United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Environmental
Quality Profile
December 1979

-------
Preface
This is the third annual report to the people of the State of Alaska regarding the status
of their environment. Information presented has been compiled by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) from numerous sources in state and local government, especially
the Department of Environmental Conservation, as well as from other institutions.
The report discusses progress in environmental preservation that has been made to date,
addresses some of the related problems and issues faced by the people of the state,
and identifies some solutions to those problems and issues.
The Northwest is growing—more industry attracts more people—and the results of
that growth are not always environmentally beneficial. Consequently, the state faces a
challenge: accommodating increased growth while retaining its greatest resource, a
beautiful and healthy environment.
Naturally, the traditional industrial and muncipal pollution sources are of concern, but many
of the region's problems are due to nontraditional sources of pollution. Agricultural
and forest practices can significantly affect water quality especially on rivers with consistently
low stream flows. Many chemicals, including some pesticides and herbicides have serious
health effects that have been recognized only recently. Urban development itself, separate
from industry, creates diverse pollution problems affecting the air, water, and land
While Alaska and the Northwest may be seen as relatively environmentally "clean" when
compared to other parts of the nation, continuing efforts are necessary to maintain that
status, as well as to better understand and resolve current regional problems. An informed
public is essential to this effort, and it is hoped that this document will provide a better
perspective on some crucial resource management issues facing the state as well as
the nation.
Space limits a complete presentation of many complex technical issues, therefore the
reader interested in additional information is invited to contact the Region 10 office of
EPA in Seattle for other publications that contribute to increased understanding of specific
topics. Comments and suggestions are also solicited regarding improvements to future issues
of this publication.
Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington

-------
Contents/Summary
1	Air Quality
In 1978, most areas in Alaska met air quality
standards, and there was relatively little change
in air quality from the previous year. In six
areas, rural fugitive dust accounted for total
suspended particulates in excess of the
standards; little has been done to date to
control area sources of fugitive dust. There
were no sulfur dioxide, ozone, or oxides of
nitrogen concentrations reported that exceeded
standards during the year. The Anchorage and
Fairbanks areas frequently experience carbon
monoxide concentrations above the standards
during the winter months, but various
transportation control strategies are expected to
alleviate this problem. There are no known
significant emission sources of lead or other
hazardous materials in Alaska. Although there are
no federal air quality standards for ice fog,
measures to reduce this phenomena are being
studied.
7	River Water
Because much of Alaska is remote and
inaccessible most of the year, the water quality
status in about half of its principal rivers is
unknown. The limited amount of data available
indicates that Federal criteria for turbidity and
suspended solids are exceeded primarily due to
natural phenomena. However, construction and
placer mining activities may be contributing to
these conditions in some areas. Levels of heavy
metals of uncertain origins are slightly above
the Federal crtieria in several of the rivers
monitored.
15	Lakes
Little is known about Alaska lakes, but studies
made on recreational lakes in more populated
areas near Anchorage indicate that they are
moderately eutrophic, with little impairment of
recreational use. It is uncertain whether natural
conditions or human activities are responsible.
Marine Water	18
All of Alaska's valuable commercial shellfish
growing areas were open to shellfish harvest in
1978. However, there is a potential future
problem in low-level oil pollution from urban
and industrialized areas and offshore oil wells.
Localized depressed dissolved oxygen and pH
levels and high sulfite waste liquor
concentrations are caused by wastes from pulp
mills near Ketchikan and Sitka. These
conditions plus localized water quality
degradation experienced near the outfalls of
several seafood processing plants continue to
be of concern.
Drinking Water	20
The water systems that serve one-quarter of the
population using community water systems in
Alaska comply with EPA regulations for
bacterial contamination. However, the compliance
status of 81 percent of the systems in the
state is unknown due to inadequate data. The state
has implemented several public health programs
to improve drinking water quality.
Noise	22
No state agency has statutory responsibility for
noise control in Alaska, and few local
governments have noise abatement ordinances.
EPA is assisting Anchorage and Palmer with
noise abatement, and Anchorage is in the
process of implementing a comprehensive
noise control ordinance covering land use
and motor vehicle noise.
Solid Waste and Hazardous
Substances	23
Past problems with traditional methods of solid
waste disposal have prompted the use of new
approaches in Alaska. In particular, Alaskan
communities are beginning to consider recycling
of materials and recovery of energy from
municipal waste.
Production, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials has been a source of concern.
However, both mandatory and voluntary
programs have been implemented to better
manage these materials. EPA requires stringent
monitoring of radioactive materials and
pesticides, although the state has primary
enforcement duties for controlling these
substances.

-------
Summary of Environmental
Indicators for Alaska
CURRENT
STATUS TREND
Air Quality	Number of areas exceeding standards
River Water Percentage of monitoring stations meeting
Quality	water quality goals (based on worst 3 months)
Lake Water Percentage of major recreational lakes with
Quality	little or no use impairment
Marine Water Percentage of classified shellfish harvesting
Quality	waters open
Drinking Water Percentage of population served by water supplies
Quality	in compliance with regulations for bacterial
contamination
Percentage of community water supplies in
compliance with regulations for bacterial
contamination
Noise	Percentage of population living in areas with
local noise control standards meeting state
objectives
Degree to which noise control regulations are
enforced
Solid Waste Number of resource recovery or recycling
Disposal	facilities available
Number of hazardous waste handling sites
2	Little change
75%	Little change
87%	Little change
100%	Little change
24%	Improving
14%	Improving
44%	Improving
Good	Improving
1	Improving
0	Little change

-------
Air
Quality
their average concentration over various
lengths of time with a margin of safety
included. Pollutants that exceed established
"primary standards" pose a threat to
public health. Exceeding "secondary
standards" has detrimental impacts on
agriculture, the life and cost of operating
consumer products and other economic or
non-health concerns. If the pollutant
concentration reaches the "alert level,"
individuals, industry, and government
should take immediate action to protect
human health by curtailing outdoor activities,
use of automobiles, and certain industrial
operations.
How Air Quality is Measured
Air quality data for Alaska are collected at
monitoring stations located primarily in
concentrated population or industrial
centers (the most likely sources of air
pollution). Monitoring sites are designated
in this report as commercial/industrial,
residential, or rural to display the
differences between these categories of
locations. However, air pollution can
originate away from the monitoring site;
therefore, high pollutant levels in a
residential area, for example, do not
necessarily indicate the source is located
in that area. Not all pollutants are
monitored continuously at all stations; and
monitors are not located in all election
The task of improving air quality in the
Northwest continues to be a cooperative
effort among Federal, state, and local
environmental agencies, industry, and a
concerned, informed public. Since the
1970 Clean Air Act, considerable
investment has been made in time and
money in the search for solutions to the
most pressing pollution problems.
However, much remains to be done, and
this section gives some insight into the
types of air quality problems faced by the
citizens of Alaska.
Air Quality Standards —
Their History and Definition
The Clean Air Act of 1970 directed EPA
to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards ("ambient" refers to outside or
environmental conditions rather than
indoor air quality). In 1977, amendments
to the Act required that all standards be
met as soon as possible and practical. In
the case of primary (health-related)
standards, the new deadline is
December 31, 1982. An extension to
December 31, 1987 can be granted for
carbon monoxide and ozone.
The more highly concentrated a pollutant
is, the worse its effect on humans and
their environment. Because some
pollutants have both chronic and acute
effects on health, standards are based on
Table 1.
Effects of Major Air Pollutants on
Health and Property
POLLUTANT
HEALTH EFFECTS
PROPERTY EFFECTS
Suspended
Particulates
Sulfur Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Ozone
Nitrogen Dioxide
Correlated with increased bronchial
and respiratory disease,
especially in young and elderly.
Upper respiratory irritation at low
concentrations; more difficult
breathing at moderate concentra-
tions (3000 ug/m3), correlated
with increased cardio-respiratory
disease; acute lung damage at
high concentrations.
Physiological stress in heart
patients; impairment of
psychomotor functions; dizziness
and headaches at lower concen-
trations; death when exposed to
1000 ppm for several hours.
Irritates eyes. nose, throat;
deactivates respiratory defense
mechanisms: damages lungs
Combines with hydrocarbons in
the presence of sunlight to form
photo-chemical smog; irritates
eyes, nose, throat; damages
lungs.
Corrodes metals and concrete:
discolors surfaces; soils exposed
materials; decreases visibility
Corrodes and deteriorates steel,
marble, copper, nickel, aluminum,
and building materials: causes
brittleness in paper and loss of
strength in leather: deteriorates
natural and synthetic fibers:
"burns" sensitive crops.
Corrodes limestone and concrete
structures.
Deteriorates rubber and fabrics:
corrodes metal; damages
vegetation.
Corrodes metal surfaces:
deteriorates rubber, fabrics,
and dyes.
1

