United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
December 1979
Environmental
Quality Profile
COMW
-------
Preface
This is the third annual report to the people of the State of Oregon regarding the status
of thou 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 Quality, 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 Oregon 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
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
September. 1979
-------
Contents/Summary
1
Air Quality
Marine Water
19
In 1978, most areas of Oregon met air quality
standards, and there was relatively little change
in air quality from the previous year. Four urban and
industrial areas exceeded standards for total
suspended particulates, as did a number of rural
counties where fugitive dust was a problem. To
attain standards controls on point sources and area
sources either have been implemented or are
planned. All sulfur dioxide standards are being met.
Carbon monoxide levels in the Portland, Salem,
Eugene, and Medford urban areas are expected to
be controlled by various transportation
management systems. Portland, Salem, and
Medford have also exceeded standards for ozone,
which is subject to the same controls as
carbon monoxide.
7 River Water
The majority of Oregon's major rivers have
marginal water quality, and the six-year trend
appears to be stable. Hot, dry summers east
of the Cascade Mountains are partially responsible
for some water quality degradation. Existing
pollution arises from point sources, such as
industries, which are controlled through National
Pollution discharge Elimination System permits,
and non-point sources, which are controlled by
areawide wastewater management programs.
The water quality standards most often exceeded
are those for temperature, turbidity, bacteria,
nutrient levels, and solids; improvements are
anticipated by 1983, the target year for "fishable,
swimmable" rivers.
16
Lakes
In 1978, seventeen of Oregon's recreational lakes
had water quality problems which impaired their
recreational use. Degraded aesthetic conditions,
mainly due to algae growths, were the principal
water quality problems. Sewage drainage
from recreational and residential developments,
erosion, and heavy recreational use are thought to
be responsible, and a variety of measures have
been implemented to restore lake water
quality in Oregon.
*
£
About half of Oregon's commercial shellfish
growing areas were closed to shellfish harvest
in 1978. The principal closures were in Coos Bay
and Tillamook Bay, where inadequate sewage
treatment has resulted in bacterial pollution, and
in Yaquina Bay and Nehalem Bay as a result of
non-point source and industrial pollution.
Improved wastewater treatment for municipal
sewage and control of non-point sources of
pollution is expected to improve marine
water quality.
Noise
21
Oregon has enforced ambient noise standards for
industry and commerce since 1974; a non-
degradation standard controls noise from new
sources. The state provides a tax incentive to
attain ambient standards. More emphasis in the
future will be placed on comprehensive land
use planning as a means of noise cotrol.
Drinking Water
22
The community water systems in Oregon that
serve 64 percent of the population comply with
regulations for bacterial contamination. However,
the compliance status of over half the systems in
the state is unknown due to inadequate data.
EPA is encouraging the state to develop several
programs to improve drinking water quality,
particularly that of small community water systems.
In addition, EPA has instituted measures to
preserve or improve ground water quality.
Solid Waste and Hazardous
Substances 24
Past problems with traditional methods of solid
waste disposal have prompted the use of new
approaches in Oregon. In particular, material
leached from landfills is being more carefully
controlled and treated, and resource
recovery programs have been implemented.
Special attention has been paid to waste tires,
wood, and oil.
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 Oregon
CURRENT
STATUS
Air Quality
River Water
Quality
Lake Water
Quality
Marine Water
Quality
Drinking Water
Quality
Noise
Solid Waste
Disposal
Number of areas exceeding standards 5
Percentage of monitoring stations meeting 35%
water quality goals (based on worst 3 months)
Percentage of major recreational lakes with 58%
little or no use impairment
Percentage of classified shellfish harvesting 50%
waters open
Percentage of population served by water supplies 64%
in compliance with regulations for bacterial
contamination
Percentage of community water supplies in 41%
compliance with regulations for bacterial
contamination
Percentage of population living in areas with
local noise control standards meeting state
objectives
Degree to which noise control regulations are
enforced
Number of resource recovery or recycling 19
facilities available
Number of hazardous waste handling sites 3
Little change
Little change
Little change
Little change
Improving
Improving
100% Little change
Excellent Improving
Improving
Improving
-------
Air
Quality
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 Oregon.
