
by the registrant, due in
1989.
EPA has concluded that
alachlor residues on treated
crops do not pose
unreasonable risks to
consumers.
Permits For Field Testing
Biotech Frostban Extended
EPA has granted the request
of Advanced Genetic
Sciences (ACS) Inc., of
Oakland, California, to
expand the experimental use
permits issued in November
1985 (and reissued in
February 1987) allowing ACS
to test two strains of
ice-nucleating bacteria that
have been genetically altered
to be non-ice-nucleating. The
new permits allow ACS to
conduct additional testing at
Brentwood, California, site of
spring 1987 tests.
Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes Pacts Signed
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement—a blueprint for
Bay restoration efforts for the
next decade—was signed in
Baltimore on December 15.
Signators included EPA
Administrator Lee M.
Thomas, Governors Gerald L.
Baliles, Virginia; William
Donald Schaefer, Maryland;
and Robert P. Casey,
Pennsylvania; District of
Columbia Mayor Marion
Barry, Jr.; and Chesapeake
Bay Commission Chairman
Kenneth ). Cole.
In mid-November, EPA
Administrator Thomas and
Canada's Minister of the
Environment, Tom McMillan,
signed amendments to the
Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. The latest
amendments reflect recent
advances in science and
technology and are designed
to assure prompt
implementation.
First National Estuary
Program Announced
Albemarle-Parnlico Sounds in
North Carolina, the nation's
second largest estuary
complex, have been
designated as EPA's first
National Estuarine
Management Program under
the Clean Water Act. The
announcement was made by
Lawrence Jensen, Assistant
Administrator for Water, at a
meeting at Elizabeth City,
North Carolina, and reflects
cooperative efforts by North
Carolina and EPA to include
all estuary users in
developing the plan. The
management program
includes a five-year
environmental study which
will culminate in a
comprehensive conservation
and management plan in
1992. EPA has already given
$1.1 million to the
Albemarle-Pamlico program,
and the state of North
Carolina has contributed $.5
million, a
32
EPA JOURNAL
-------
.
'•••Hlfe^
On the northeast shoreline of Green
Bay, Wisconsin.
Back Cover: Winter in New England.
Photo by DeWitt Jones, Woodfin Camp,
Inc.
-------
.
------- |