-------
districts, primarily because of the high
cost of installation and operation.
EPA has determined the percentage of
days during which concentrations of the
various pollutants exceeded the standards
in Alaska during 1978, then compared this
information with 1977 data to obtain short-
term indications of changes in air quality.
Air Quality in Alaska
Areas where a combination of high
emissions and weather conditions cause
air quality standards to be exceeded have
been designated as "non-attainment."
Currently, two urban areas in Alaska fall
in this category. The original determination
of non-attainment was based on data for
1975 through 1977; therefore, areas that
are presently classified as attainment may
have exceeded the standards in 1978. It is
difficult to display precise boundaries for
areas in which standards are exceeded,
so election district boundaries are used for
display purposes, although only a portion of
a district may be affected by the pollutant.
Alaska's major air pollutants and their
sources are discussed in the following
sections along with the progress being
made to meet air quality standards.
Suspended Particulates
Suspended particulates are solid or liquid
particles of different sizes and have health
effects that vary with size and
composition. Particulates can aggravate
asthma and chronic lung diseases and
increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Some particulates can be toxic or cancer-
causing (lead or asbestos particles, for
example). Particulate pollution may
interfere with visibility, injure vegetation,
and increase cleaning and maintenance
costs.
Some of the particulate emissions in
Alaska come from what are called "point
sources," which are easily identified
sources of emissions such as power
generation, forest products and chemical
processing plants. The remaining
particulate pollution cannot be pinpointed
to a specific source and arises from "area
sources." These include emissions from
motor vehicles, space heating of
residential and commercial buildings, and
fugitive dust. The latter originates from
sparsely vegetated land, agricultural
activities, certain industrial operations, and
operation of vehicles on paved and
unpaved roads. In rural areas with little
major industrial development and low
population density, this fugitive dust is
composed mostly of natural dust, pollens
and soil particles and is believed to be
less harmful to the health. Because of this,
some rural areas are considered to be
attaining air quality standards although
particulate standards are exceeded. This is
true for six election districts in Alaska
where most of the fugitive dust results
from natural conditions, land clearing or
gravel roads.
Figure 1 shows the Alaska areas that
exceeded suspended particulate standards;
i.e., at least one monitoring site in the
district exceeded one or more of the
standards for total suspended particulates
(TSP) in 1978. In all of the districts
monitored, rural fugitive dust accounts for
TSP levels in excess of the standards,
although the Yukon-Koyukuk district has
attained TSP standards.
To date, the main emphasis in Alaska has
been on reducing emissions from point
sources such as factories and power
plants. Particular emphasis has been
placed on installing pollution control
equipment on industrial sources. Little has
been done to control area sources,
although there are some local regulations
and the State Highway Department
requires dust control measures during
road construction. Effective zoning and
construction regulations which require
Figure 1.
Air Quality Status — Suspended
Particulates
STANDARDS ATTAINED
Q NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
| STANDARDS EXCEEDED DUE TO FUGITIVE DUST
paving, watering or oiling of dusty areas,
revegetation of disturbed areas, and shrub
or tree plantings around commercial
developments can reduce the nuisance of
fugitive dust.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide is formed when coal or oil
containing sulfur is burned, or when sulfur
is burned in an industrial process. This
gas can combine with moisture in the air
to form sulfuric acid. Breathing air
containing sulfur dioxide can produce
adverse health effects similar to those
described above for suspended particulates.
When sulfur dioxide combines with moisture
in the air to form acidic mist and rain,
it can pose an increased health hazard and
in addition it corrodes buildings, is harmful
to vegetation, and can deteriorate the water
quality of lakes and streams far from the
source of the pollutant.
2

-------
The pulp mills in southeastern Alaska,
major point sources of sulfur dioxide,
comply with the state's air quality
regulations (Figure 2). In 1978, there were
no sulfur dioxide concentrations measured
that exceeded the standards. Additional data
are needed to assess the potential for
future sulfur dioxide problems that could
arise from operation of the pipeline terminal
and proposed construction of a petro-
chemical plant in Valdez.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless
gas—high concentrations cause uncon-
sciousness and death. At concentrations
above the primary standard, this pollutant
can interfere with mental alertness and
physical activity, especially for persons
with heart or lung disorders.
Carbon monoxide is a by-product of fossil
fuels combustion. Its major source is
motor vehicles, and the most severe
violations of standards are recorded where
automobiles are concentrated—in urban
areas. Figure 3 illustrates the extent of the
carbon monoxide problem in Alaska, and
Figure 4 compares the two areas not
meeting the standard. Carbon monoxide
levels have not changed appreciably since
1977 in the major urban areas of the state.
Motor vehicles are responsible for about
90 percent of carbon monoxide emissions
in Alaska; therefore, plans for reducing
such emissions center on improvements to
individual automobiles and to the trans-
portation system as a whole.
Alaska's carbon monoxide problem is
compounded by the state's climate.
Extremely stable inversions in many parts
of Alaska severely inhibit the dispersion of
pollutants and produce the potential for
high pollutant concentrations during the
Figure 2.
Air Quality Status — Sulfur Dioxide
Figure 3.
Air Quality Status — Carbon Monoxide
Figure 4.
Percent of Observed Days Carbon Monoxide
Exceeded Standards
ARFAS	OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED <%)
MONITORED	5	10	15	20
Anchorage c/i
Fairbanks c/i
C/l: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number of
days exceeding standards per number of observation
days.
winter. Also, it is difficult to maintain
efficient combustion processes in cold
weather. Automobiles take longer to warm up
and emit substantially more air pollutants
than at warmer ambient temperatures.
Carbon monoxide emissions during the
engine warm-up period may account for
as much as 92 percent of the total vehicle
emissions produced, depending upon the
size of the engine. Therefore, maintaining a
warm engine or reducing average engine size
may be effective in reducing cold start
emissions and may allow the state to attain
standards by 1987.
Commercial/industrial areas of Fairbanks
exceed the health related carbon monoxide
standard on 50 to 80 percent of all winter
days; in Anchorage, it is exceeded on about
20 percent of all winter days. Carbon
monoxide concentrations may reach twice
the level set as the primary health standard.
Additional monitoring stations will be
established in residential areas of these
two cities to further assess the carbon
monoxide problem. Of the 314,000 persons
living in these two urban areas, an estimated
55,000 are exposed to unhealthy carbon
monoxide concentrations during ten to
thirty days each winter. A much larger
portion of the population, up to 200,000
individuals, is likely to be exposed to exces-
sive carbon monoxide concentrations at
least sometime during a typical winter. Less
than two percent of the population are
estimated to be affected severely. Therefore,
high ambient carbon monoxide levels may
pose a severe health problem to 1,000 to
4,000 persons during the winter in Anchorage
and Fairbanks.
I STANDARDS ATTAINED
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
| ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED
| NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
_u


(10/331)



1 326)




3

-------
Implementation of an effective transportation
control plan will greatly assist Alaskans in
controlling their transportation related
pollutants. Several strategies for Fairbanks
that have been or may be employed include
(1) parking management to reduce traffic
congestion, (2) the installation of headbolt
heaters to reduce cold-start emissions,
(3) a carpool and staggered work hour
incentive program, and (4) an expanded
transit system which can reduce traffic,
congestion and emissions. Also, the state and
Fairbanks police are encouraged to enforce
the anti-idling law, particularly during periods
of higher pollutant concentration. Anchorage
will apply many of the control strategies
described for Fairbanks.
A study to assess the feasibility of a vehicle
inspection and maintenance program will be
conducted during 1979 and 1980. Regular
inspection and maintenance would ensure
that vehicle emission control devices are
functioning effectively. The Fairbanks North
Star Borough and the Atlantic Richfield
Company have conducted vehicle emission
surveys in Alaska. Data from these and
other studies have indicated that an
inspection and maintenance program might
reduce operating vehicle emissions at a
minimum by 10 to 20 percent. Other
measures for mitigating the carbon
monoxide problem are based upon reducing
vehicle miles traveled and include measures
such as traffic flow improvements, transit
improvements, carpooling, bike lanes, and
parking management.
Ozone
Unlike the other air pollutants discussed
in this report, photochemical oxidants are not
given off by industries or automobiles.
Rather, they are product of a chemical
reaction that occurs in the atmosphere when
two other pollutants are present. These are
oxides of nitrogen (which are discussed
below) and hydrocarbons. The chief source
of hydrocarbons is automobile exhaust.
Volatile organic compounds (VOC), such as
solvents and gasoline, are also significant
sources of hydrocarbons. Besides oxides
of nitrogen and hydrocarbons, sunlight is
necessary for the reaction. When all three are
present, a class of chemicals known as
photochemical oxidants is produced,
the most common of which is the gas, ozone.
Ozone irritates the eyes and respiratory
system, aggravates asthma and chronic
lung disease, and reduces lung and heart
capacity. It probably causes more damage
to plants in the U.S. than any other
pollutant. Because both of the substances
that give rise to ozone come from
automobiles, measures taken to reduce
other automobile emissions, such as carbon
monoxide, are also effective in controlling
ozone.
Alaska has been designated as attaining
ozone standards. Although ozone monitoring
is not required for urban areas with a
population less than 200,000, ozone has
been monitored by Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company in Valdez and the data show no
violations of the standards.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Oxides of nitrogen are gases formed
mainly by combustion. Sources include
automobiles and power plants. Besides
irritating the eyes and respiratory tract and
damaging metal, rubber, fabric and dyes,
oxides of nitrogen contribute to photo-
chemical oxidants, as described above.
The State of Alaska has also been
designated as attaining the nitrogen
dioxide standard. In the state, as elsewhere
in the nation, emission levels of nitrogen
dioxide from vehicles seem to be stable
(even though the number of vehicle miles
driven has increased in recent years) because
each year proportionately more vehicles are
equipped with better emission control
devices.
Lead
In 1978, EPA established an air quality
standard for lead. The standard is required
to be achieved by October of 1982. At this
time, the states in cooperation with EPA
are gathering data to identify areas where
the standard is being exceeded.
Other Hazardous Materials
In addition to the five major air
pollutants discussed above, other hazardous
materials emitted to the air include asbestos,
beryllium, and mercury. EPA is analyzing
other potentially hazardous pollutants, and
standards for these will be developed in
the future if necessary. Currently, there are
no known significant emission sources of
hazardous materials in Alaska.
Ice Fog
Alaska, especially the Fairbanks area, has a
unique pollution problem in the form of ice
fog. When the temperature is below -20° F,
water vapor from combustion of a
hydrocarbon fuel or evaporation from an
open pool of water forms ice crystals
around particulate matter in the air.
Deeper layers of ice fog have been forming
more frequently at warmer temperatures
in the Fairbanks area as the population
has increased. Heavy ice fog occurs
approximately 15 days per year in the
Fairbanks area. There is no federal air quality
standard pertaining to ice fog. It does
severely decrease visibility, and
economical control techniques are
presently being researched and evaluated.
Trends in Alaska Air Quality
Trends in air quality indicate whether air
pollution control activities have been
effective. Figure 5 shows the two urban areas
in Alaska in which air quality standards
were exceeded in 1978. It also illustrates a
two-year comparison of 1977 and 1978 data.
Most of Alaska's air quality has remained
relatively unchanged from 1977.
Figure 6 illustrates Anchorage's carbon
monoxide trends from 1974 through 1978.
Data on the 8-hour carbon monoxide levels
were measured at the only long-term carbon
monoxide monitoring site located within
the urban non-attainment area. On the
average, carbon monoxide levels complied
with short-term standards on 94 percent of
the days monitored each year in the
commercial area. Except for 1975 when
primary carbon monoxide standards were
exceeded on 10 percent of the days
monitored, the number of exceedances
decreased from 6 to 3 percent of the time.
The lower concentrations during the last
4