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 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, results in
deterioration of many consumer products,
and has additional economic and non-health
related impacts. If the pollutant
concentration reaches the "alert level,"
voluntary reductions in emissions are
requested from individuals, industry, and
government by taking immediate action to
protect human health by curtailing outdoor
activities, use of automobiles, and certain
industrial operations.
In Oregon, standards have been set and
concentrations established which meet or
exceed Federal standards for five major
pollutants. Table 1 lists the effects on health
Table 1.
Effects of Major Air Pollutants on
Health and Property
POLLUTANT HEALTH EFFECTS
and property that are the normal result of
exceeding those standards.
How Air Quality is Measured
Air quality data are collected at monitoring
stations located throughout Oregon,
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.
However, air pollution can originate away
from the monitoring site. 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
t
PROPERTY EFFECTS
Suspended
Particulates
Sulfur Dioxide
Ozone
Nitrogen Dioxide
Correlated with increased bronchial Corrodes metals and concrete:
and respiratory disease. discolors surfaces: soils exposed
especially in young and elderly materials: decreases visibility
Carbon Monoxide
Upper respiratory irritation at low
concentrations: more difficult
breathing at moderate concentra-
tions (3Q00 ug/m'). 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 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
-------
not located in all counties, primarily because
of the high cost of installation and operation.
However, monitors are located in all large
metropolitan areas. EPA has estimated the
percentage of days during which
concentrations of the various pollutants
exceeded the standards in Oregon during
1978, then compared this information with
1977 data to obtain short-term indications of
changes in air quality.
Air Quality in Oregon
Areas where a combination of high
emissions and weather conditions cause air
quality standards to be exceeded have been
designated as "non-attainment." Currently,
four areas in Oregon 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 determine precise boundaries for areas in
which standards are exceeded, especially for
ozone, because it is transported for long
distances. For that reason county
boundaries are used for display purposes in
this report although only a portion of the
county may be affected by the pollutant.
Oregon'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 in
numerous sectors of the economy.
Some of the particulate emissions in Oregon
come from what are called "point sources"
which are easily identified sources of
emissions, such as smokestacks. The resi
cannot be pinpointed to a specific source and
are termed area sources. These include
mobile sources (motor vehicle tailpipe
emissions), space heating (resident and
commercial heating units) and fugitive dust.
The latter includes dust created by certain
industrial and agricultural operations, and
vehicles on unpaved roads. In rural areas with
little major industrial development and low
population density, this fugitive dust is
composed mostly of natural soil particles
and is believed to be less harmful to the
health. For this reason, rural areas are
considered to be attaining air quality
standards although particulate standards
are exceeded. This is true for most of
eastern Oregon.
Figure 1 shows the Oregon areas that
exceeded suspended particulate standards;
i.e., at least one monitoring site in the county
exceeded one or more of the standards for
total suspended particulates (TSP) in 1978.
Aside from areas where rural fugitive dust
accounts for exceeding TSP standards
(shown as brown) most violations are
focused around four areas. Data from these
areas are charted in Figure 2, which shows
the percentage of days monitored on which
samples exceeded the standards.
In the Portland area, motor vehicles directly
or indirectly account for approximately half
the area's suspended particulates. Natural
sources, vegetative burning, and industrial
sources contribute the rest. Wood products,
rock products, and metallurgical industries
are the major point sources in the Portland
area, all of which have applied reasonable
controls on their emissions. The wood
products industry is also the major point
source in the Medford-Ashland area. Most
sources comply with existing regulations.