-------
three years may be attributed to meteor-
ological conditions as well as traffic routing
changes, the exhaust controls on new
model motor vehicles, and the decline in
traffic since the pipeline boom. More
monitoring in this area is planned to assess
the full extent of this problem.
The areas exceeding standards during 1978
have been color-coded in Figure 7 to
reflect the worst exceedance for any pollutant
standard experienced in at least one
monitoring site within an election district.
The figure indicates that the most severe
exceedance of air quality are mainly in the
heavily populated or industrialized areas of
the state.
Figure 5.
Air Quality Trends in Two Alaska Areas
(Based on 1977-78 data)
SHORT TERM STANDARDS
AREAS MONITORED TSP S02 CO 03 NC
Anchorage c/i
r
Fairbanks c/i
C/I: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R: RESIDENTIAL
r: RURAL
NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
STANDARDS ATTAINED
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED
NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
STANDARDS EXCEEDED DUE TO FUGITIVE DUST
@
~
~
~
~
~
Figure 6.
Carbon Monoxide Trends in Anchorage
PERCENT OF DAYS EXCEEDING STANDARDS
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978




I I




I









_L





Figure 7.
Alaska Areas Exceeding One or More
Air Quality Standards During 1978
BARROW
!'.< >i" IK
UPPER
YUKON
n« >m
YUKON-KOYUKUK
WADE-
HAMPTON
KUSKOKWIM
MATANUSKA-
SUSITNA
f FAIRBANKS
Kl NAI
CORDOVA
McCarthy
HHIMO! HAY
VALDEZ
CHITINA-WHITTIER
¦I I KA
¦ ,( h >N
ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
HIKAN
PRINCE
OF
WALE
¦YAKUTAT
HAINES
WRANGELL-
PETERSBURG
NOTE: This illustrates "worst condition" in each area.
5

-------
The Regional Air Quality Outlook
Region 10 has relatively few heavily
populated urban centers; in the 4 states there
are only 6.5 million residents. While air
pollution is not confined to urban areas,
it is most severe where human activity,
especially vehicular activity, is heavily
concentrated, namely, in the,20 communities
shown in Table 2. Some violations of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards occur in
every state of Region 10, as shown in Table 2.
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington each
exceeded standards for three of the major
pollutants during 1978, while Alaska
exceeded standards only for carbon
monoxide.
Region 10's air pollution problems in 1978
were mostly due to carbon monoxide and/or
ozone concentrations. EPA is working
closely with Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington to control emissions from
vehicles and to reduce the number of vehicle
miles traveled in urban centers having
high carbon monoxide levels through
transportation controls previously discussed.
Ozone concentrations greater than the
health standard have occurred in Western
Oregon and Washington, and future
monitoring may identify other areas. Many
of the same transportation controls used
to reduce carbon monoxide levels will be
effective in reducing ozone levels. Also,
measures that control volatile organic
compounds indirectly lower ozone levels; for
example, floating roofs for oil storage
tanks to reduce evaporative losses.
Suspended particulate matter is a widespread
problem throughout the Northwest; it
results from both stationary industrial
sources and other sources such as dust from
roads, particulates from home oil heating,
and vegetative burning. Particulate control
devices such as baghouses, electrostatic
precipitators, and scrubbers have been
installed on many industrial sources, and
some plants are scheduled to further reduce
emissions in the future. As existing plants
Table 2.
Air Quality Status in 20 Areas of
Region 10
AREAS MONITORED
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Idaho	Boise
Conda-Soda Springs
Kellogg
Lewiston
Pocatello
Oregon Eugene-Springfield
Grants Pass
Medford-Ashland
Portland
Salem
TSP S02 CO Oj
m
Washington
Clarkston
Longview
Port Angeles
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
Vancouver
Yakima
[1 SECONDARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED

ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED
are modified and new facilities are
constructed, the best technology available
to control suspended particulates will be
required. Control of fugitive dust is more
difficult to achieve. Paving roads and parking
areas can help, as well as improved
"housekeeping" in industrial areas (such
as covering hoppers or conveyor belts or
other equipment transporting raw materials).
Construction sites can be wetted down to
reduce dust. However, it is expected that
reduction of fugitive dust will be very
gradual due to the cost of control.
6

-------
River
Water
Quality
When the U.S. Congress enacted
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in 1972, a national goal was set—
"fishable, swimmable" waters by 1983. The
State of Alaska also adopted that goal. The
1972 amendments subsequently stimulated
new cooperative Federal, state, and local
water quality improvement programs
dedicated to reducing pollutants in the
Nation's waters. This section discusses
programs that have been instituted in Alaska,
their effectiveness, and some problems that
still remain to be resolved.
How River Water Quality is
Determined
The purpose of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is to protect the quality of U.S.
waters for a variety of uses, including public
water supply, wildlife, fish and shellfish,
recreation, navigation, agriculture, and
industry. Each water use depends on certain
characteristics, such as temperature, con-
centration of dissolved oxygen, or absence of
bacteria. These characteristics, called
parameters, can be measured and used to
evaluate water quality. They vary with the
chemistry of the stream being measured,
the season, and other factors. This report is
based on the 10 related groups of water
quality parameters listed in Table 3.
Alaska, like the other states in Region 10,
has specified certain water quality standards.
To measure water characteristics and
evaluate water quality, however, a standard-
ized set of criteria is necessary. These
criteria are a synthesis of state water quality
standards, national water quality criteria,
information in the technical literature, and
Table 3.
Criteria/Parameter Groups' for the
Water Quality Index
CRITERIA/PARAMETER GROUP AND EXPLANATION
professional judgment, and they represent
Federal water quality goals. When these
criteria are applied to a stream, they take
into account the aquatic life and recreational
uses expected for that stream. For example,
in Alaska, most streams are classified as
"cold water fishery" streams and are expected
to support trout and salmon.
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
PH
Aesthetics
Solids
Radioactivity
Bacteria
Trophic (Nutrient
Enrichment)
Organic Toxicity
Inorganic Toxicity
Temperature of water influences the type of fish and other aquatic life
that can survive in a river. Excessively high temperatures are detrimental
to aquatic life.
To survive, fish and aquatic life must have certain levels of oxygen in the
water; therefore, low oxygen levels can be detrimental to these
organisms.
pH is the measure of acidity or alkalinity of water. Extreme levels of
either can imperil fish and aquatic life.
Refers to oil, grease, and turbidity which are visually unpleasant. This
group is mostly represented by the turbidity parameter, which is a
measure of the clarity of the water.
Dissolved minerals and suspended material such as mud or silt. Excess
dissolved minerals (hard water) interfere with agricultural, industrial, and
domestic use. Excess suspended solids adversely affect fish feeding
and spawning.
May be in water as a result of radioactive waste discharges or fallout.
Excess levels can harm aquatic and other life forms.
Bacteria indicate probable presence of disease-related organisms and
viruses not natural to water (i.e., from human sewage or animal waste)
Indicates the extent of algae or nutrients in water. Nutrients promote
algae growth. When algae (one-celled water plants) flourish they make
the water murky, and the growths make swimming and fishing
unpleasant. Decomposition of dead algae can decrease dissolved
oxygen concentrations to levels harmful to fish.
Includes pesticides and other organic poisons that have the same effects
and persistence as pesticides.
Heavy metals and other elements; excess concentrations are poisonous
to aquatic and other life forms. Also includes percent saturations of
dissolved gases in water which can affect the metabolism of aquatic life.
'Approximately 80 criteria/parameters were evaluated and condensed to the 10 groups shown here.
More detailed information is available on request.
7