Although the Grants Pass area has
exceeded secondary TSP standards, more
data will be needed to assess potential
problems there. In the Eugene-Springfield
area, burning of slash, field stubble,
and other vegetation, and airborne dust from
roads and fields contribute to particulate
levels, as do emissions from the wood
products, paper, and rock products
industries.
Figure 1.
Air Quality Status — Suspended Particulates
County boundaries used for display purposes. Reflects
worst air quality for county.
Figure 2.
Percent of Observed Days Suspended
Particulates Exceeded Standards
AREAS OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED (%)
MONITORED 10 20 30 40
C/l
Portland r
Eugene-c/i
Springfield R
c/i
Meford- R
Ashland
GrantsC/i
Pass R
C/l: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R: RESIDENTIAL
r: RURAL
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number of
days exceeding standards per number of observation days.
STANDARDS ATTAINED
~| SECONDARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
^ PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
~ NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
CONSIDERED TO BE ATTAINMENT
I STANDARDS EXCEEDED DUE TO FUGITIVE DUST
I 1
(23/83)
1
(8/59)
J
(1/58)
—
(3/60)
(3/59)
(19/73)
(19/73)
(12/112)
(3/38)
(3/38)
2
-------
library
U S Environmental Protection Agmav
Cor v.litis Environmental Research Lab
200 S W 35th StiBot
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
To date, the concern in Oregon has been to
reduce emissions from point sources and
most industries that produce significant
amounts of particulates have installed
required control devices. However, particulate
problems still remain in the urban areas,
often resulting from area sources. Dust
fallout continues to be a problem in Lake
Oswego even though local sources meet
emission limits much more restrictive than
state standards. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) plans to
identify and correct any observed fugitive
emissions. In addition, a citizens' advisory
committee will be making recommendations
to DEQ regarding preferred strategies to
control emissions from sources in the
Portland urban area.
Field burning of grass stubble is a seasonal
problem in the Eugene-Springfield area with
most burning taking place from July through
September. Oregon is controlling emissions
from field burning of grass stubble to
prevent smoke intrusions into population
centers such as Eugene. Restrictions on
burning take into account weather
conditions, straw moisture content, and
limitations on acreage to be burned.
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. Rain that comes in
contact with sulfur dioxide in the
atmosphere corrodes buildings, is harmful to
vegetation, and can deteriorate the water
quality of lakes and streams far from the
source of the pollutant.
As shown in Figure 3, all counties in Oregon
comply with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for sulfur dioxide. Boise
Cascade in Salem is meeting emission limits
twice as restrictive as those applied to
other pulp mills so as to minimize the impact
of sulfur dioxide on downtown Salem.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas — high
concentrations cause unconsciousness 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 4 illustrates the extent of the
carbon monoxide problem in Oregon, and
Figure 5 compares the four non-attainment
areas. Carbon monoxide concentrations
have not changed appreciably since 1977 in
the major urban areas of the state. This is
partly due to the rapid population growth
of Oregon, which tends to offset any
progress made in reducing carbon
monoxide emissions.
Motor vehicles are responsible for more than
90 percent of carbon monoxide emissions;
therefore, plans for reducing such emissions
center on improvements to individual
automobiles and to the transportation
system as a whole. As older cars are
replaced by models with up-to-date pollution
control equipment, carbon monoxide levels
should decline. This measure is expected to
enable Eugene to meet the carbon
monoxide standards by 1987.
Improvements in transportation and traffic
management systems also reduce CO levels.
For Portland, Salem, and the Eugene urban
area, these include improved parking
.management and reducing the amount of
traffic on heavily traveled roads during peak
hour by greater use of mass transit,
carpooling, and bike lanes. Medford, a
smaller community, is just now evaluating
STANDARDS ATTAINED H
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED £
ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED I
NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA I I
CONSIDERED TO BE ATTAINMENT I I
Figure 3.
Air Quality Status — Sulfur Dioxide
Figure 4.
Air Quality Status — Carbon Monoxide
County boundaries used for display purposes. Reflects
worst air quality for county.