-------
The water quality of an individual stream
can be determined by measuring each
parameter group and comparing it to the
criteria. But to compare one stream to
another, a single, inclusive number for each
stream is useful; consequently, a Water
Quality Index has been formulated. The Index
permits comparisons between very different
situations, such as those arising from
different types of human usage and climatic
conditions. Information from 16 water quality
sampling stations was used for this report.
Figure 8 compares the water quality of 22
principal rivers in Alaska. The circle
represents the annual average Water
Quality Index for the river. The square
represents the average value for the worst
3 consecutive months.
Water Quality index
In this report, the Water Quality Index compares water quality measured during the last 6 years
with the recommended Federal criteria. The data used to make these comparisons come from
various Federal, state, and local agencies and are stored in EPA's computer systems. The final
Index number for each station takes into account the 10 pollution categories shown in Table 3.
adjusted to reflect the severity by which the criteria are exceeded. The Index numbers span a
scale from 0 (no measured evidence of pollution) to 100 (severe pollution at all times). In this
report, the scale is divided into three color ranges as follows:
Blue represents streams with Index numbers between 0 and 20. These streams either have no
pollution or are minimally polluted and therefore meet the goals of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Light Brown represents streams with Index numbers between 20 and 60. Such streams are
intermittently and/or moderately polluted and are considered marginal with respect to meeting
the goals of the Act.
Dark Brown represents streams with an Index number greater than 60. These streams are
severely polluted and do not meet the goals of the Act.
The neutral color gray is used in the graphs when the water quality status is unknown because
of inadequate data.
'i j). ¦
xV - V
Figure 8.
Water Quality Index Values for
Alaska's Principal Rivers
WQI VALUE
20
100
IV
Vv *
h

n
v
NOTE: Due to insufficient data, Index numbers could
not be calculated for some rivers Those values presented
are calculated from only one monitoring station on each
river.
WORST 3 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS ~
ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX O
NO MONITORING A
Tanana
Susitna
Stikine
Lower Yukon
Kuskokwim
Colville
Chena
Gulkana
Sagavanirktok
Kuparuk
Karluk
Upper Yukon
Koyukuk
Noatak
Innoko
Copper
Kobuk
Nushagak
Porcupine
Kuzitrin
Kenai
Naknek
I
-m
—A
8

-------
Sources and Control of
Water Pollution
Pollutants that reach Alaska streams have two
general origins: "point source" pollution,
such as wastewater from industries, sewage
treatment plants, and the like, that enters
streams at an easily identified location; and
less easily identified "non-point source"
pollution, consisting of stormwater from
urban areas and construction sites, and
runoff from farm, forest, and mining lands.
Industries that discharge waste effluent to
streams must have a permit to do so. The
permits are issued by EPA under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) or by states that have assumed
this responsibility. By this means, EPA can
require that point source pollutants be
removed before wastewater reaches the river.
Since non-point sources cannot be so easily
treated, "best management practices" are
required. For example, best management
practices for timber harvesting might affect
the design and construction of logging
roads, the location and size of clear cuts,
or the preservation of trees along stream
banks.
The responsibility for developing such means
to control non-point source pollution has
been given to local and state agencies
assigned to develop water quality
management plans as provided by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
The Quality of Alaska's
Principal Rivers
Water quality data from 1977 and 1978, where
available, were utilized to describe the recent
quality of major streams in Alaska. Where
there were insufficient data during those two
years, data from 1973 to 1978 were utilized.
Figure 9 shows the location and water quality
status of these streams. All of these
determinations are based on data from a
single monitoring station. Figure 10compares
the relative extent of water quality degradation
within each stream on an average annual
basis. There are no rivers in Alaska that are
severely polluted year-round. The "marginal"
Figure 9.
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers
Konai R.
¦Karluk R
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WOI
MARGINAL — INTERMITTENT, OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
ACCEPTABLE — MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
STATUS UNKNOWN
9

-------
ratings for the Tanana, Susitna, Stikine, and
lower Yukon Rivers are attributed primarily
to such natural phenomena as volcanism,
erosion, and glaciation. Seven other rivers
are rated acceptable, and the status of
half the state's major rivers is unknown. In
a state as vast as Alaska, much of it
remote and inaccessible for most of the year,
water quality information is often scattered
and difficult to retrieve. This situation should
improve in the future, but for now the
following discussion of Alaska's water
quality status is very incomplete, due to
the scarcity of data.
Figure 10.
River Miles Meeting Water Quality Criteria
in Alaska
RIVER MILES
200
Tanana
Susitna
Stikine
Lower Yukon
Kushkokwim
Colville
Chena
Gulkana
Sagavanirktok
Kuparuk
Karluk
Upper Yukon
Koyukuk
Noatak
Innoko
Copper
Kobuk
Nushagak
Porcupine
Kuzitrin
Kenai
Naknek
~ MARGINAL - INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WQl
¦ STATUS UNKNOWN
ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
River mileages shown pertain only to the main rivers named.
Causes of River Water Quality
Problems
Figure 11 shows the status of 22 Alaska
river stretches with respect to each of the
10 pollution categories comprising the
Water Quality Index. The ratings of those
rivers having "unacceptable" or "marginal"
water quality, with respect to the goals of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, are
almost wholly due to naturally occurring
conditions. Figure 11 shows that high values
of turbidity, which is the only representative
of the aesthetics parameter group, and solids
(suspended solids) are generally responsible
for these ratings. High levels of those
parameters are found from spring through
early fall, when the rivers are affected by
ice breakup and meltwaters from snowpack
and glaciers.
In some streams, high turbidity or suspended
solids levels may be partially due to human
activities such as construction and placer
mining, particularly on some of the smaller
tributaries. Additional information is needed
before the extent of man's contribution to
these problems can be assessed. The
bacterial problem in the Tanana River is
based upon 1973 and 1974 data and was due
to sewage discharges from the Fairbanks area
into the Chena River, a tributary to the
Tanana. Since late 1976, these wastes have
been diverted from the Chena River and
treated by a new sewage treatment plant,
which discharges to the Tanana River. Recent
data indicate that the Chena at Fairbanks,
once severely polluted by these discharges,
now has acceptable bacterial levels. This
will improve water quality in the Tanana
although no post-treatment data are
available at this time.
Inorganic toxicity, represented by the heavy
metals parameter in this profile, is slightly
exceeding criteria in the Susitna, Stikine,
Colville, and Kuparuk Rivers. The causes of
these conditions are unknown, but they could
be due to active or inactive mining areas,
or the natural geology of the land.
10

-------
The Outlook for Alaska
Large point sources which discharge to
Alaska rivers include municipal sewage
treatment plants, and petrochemical
facilities. Seafood processor and pulp mills
are significant sources which discharge
directly to marine waters. Reductions in point
source pollution have been achieved by
means of state and federal water quality
programs such as NPDES permits, which
limit discharges from point sources and
establish schedules for meeting these
limitations. Additional improvements are still
needed, however.
Part of the problem in Alaska is that there
are numerous small point sources which
are difficult or costly to treat and control.
For example, there are estimated to be more
than 700 placer gold mines in Alaska, of
which only 195 have permits. Most placer
mines are located in the interior and are
small operations (2 to 3 men) that mine only
during the summer. Nevertheless, these
mining operations produce substantial
discharges of water pollutants. Turbidity and
sediment are the most prevalent, although
organic material, heavy metals and other
toxic substances may also be released.
Sewage treatment is also a problem in Alaska
due to the small population of most
communities and climatic conditions. In the
southeast, heavy rainfall and a high water
table often make septic systems infeasible
while contributing to significant infiltration
of stormwater to sewers. This overloads the
treatment plants and increases operating
costs. In remote villages, there is no safe
drinking water or sanitary methods for
disposing of human wastes. Casual honey
bucket disposal or privies may be used,
contaminating surface water supplies.
B MEETS STANDARD QUALITY GOALS
| MARGINALLY MEETS GOALS
I UNACCEPTABLE - SEVERE POLLUTION
Individual parameter group ratings are derived by averaging the Index values from the
worst three consecutive months for each group
'October 1976 - September 1978 data. Evaluations of the remaining stations based upon
data from October 1971 - September 1978.
| NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
Figure 11.
Trends in River Water Quality
Categories, Alaska
Tanana at
Nenana
'Susitna at
Susitna Statn.
'Stikine near
Wrangell
'Yukon at
Pilot Station
'Kuskokwim at
Crooked Creek
Colville near
Nuiqsut
Chena near
North Pole
Chena at
Fairbanks
'Gulkana at
Sourdough
Sagavanirktok
near Sagwon
'Kuparuk near
Deadhorse
Karluk near
Larsen Bay
Yukon at
Ruby
Porcupine near
Ft. Yukon
Copper near
Chitina
Kenai at
Cooper Landing
Koyukuk at
Hughes
Kobuk
Innoko
Kuzitrin
Noatak
Nushagak
Naknek
11

-------
Timber harvesting as a non-point pollution
source will become more significant in the
future. Logging and the road construction
that accompanies it add to the sediment load
in a stream, and removing streambank
vegetation can cause increased summer
temperatures, decreased winter
temperatures, and accelerated erosion in the
stream. In the past, Alaska's timber industry
existed on publicly-owned timber land.
Timber harvesting practices were rigidly
established in lease and contract stipulations,
although contract enforcement was
frequently deficient. Such Federal controls
would not apply to the millions of acres
of land being conveyed into state and private
ownership as a result of the Statehood Act,
Alaska Native Claims Act and State land
disposal programs.
Construction in general, especially for roads,
railroads, and pipelines, also causes erosion
and increased sediment loads. Conditions
unique to Alaska, including permafrost,
unstable stream channels, extreme tempera-
ture ranges, and glacial action, accentuate
the problem. Many of these situations are
still being studied. The state is developing
a manual of best management practices
for transportation corridors.
The Regional Outlook
The Water Quality Index is used in Figure 12
to compare 26 major Pacific Northwest River
Basins within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. Figure 13 depicts the relative
extent of water quality degradation for each
river basin, and Figure 14 shows similar
information on a regional map.
Figure 12.
Water Quality Index Values for Region 10
River Basins
WQI VALUE
20
Tanana
Susitna
*S.E. Alaska
Lower Yukon
Spokane
Kuskokwim
Bear
Middle Snake
Klamath
Lower Columbia
Kootenai
Lower Snake
Yakima
Upper Snake
Upper Columbia
Arctic Slope
Oregon Coastal Basin
Clark Fork/Pend Oreille
Willamette
Washington Coastal Basin
Puget Sound
Upper Yukon
N.W. Alaska
Copper
Bristol Bay
Kenai-Knik
40	60	80	100
~ WORST 3 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS
O ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
A NO MONITORING
NOTE: The WQI values presented are derived from averaging those values
calculated from the principal rivers in each basin only.
"Represented by the Stikine River, only.
12

-------
Figure 12 reveals that several Alaska river
drainages have the highest Water Quality
Index values in Region 10. These are caused
by high levels of turbidity and suspended
solids during spring and summer due
primarily to glacial melting and natural
streambank erosion Placer mining
operations, however, may be causing
unnaturally high solids levels in some of
the smaller streams. More data are needed
to assess the impact of these activities and
to provide a general indicator of water
quality in the five Alaska basins indicated
as having an unknown status.
Only two of the Region's river basins had
Index values less than 20 and clearly met
the Federal water quality goals. The
majority of those that provisionally meet
the goals drain arid or agricultural portions
of the Region where non-point source
pollution is difficult to control. Those
criteria that were exceeded are in the
categories of temperature, bacteria, trophic,
aesthetic, and solids. In Washington's
Spokane Basin, high heavy metals
concentrations from mining activities
on the South Fork Coeur d'Alene River in
Idaho are primarily responsible for the
elevated Index values. Heavy metals of
unknown origin are responsible for high
Index values in the Lower Snake, Lower
Columbia, and Kootenai Basins.
Figure 13.
Miles Within Principal Region 10 River Basins
Meeting Water Quality Criteria
RIVER MILES
400		800	1200	1600
Tanana
I
I


Susitna




S.E. Alaska




Lower Yukon



1
Spokane
I II



Kuskokwim

l


Bear
I



Middle Snake
I


1
Klamath
I I I



Lower Columbia

I
I
'• 1
Kootenai




Lower Snake


1
11
Yakima
I



Upper Snake

r T
I

Upper Columbia

i i


Arctic Slope

¦


Oregon Coast

i
1 l

Clark Fork/Pend Oreille
	I



Willamette
II I


Washington Coast
' 'L



Puget Sound

ii i


Upper Yukon




N.W Alaska
. ' S
i


Copper




Bristol Bay




Kenai-Knik




BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WQI:
I UNACCEPTABLE - SEVERE POLLUTION
~ MARGINAL - INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
| ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
¦ STATUS UNKNOWN
NOTE: Only the principal rivers and streams within each
basin are included in the mileage totals shown.
13

-------
Figure 14.
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers in
Region 10
Arctic Slope Basin
NOTE State of Alaska is represented at
approximately 30% of true scale
S-E Alaska Basin
Regional water quality trends have been
analyzed by comparing data from 84
representative monitoring stations over a
6-year period (Figure 15). Due to inadequate
data, Alaska rivers could not be included
in the analysis, nor were organic or inorganic
toxicants included, since there have been
significant changes in analytical techniques
and reporting procedures over the time
period considered. There has been little
significant change at the stations since 1973.
Although point source controls have made
many improvements in Regional water
quality, further plans to identify and control
non-point sources are needed in order to
improve water quality at those stations still
not fully meeting water quality goals.
Figure 15.
Water Quality Trends in Region 10
WATER	PERCENT OF STATIONS
YEAR	20	40	60	80	100
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Based upon the water quality status during the worst
3 consecutive months per station at 84 monitoring
stations within Region 10. (Alaska stations organic and
inorganic pollution categories not included.)
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WQI
UNACCEPTABLE — SEVERE POLLUTION
MARGINAL — INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
ACCEPTABLE — MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
STATUS UNKNOWN
m
14

-------
Lake
Water
Quality
Inland lakes and waterways constitute one
of Alaska's important recreational
resources. Moreover, the quality of these
waters affects the beauty and aesthetic
character of the state. The water quality of
Alaska lakes is generally excellent due to
the remote location of most of these lakes.
However, the rapid growth and development
of parts of Alaska has affected some lakes in
the state and may potentially affect more
in the future. Thoughtful planning and wise
use of resources are needed to maintain
lake water quality.
How Lake Water Quality is
Determined
A numerical water quality index has not
been developed for lakes, as it has been
for rivers. Instead, the water quality of Alaska
lakes is evaluated on the basis of their
ecological conditions and how they affect
persons wishing to use the lakes for
recreation.
If a lake is undisturbed by human activities,
it undergoes a natural process of aging
known to ecologists as eutrophication.
Once a lake is created, by whatever means,
it begins to fill in. While it is filling in, the
water chemistry and types of organisms that
can survive in the lake also change. At first,
the water is clear (pristine) and has few
nutrients and low populations of aquatic
life. As the lake continues to age and
becomes "eutrophic," sediments and
nutrients from the surrounding watershed
accumulate, stimulating frequent algae
blooms. Floating mats of algae and aquatic
plants cover much of the surface, and the
water may appear bright green. The process
by which dead algae are decomposed by
bacteria can consume nearly all the dissolved
oxygen in the water, which in turn kills fish.
Fish populations in eutrophic lakes are
typically stunted. Finally, the lake fills with
soil and dead plants and becomes land.
The whole process happens naturally; it
often takes thousands of years. But man can
significantly accelerate the process by
adding nutrients and other substances
to lake water—a process referred to as
"cultural eutrophication." Land use
practices on farm land, forests, and
construction sites often result in erosion
of soils into streams and subsequently
lakes. Nutrients, mainly nitrogen and
phosphorus, are chief constituents of
discharge from sewage treatment plants,
urban runoff, pastures and feedlots, and
certain industrial processes.
How Trophic Conditions Affect
Recreational Uses
Water quality agencies are concerned with
the trophic status of Alaska lakes because
many uses of lakes are closely related to
their ecological condition. For example,
growths of algae or other water plants may
directly curtail or eliminate water recreation
activities such as swimming, boating, and
fishing; impart tastes and odors to water
supplies; and hamper industrial and
municipal water treatment.
To analyze the extent to which recreational
uses are impaired in any given lake, and to
compare one lake to another, the
measurement scheme shown in Table 4
has been used. This scheme results in a
numerical score for each lake ranging from a
minimum of 4 to a maximum of 12. A score of
4 indicates that there is little, if any,
impairment of swimming, fishing, boating
or aesthetics (visual enjoyment). A score
of 12 indicates that all uses are severely
impaired.
Figure 16 shows the lakes analyzed in this
report. Table 5 provides more detailed
information on recreational uses and trophic
status of each lake, including the source
of water quality and use impairments.
Little is known about most Alaska lakes. Of
the 97 lakes which have at least 10 square
miles of surface area (6,400 acres) none
are eutrophic, only five are considered
moderately eutrophic, and nine are
considered non-eutrophic. Trophic status
for the majority of these large lakes is
unknown.
Recently the state studied certain lakes in
the Palmer-Wasilla area, a fertile farming
region near Anchorage which is experiencing
rapid residential development. The
population has grown by 15 to 20 percent
a year over the last 3 years. The Alaska
Department of Fish and Game has found
36 of over 100 lakes with low dissolved
oxygen in the winter, though the cause is
unknown. For many lakes, it may be a natural
condition, although human activities may
be a contributing factor.
15

-------
Table 4.
Criteria for Evaluating Impairment
of Lakes
DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT
RECREATIONAL
NONE

USE
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming
Very low bacteria levels
m

(Fecal coliforms geometric

mean less than 50 per


100 ml)

Fishing
No adverse conditions.
m

Healthy fish population.