Figure 5.
Percent of Observed Days Carbon Monoxide
Exceeded Standards
AREAS
MONITORED
Portland c/i
Salem c/i
Eugene-
Springfield c/l
Medford-
Ashland
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED <%)
20 40 60
C/I
I
(59/321)
]
(5/329)
]
(2/284)
1
(180/311)
C/I: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number of
days exceeding standards per number of observation days.
3
-------
alternative control measures. Other
programs either being implemented or
considered for implementation include
staggered work hours for employees,
employer-directed programs such as ride
sharing and van pooling, and additional
park-and-ride lots. In addition to these
general plans and programs, Oregon has
operated a vehicle inspection and
maintenance (l&M) program in the Portland
area since 1975. A voluntary l&M program
was begun in the Medford area in 1979
and it is being proposed that it be made
mandatory. The l&M programs will help
ensure that vehicle emission control
devices are functioning effectively through
regular inspections.
Ozone
Unlike the other air pollutants discussed in
this report, photochemical oxidants are not
emissions from industries or automobiles.
Rather, they are the 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, also add to hydrocarbon
emissions. 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. Air quality
standards refer to ozone, and only ozone is
measured by monitoring instrumentation.
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 significant quantities 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. Motor vehicle emissions are
controlled nationally by the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program, which sets
emission standards for new cars. Oregon
has regulations controlling VOC emissions
in all areas where ozone standards are not
attained. Each non-attainment area must
also develop any additional controls
necessary to meet the standards by 1987.
As Figures 6 and 7 show, three areas
exceeded the standards for ozone in
Oregon. In spite of a vehicle inspection and
maintenance program and controls on
VOC's in Portland, primary'ozone standards
are still exceeded. The feasibility of
alternative transportation controls is being
calculated as an additional measure to
ensure that the ozone standards will be
attained by 1987. Portland's emissions
combine with Salem's to elevate ambient
concentrations in the Salem area.
Consequently, Salem is expected to meet
the ozone standard by 1983 due to
Portland's control strategy, as well as VOC
controls on sources in Salem itself. Further
analysis of the Medford-Ashland non-
attainment area is planned to determine
the extent of the ozone problem in
southwest Oregon.
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
photochemical oxidants, as described above.
During 1978, the nitrogen dioxide standard
was not exceeded in Oregon. 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.
Figure 6.
Air Quality Status — Ozone
County boundaries used for display purposes. Reflects
worst air quality for county.
Figure 7.
Percent of Observed Days Ozone Exceeded
Standards
OBSERVED DAYS EXCEEDED (%)
5 10 15
C/l
(5/323)
Portland r
(5/323)
r
~
(10/332)
Salem r
1
(4/357)
Medford-
"1
Ashland '
I
(2/354)
C/l: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R: RESIDENTIAL
r: RURAL
NOTE: Number in parentheses represents total number of
days exceeding standards per number of observation days.
STANDARDS ATTAINED
~
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA.
CONSIDERED TO BE ATTAINMENT
4
-------
Lead
On October 5,1978, EPA established an
ambient air quality standard for lead, to be
achieved by October, 1982. At this time, the
states cooperating with EPA are gathering
data to identify areas where the standard is
being exceeded. No lead violations are
apparent in the state at this time.
Other Hazardous Materials
In addition to the five major air pollutants
discussed above, there are 9 known point
sources of asbestos in Oregon. Plant
emissions of this hazardous substance
comply with national and state emissions
standards. EPA is analyzing other potentially
hazardous pollutants, and standards for
ihese will be developed.
Trends in Oregon Air Quality
Trends in air quality indicate whether past
pollution control activities have been
effective. Figure 8 shows the urban areas in
Oregon in which air quality standards were
exceeded in 1978. It also illustrates a two-
year comparison of 1977 and 1978 data.
Most of Oregon's air quality has remained
relatively unchanged from 1977, except for a
decrease in ozone concentrations near the
Salem area.