Boating
Less than 10% of surface
E3

area affected by aquatic


weeds

Aesthetics
Objects visible in water to
m

depth of 10 feet or more

and low phosphorus


(Secchi Disc* at 10 feet;


total phosphorus of less


than 10 uq/l**)

SCORE
(No uses impaired)
¦
RECREATIONAL
MODERATE

USE
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming
Moderate bacteria levels


(Fecal coliforms 50 to

200 per 100 ml)

Fishing
Slightly adverse condi-
m

tions. Slight reduction in

fish population.

Boating
10% to 30% affected

Aesthetics
Objects visible from 1.5 to


10 feet and moderate

phosphorus level (Secciii


Disc at 1.5 to 10 feet;


total phosphorus 10 to


20 uq/l)

SCORE (All uses moderately impaired) 15-81
RECREATIONAL
SIGNIFICANT

USE
CRITERIA
SCORE
Swimming
Unhealthy bacteria levels
0

(Fecal coliforms greater

than 200 per 100 ml)

Fishing
Adverse conditons. Signi-
0

ficant reduction in fish


population.

Boating
More than 30% affected
a
Aesthetics
Objects not visible beyond
ID

1.5 feet or high

phosphorus level (Secchi


Disc at less than 1.5 feet;


total phosphorus greater


than 20 uq/l)

SCORE (All uses significantly impaired) |

The trophic conditions of four lakes
around Wasilla were studied more intensely.
The lakes, Lucille, Wasilla, Cottonwood and
Finger, are all heavily used for recreation,
and the public has expressed some concern
regarding water quality. Of the four, Lucille
is the most shallow, with a mean depth of
1.7 meters, and also the most eutrophic.
Winter dissolved oxygen levels drop to
Figure 16.
Water Quality of Alaska's Principal
Recreational Lakes
'A Secchi Disc is a round black and white plate
suspended on a chain and used to determine water
clarity.
"ug/l = micrograms per liter, a measurement used
for low concentrations of dissolved substances.
almost zero, and the lake has a history of
fish kills. There is considerable algae growth
in the summer, though not yet to the extent
that it interferes with boating. The lake is
not much used for swimming since it is so
shallow. The other three lakes are deeper
and are only moderately eutrophic, with
some algae growth in isolated portions of
the lakes.
J SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
~ MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
LITTLE, OR NO IMPAIRMENT
STATUS UNKNOWN
Teshekpuk Lake
Lake Schracier
A Galbraith Lake
Harding Lake
^Paxson Lake
Lake Minchumina
Finger Lake
Cottonwood Lake
Wasilla Lake
Lake Lucille
Nancy Lake
Big Lake_ ^
%Lake Louise
Fire Lake
Campbell Lake
Fielding Lake
Skilak Lake
Lake Clark
lliamna Lake
Summit Lake
Kenai Lake
Lake Tustumena
Blue Lake
Ward Lake
16

-------
A Regional Overview
Lakes are one of the most important
resources of the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. For the most part, the 145 most
heavily-used lakes within Region 10 are of
good quality, with few impairments
related to human activities. Figure 17
compares the percentage of lakes impaired
for recreational use in each state. More than
Table 5.
The Recreational Impairment and Trophic
Status of the Principal Recreational Lakes
in Alaska
half the lakes in Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho have little or no impairment. Most of
the lakes in Alaska for which data are
available are unimpaired. However, some
major lakes within the Region are
approaching a level of eutrophication that
interferes with their desired uses. Some
is from the natural aging of the lakes. The
challenge for the future is to prevent
NAME
Lucille
Campbell
Wasilla
Cottonwood
Finger
Harding
Fielding
Summit
Paxson
Big
Kenai
Skilak
Fire
Nancy
Galbraith
Clark
lliamna
Minchumina
Louise
Schrader
Tustumena
Ward
Blue
SWIM
TOTAL TROPHIC
AESTH. RATING STATUS CAUSE OF PROBLEM
362
12,160
34,320
70,400
640,000
14,720
14,720
74,880
Septic Tanks
Sewage overflow and
stormwater runoff
further cultural eutrophication and where
possible to correct present problems. The
Clean Lakes program as well as state and
local programs are providing for rehabilita-
tion of some damaged lakes along with a
management plan to assure that the
rehabilitated lakes remain clean. Through
programs such as this, many of the high-
use recreational lakes in the Region are being
restored and preserved for future
generations.
Figure 17.
Impairment Status of Recreational Lakes
in Region 10
PERCENT OF LAKES IMPAIRED
20 40	60 80
Alaska





Idaho





Oregon





Washington





Based upon evaluation of 145 Region 10 lakes
EUTROPHIC	SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC	~ MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
NON-EUTROPHIC	H LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
STATUS UNKNOWN NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
17

-------
Marine Water
Quality
The coastal and estuarine waters of
Alaska contribute greatly to the commercial
and recreational assets of the Northwest.
Most of Alaska's marine waters are
considered to be of high quality.
How Marine Water Quality is
Determined
Since direct measurement of marine water
is a complex and expensive undertaking, the
quality of marine water can be inferred
from the condition of shellfish. Shellfish
concentrate disease-causing bacteria,
viruses, toxic chemicals, and other
contaminants from the water in which they
live. Consequently, shellfish indicate the
degree of pollution in marine waters and
provide an indirect way of assessing the
success of pollution control efforts.
In this report, marine water quality
determinations are based upon criteria
established by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. Waters that are free
from fecal contamination (bacteria from
sewage), industrial wastes, radioactive
elements, and biotoxins (certain naturally
produced poisons) are classified as
"approved for commercial shellfish
harvesting." "Conditionally approved"
waters may be closed when natural
biotoxins, seasonal increases in population,
freshwater runoff containing contaminants at
certain times of the year, or temporary
malfunctioning of wastewater treatment
plants result in failure to meet the criteria.
Waters found to be contaminated or
suspected of being contaminated, which
would produce shellfish unsafe for human
consumption, are classified as "closed."
Alaska's Marine Waters
Of the 92,400 acres of commercial shellfish
growing area that have been classified in
Alaska, all are open to the harvest of
shellfish (razor clams only). The remaining
areas are unclassified because they have not
been surveyed or monitored for the presence
of a naturally occurring biotoxin, paralytic
shellfish poison, PSP (Figure 18). Alaska's
33,904-mile shoreline encompasses vast
amounts of estuarine and freshwater
wetlands that provide important habitat for
aquatic species. EPA and the State of Alaska
are taking an active role in regulating
dredging, filling, draining, and other
activities that reduce wetland habitat.
Although no Alaskan coastal waters are
closed to shellfish harvesting, the state
does have a potential problem with chronic,
low level oil pollution in certain areas such
as Upper Cook Inlet and Port Valdez. This
oil comes from such sources as urban runoff,
ballast discharges, and disposal of
"formation water" (wastewater from oil
production platforms and onshore wells
discharging into coastal waters). Every day
about 20 pounds of oil is discharged from
each offshore oil platform. The volume of
this discharge will increase with time as
the oil reserve becomes depleted.
Alaska Lumber and Pulp Company and
Lousiana-Pacific have submitted water
quality data to the state that reveal depressed
dissolved oxygen and pH levels, and some
high sulfite waste liquor concentrations in
Silver Bay near Sitka and Ward Cove near
Ketchikan, where the two plants are located.
Seafood processing also contributes
significant levels of nutrients to marine
waters. The EPA and State of Alaska recently
conducted studies at Petersburg, Juneau,
Ketchikan, Akutan, Cordova, and Dutch
Harbor to determine the environmental
impact of seafood processors' waste disposal
practices. In Dutch Harbor, these wastes
covered the bottom more rapidly than they
could be dissipated, resulting in areas of
oxygen depletion and hydrogen sulfide gas
production. The processors operating at the
other locations do not seem to be causing
persistent pollution problems.
18

-------
A Regional Overview
A total of 349,000 acres has been classified
as commercial shellfish growing area in
Region 10. This represents approximately
2 percent of the classified growing waters
in the Nation. Of the regional growing area
72 percent is classified as approved,
9 percent conditionally approved, and
19 percent closed (Figure 19). Regionally,
Washington contains the largest percentage
of the total classified area (65 percent or
228,900 acres), followed by Alaska
(27 percent or 92,400 acres), and Oregon
(8 percent or 28,100 acres), as shown in
Figure 19.
Fecal contamination or the great potential
of such contamination due to proximity to
municipal sewage treatment facilities
accounts for most of the closed area. The
conditionally approved areas are
characterized by excessive coliform
contamination from seasonal increases in
freshwater runoff from agricultural and
forestry activities as well as the occasional
malfunctioning or bypassing of sewage
treatment plants. The presence in
shellfish of a naturally occurring biotoxin,
paralytic shellfish poison (PSP), has resulted
in the closure of growing areas; however,
commercial shellfish harvesting has not been
restricted because of chemical or radioactive
contamination.
Sewage wastes associated with population
growth appear to pose the greatest threat
to approved shellfish growing areas in
Region 10. PSP also has a significant impact
on some areas, especially in Alaska. Because
of the small size of Oregon's shellfish
industry and the generally undeveloped
nature of Alaskan clam resources, changes
in Washington's commercial shellfish areas
would probably have the greatest
immediate impact on the regional economy.
Development of Alaska's clam beds could
have a significant future impact.
Figure 18.
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing
Areas in Alaska
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
10	20
Cordova Sector I
Cordova Sector IV
Swikshak
Polly Creek |
40
60
J
Areas depicted represent only those portions of the total
estuarine and coastal areas that have been classified by
the Alaska State Department of Health and Social
Services.
Figure 19.
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing Areas
in Region 10
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
50	1 00	150
Washington
Alaska
Oregon
¦ APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH
HARVESTING
~ CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Areas depicted represent only those portions of the
total estuarine and coastal areas that have been
classified by the state shellfish control agencies.
Regional Summary:
Percentage of the Region's
active shellfish areas that are
open for harvesting.
19

-------
Drinking
Water Quality
Public Water System Program
In 1974, Congress enacted the Safe
Drinking Water Act, which established a
national program to ensure pure water from
the Nation's quarter-million public water
systems. Nationally, there are 60,000
community water systems serving resident
populations, and 200,000 non-community
water systems serving non-resident
populations in such facilities as camp-
grounds and motels. The Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations became effective for
community water sytems in 1977 and for
non-community water systems in mid-1979.
EPA's role under the Safe Drinking Water
Act is to establish standards for drinking
water quality and to assist states in
developing preventive public health
programs. The states in turn are to assure
that public water systems comply with
the EPA standards and are to implement
such preventive programs as proper
construction, operation and maintenance of
public water system facilities. In Alaska, the
Safe Drinking Water Act is being imple-
mented by the State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Alaska has
approximately 450 community water systems
and over 550 non-community water systems.
The Safe Drinking Water Act regulations
address contaminants which cause both
acute (short-term) and chronic (long-
term) diseases. Microbiological contami-
nants, turbidity (which increases the risk
associated with microbiological contami-
nants), and nitrate all may result in disease
if contaminated water is consumed only once
or for a very short time. Reported outbreaks
of waterborne diseases have increased
steadily in Alaska since the 1950's and
quite dramatically since 1970. Heavy
metals, pesticides, and radiochemicals,
at the low levels commonly found in
drinking water, result in disease only if
Figure 20.
Compliance with EPA Drinking Water
Standards
a. Community Water Systems
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
contaminated water is consumed for several
years or more. Alaska has initially
emphasized the acute contaminants,
particularly bacteria, in implementing its
community water system program.
Figures 20a and b show the degree of
compliance attained in Alaska in 1978 for
EPA regulations for microbiological
contaminants. Although only 67 community
systems (14 percent) comply with
regulations, these systems serve 24 percent
of the state's population using community
water systems. Data for 81 percent of the
systems, serving 317,000 people, are
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
300	600	900	1200	1500
I

IJ






I
b. Persons Served by
Community Water Systems
POPULATION SERVED (IN THOUSANDS)
500	1000	1500	2000
3500
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
~
IN COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT LEVELS
MINOR (1 MONTH) VIOLATION OF CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MAJOR (? OF MORE MONTHS) VIOLATION OF CONTAMINANT LEVEL
SUFFICIENT DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
20

-------
insufficient to judge compliance. Five
percent of the community systems, serving
approximately 6 percent of the population,
experience major or minor violations.
Alaska's preventive public health activities
include detailed reviews of water system
plans and specifications prior to construction
of such facilities, routine inspections of
water systems to locate public health
hazards which may not be determined from
evaluations of water quality information, and
informal technical assistance to water
treatment plant operators regarding
operation and maintenance problems.
On a regional basis, only 28 percent of the
community water systems comply with
regulations for bacterial contamination;
however, this includes 71 percent of the
population served by such systems
(Figures 21a and b). Data are inadequate
to assess compliance in 57 percent of the
systems, and in 15 percent, major or minor
violations of regulations on bacterial
contamination have been reported.
Figure 21.
a. Regional Summary Based on Percentage
of Community Water Systems
b. Regional Summary Based on Population
Served by Community Water Systems
¦	IN COMPLIANCE
]	MINOR VIOLATIONS
|	MAJOR VIOLATIONS
I	INADEQUATE DATA
21

-------
Noise
When sound levels become loud enough
to be disagreeable and are instead called
noise (unwanted sounds), they also become
a threat to human health. The problem is
not limited to acute situations such as
occupational noise that can cause hearing
loss, but also includes chronic community
noise, which affects us physically and
mentally by causing nervousness, tension,
and loss of sleep.
In an annual housing survey conducted by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, noise has consistently been
the most frequently cited undesirable
condition in residential neighborhoods,
and has been one of the leading reasons
for residents wanting to move.
Noise generated by transportation dominates
the problem—airplanes, trucks, passenger
vehicles, and motorcycles, and even
motorboats and snowmobiles are all
contributors.
The Federal Noise Control Act of 1972
gives EPA authority to set standards for
cars, trucks, interstate railroads, aircraft, etc.
However, the primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with state and local
governments. EPA has assisted Oregon
and Washington in developing noise
regulations, has helped Anchorage, Seattle,
and Portland in developing noise control
ordinances, and has assisted with monitoring
of noise levels from railroad locomotives,
ferries, and auto and motorcycle racetracks.
No state agency has statutory responsibility
for noise control in Alaska, and few local
governments have noise abatement
ordinances (Table 6). In December 1978,
the City of Anchorage adopted a
comprehensive noise control ordinance
covering land use and motor vehicle noise,
but currently only the land use provisions
are being enforced. Law enforcement
personnel will be trained to enforce the
motor vehicle standards. Anchorage and
Palmer are also being assisted by EPA
through the ECHO (Each Community Helps
Others) program.
Table 6.
Region 10 Cities and Counties with
Local Noise Ordinances
CITIES/COUNTIES	ORDINANCE CURRENTLY
WITH ORDINANCES	TYPE OF ORDINANCE	ENFORCED
WASHINGTON


Columbia
E,M,N
E.M.N
Dupont
E,M
E.M
Everett
E (com & res only)
E - Safety

M
M - Police
Lynn wood
N
N - Police
Monroe
N
N - Police
N. Bonneville
E
E - Police/Planning
Olympia
M
M - Police
Othello
N
N - Police
Poulsbo
E,M,N
EMN - Police
Seattle
E,M,N
E - Health Dept


M,N - Police
Snohomish
E,M,N
E - City Manager
Winslow
E,M,N
M,N - Police
Clallam Co.
E
U
Clark Co.
N - dog control
N - Humane Society
Kitsap Co.
E
E - Sheriff
Snohomish Co.
E - res only
E - Sheriff/Health
King Co.
E,M,N
E - Health Dept


M.N - Police
OREGON


Eugene
M
M - Police
Milwaukte
N.O
N,0 - Police
Dallas
N
N - Police
Monroe
M
M - Police
Portland
E,M,N.O
E - Neighborhood Env.


M.N.O
Salem
N
N - Police
West Linn
N
N - Police
Winston
M
M - Police
Multnomah Co.
O
O - Police
ALASKA


Anchorage
E.M.N
E - Health & Env. Protection
E- Environmental/land use
N- Nuisance

M- Motor Vehicle
0- Offroad Vehicles

22

-------
Solid Waste and Hazardous Substances
When a product has reached the end of its
useful life, it is normally thrown away.
Discarded items typically end up in a landfill
or illegally dumped elsewhere—out of sight,
out of mind. Scarcity of land for solid waste
disposal, concern about limited resources,
and serious health hazards arising from
improper disposal of toxic substances
prompted Congress to pass the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in
1976. The following section summarizes the
waste problems addressed through RCRA
in the Pacific Northwest, as well as hazards
dealt with by other means.
Solid Waste Disposal
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act provides for criteria to be established
for solid waste disposal facilities. In
the past, municipal landfills have often been
open dumps. Open burning of wastes has
been virtually eliminated from Region 10,
but many environmental problems related to
improper disposal of municipal waste
remain. (Disposal of hazardous waste is
discussed below.) Water pollution is the
major concern. Rainwater draining over the
surface of a fill, or filtering into the ground
through the wastes, can dissolve (leach)
such undesirable substances as chemicals
and bacteria into streams and groundwater.
Because of the higher rainfall and greater
population west of the Cascades, leachate
problems there and in parts of Alaska,
particularly the southeast, have been more
numerous and serious than in more arid parts
of Region 10. As a result of RCRA, new
landfills have been designed and some old
landfills are being upgraded to include
leachate collection and treatment systems.
Recently constructed landfills such as
those in Lane County, Oregon, and
Snohomish County, Washington, have been
engineered for leachate collection and
treatment. Older landfills which had serious
leachate problems, such as the Cedar Hills
landfill in King County, Washington, are
beginning to install leachate collection
systems which pump leachate into the
sewage treatment system. Other landfills
may have to be closed altogether.
The disposal of solid waste remaining from
past military operations on federal lands
throughout Alaska is a problem that needs
to be resolved. A committee of Federal
and state agencies has been formed to
coordinate the cleanup effort.
Sewage sludge disposal is an increasing
problem as water pollution requirements
become stricter and landfill space becomes
scarce. Alternatives such as incineration
and using the sludge on farm or forest land
are being tried. Certain areas have special
disposal problems. In Alaska, for example,
severe cold makes disposal difficult.
There are other disposal problems, some
of which result from improper practices.
For example, when garbage decomposes
methane gas is produced as a by-product.
Methane is toxic to vegetation and is
explosive in certain concentrations.
Decomposition can also produce odors.
Household wastes, in particular, may attract
disease-carrying rodents and insects. Proper
disposal operation, including periodic
cover and proper compaction, will reduce
many of these problems.
Resource Recovery
RCRA provides financial assistance for
development and implementation of
comprehensive solid waste plans, including
environmentally sound disposal methods and
resource recovery and conservation
programs. Some municipal wastes, such as
glass, metal, and newspaper, can be
recycled; and much of the rest can be
converted to "refuse-derived fuel" (RDF)
or burned to produce steam or electricity.
Anchorage has initiated a recycling program
for newsprint and corrugated cardboard,
with some support from local government.
The city is also constructing a plant where
municipal waste will be shredded prior
to landfill. The plant is designed to recover
ferrous metals and might produce refuse-
derived fuels in the future. A plant in
Prudhoe Bay shreds refuse in preparation
for incineration, from which energy will be
recovered as steam. Because of the high
transportation costs, the economics of
recycling in Alaska have not always been
favorable.
Other wastes which have potential for
recovery and at the same time present
serious disposal problems include tires,
lubricating oil, and wood waste. Discarded
tires gradually work to the surface in a
landfill, where they trap water and become a
breeding place for mosquitos; and they are a
fire hazard. Recently, shredded tires have
been used as a fuel in boilers at the
Georgia-Pacific plywood mill in Toledo,
Oregon. Waste lubricating oil used on roads
as a dust suppressant can contaminate air
and water, and lead in the oil makes
indiscriminate burning or disposal
undesirable. Oregon recently passed a
Used Oil Collection Act, providing for
designated collection centers, which will
encourage re-refining of waste oil. Wood
waste, which can pollute water resources
and consume significant space in landfills,
is presently being used to produce steam
in several northwest timber mills and
utilities. It may also be used in combination
with refuse-derived fuel.
23

-------
Figure 22.
Location of Hazardous Waste and
Recovery Sites in Region 10
CHEMICAL/WASTE OIL PROCESSORS
OPERATING CHEMICAL LAND FILLS
PROPOSED CHEMICAL LAND FILLS
CONSTRUCTED RDF PLANTS
ENERGY RECOVERY PLANT FEASIBILITY
STUDY UNDERWAY
LOCALITY WHERE RECYCLING FACILITY
AVAILABLE (MORE THAN ONE TYPE
HOUSEHOLD WASTE-GLASS. PAPER.
ALUMINUM ETC )
WASTE EXCHANGES
NOTE State of Alaska Is represented at
approximately 30% of true scale
VHATCOM I OKANOGAN
CLALLA
CHELAN
KOOTENA
PUKANE
ilgogj thurstqn
® LEWIS O
/WALLA \
-Ar wal la \
BENTQI^ #1 1 f*
dleton
TILLA
TNOMAH
YAMHI
GILLIAM
WASCO
MARION
BENTON
LAN! 0:

CANY
• •, /• r j r i' i' f
JACKSON
JOSEPHINE
' iW'Ml I
Hazardous Materials
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act mandates government control of
hazardous waste from its generation to
ultimate disposal, including a manifest
system and a permit system for treatment,
storage and disposal facilities. Figure 22
shows locations of disposal sites in Alaska.
Compared to other parts of the country,
there are fewer industrial sources of
hazardous waste in Region 10. This is
particularly true of Alaska. Most of the
hazardous waste is created by manufacturers
of chemicals, pesticides, and metals;
petroleum refineries; and electroplating
operations. These sources are concentrated
around Puget Sound and in the Willamette
Valley. In agricultural areas of the Region,
the primary source of hazardous waste is
discarded pesticide containers.
For RCRA to be effective, acceptable waste
disposal sites must be available. There are
two state-licensed chemical landfills in
Region 10 at Arlington, Oregon, and
Grandview, Idaho. A third has been proposed
on the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford
Reservation in Washington. The availability
of such landfills, coupled with the active
involvement of Region 10 states in hazardous
waste management, has helped prevent
serious incidents involving hazardous
wastes from occurring in the Region.
Nevertheless, there is opposition to using
these landfills to dispose of wastes from
out-of-state. In addition, RCRA does not
address the problem of abandoned or
inactive facilities, which have posed serious
health hazards elsewhere in the country in
several documented instances. A national
trust fund for cleanup of abandoned sites
has been proposed and an inventory of such
sites is being conducted nationally.
Besides landfilling, there are several other
approaches taken to waste management in
the Northwest. Waste exchanges in Portland
and Seattle assist parties wishing to dispose
of a hazardous substance in locating a
second party that can use or recycle the
material, thereby eliminating a need for
disposal. The second party may be a
chemical processor that uses the waste as
24

-------
feedstock for another product. Regula-
tions determine how some substances are
used: For instance, labeling and disposal
procedures have been established for the
more than 800 facilities in Region 10 using
or storing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB),
a highly toxic substance used in electrical
transformers and capacitors. Some efforts
have also been made to rectify past uses
of hazardous substances. Each state in
Region 10 will participate in a voluntary
national program to reduce the exposure of
school children to asbestos fiber found
in older school buildings. In additon to
long-term management plans, emergency
response plans have been developed. Units
within several fire departments, including
Seattle and Tukwila, Washington, have
been trained to deal with incidents involving
hazardous materials.
Radiation
As Figure 23 shows, every person is exposed
to radiation from naturally occurring,
inescapable sources like cosmic rays and
soil. Normally, less than half a person's
radiation exposure is man-made. The data in
Figure 23 are based on national statistics,
but are representative for Region 10 as well.
Because the genetic and cancer-causing
effects of radiation are thought to be additive
or cumulative, the radiation dose to
individuals must be kept to the lowest
practicable level. EPA limits the radiation
dose to individuals and to the total population
by monitoring radiation, and by setting and
enforcing regulations on radioactivity
in air, drinking water, surface water, and
waste materials, and from nuclear power
plants.
Pesticides
Pesticides are poisons for controlling
insects, weeds, or rodents. Improperly used,
they can harm other organisms besides
their target, causing illness or death. The
regulation of pesticides poses some
complex policy and technical issues.
Conventional chemical pesticides, by their
very nature, are hazardous, but they are
widely viewed as necessary to maintain
agricultural productivity. In addition, the
hazards of pesticides, especially the
long-term effects, are difficult to assess.
Federal regulation of pesticide production
and use is the responsibility of EPA under the
legal authority of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Pesticide producers are inspected, and they
and their product must be registered with
EPA. Testing of pesticides products, labeling
for consumer use, and annual reporting are
also required of manufacturers.
Figure 23.
Average Amount of Exposure to Radiation,
Per Person Per Year
295
MAXIMUM EXPOSURE NOT TO EXCEED
170 MILLIREMS OVER AND ABOVE
NATURAL BACKGROUND AND
NECESSARY MEDICAL EXPOSURE

AVERAGE U.S. CITIZENS ANNUAL EXPOSURE.
IN MILLIREMS

INDUSTRIAL
VARIOUS

NUCLEAR POWER
002

PRODUCTS
025
127
FALL-OUT
2
125
MEDICAL/DENTAL
20
105
NATURAL COSMIC
45
NATURAL TERRESTRIAL
60
In Alaska, pesticide regulation at the state
level is the responsibility of the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC). ADEC regulates pesticide use
through a certification program which
provides training for pesticide applicators.
Alaska encounters special problems in
regard to pesticides due to the climate and
other factors which often cause variations in
the efficacy and persistence of pesticides
applied at normal rates. There is a need for
pesticide formulations more suited to
local needs, especially as agriculture
increases in importance in the state.
After pesticides are used, the Food and
Drug Administration is responsible for
checking that pesticide residues on raw
agricultural commodities are within required
limits.
Pesticide registration and resulting use can
be discontinued at any time EPA determines
that unreasonable adverse effects outweigh
the benefit from continued use of the
pesticide. If further restricting use of
the pesticide cannot correct the problems,
ultimately the product can be cancelled or
suspended. For example, EPA recently took
emergency action to suspend products
containing 2,4,5-T and Silvex.
25

-------