In Figure 9, the areas that exceeded
standards during 1978 have been color
coded to reflect the worst exceedance of
any pollutant standard experienced in at
least one monitoring site within a county.
The figure indicates that, except for Oregon's
problems with fugitive dust, air quality
standards were most severely exceeded
mainly in the heavily populated or
industrialized areas of the state.
Figure 8.
Air Quality Trends in Selected Communities
(Based on 1977-78 data)
STANDARDS
SHORT TERM
MONITORED
TSP
so2
CO
°3
N02
Portland r
c/i
~
-
r
O
Salem r
c/i
Eugene-
Springfield
c/i
Medford-
Ashland
c/i
ANNUAL
i
Figure 9.
Oregon Areas Exceeding One or More
Air Quality Standards During 1978
Grants Pass r
c/i
r
C/I: COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL
R RESIDENTIAL
r RURAL
WALLOWA
La Grande
UNION
IT||. LAMO
¦ V^SHINGTQf^MULTNOMAH SHIVER J
SHERMAN
The
Dalles
MORROW
CLACKAMAS
YAMHILL
GILLIAM
WASCO
POLK
MARION
WHEELER
JEFFERSON
ILINCC ' N
LANE
UMATILLA
Pendleton
BAKER
CROOK,
DESCHUTES "I ,
MALHEUR
HARNI »
LAKE.
Kl AMAIH
, | JOSEPHINE
CURRY;
Madfora
Klamath
Falls
IMPROVING TREND
DETERIORATING TREND
NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
~ NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA.
CONSIDERED TO BE ATTAINMENT
County boundaries used for display purposes. Reflects
worst air quality for county.
STANDARDS ATTAINED
SECONDARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED
STANDARDS EXCEEDED DUE TO FUGITIVE DUST
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. 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. 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 monoxode levels will be
effective in reducing ozone levels. Also,
measures that control volatile organic
compounds indirectly lower ozone levels.
(An example is the floating roof 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, vegetative burning, etc.).
Particulate control devices such as
baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, and
scrubbers have beep installed on many
industrial sources, and some plants are
scheduled to further reduce emissions in the
future. As existing plants 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.
Table 2.
Air Quality status in 20 Areas of
Region 10
AREAS MONITORED TSP SO, CO O
Alaska
Anchorage
Fairbanks
Idaho Boise
Conda-Soda Springs
Kellogg
Lewiston
Pocatello
Oregon Eugene-Springfield
Grants Pass
Medford-Ashland
Portland
Salem
Washington
~
~
Clarkston
Longview
Port Angeles
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
Vancouver
Yakima
SECONDARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
PRIMARY STANDARDS EXCEEDED
ALERT LEVELS EXCEEDED
I
-------
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 Oregon 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 Oregon, 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,
concentration 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.
Oregon, like the other states in Region 10,
has specified certain water quality standards.
To measure water characteristics and
evaluate water quality, a standardized 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 professional
judgment, and they represent "Federal water
quality goals."
When these criteria are applied to a
stream, they take into account the aquatic
Table 3.
Criteria/Parameter Groups' for the
Water Quality Index
CRITERIA PARAMETER GROUP AND EXPLANATION
Temperature 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.
Dissolved Oxygen 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.
Inorganic Toxicity 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
life and recreational uses expected for that
stream. For example, in Oregon, most
streams are classified as "cold water fishery"
streams and are expected to support trout
and salmon. The lower portions of the
Klamath, Umatilla, Malheur, and Owyhee
Rivers, however, are considered "warm-
water fishery" streams, supporting bass and
perch, and therefore have less stringent
criteria for some parameters than "cold-
water fishery" streams.
PH
Aesthetics
Solids
Radioactivity
Bacteria
Trophic (Nutrient
Enrichment)
Organic Toxicity
-------
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 large rivers and small
streams, or between streams in the moist,
forested coastal zone and in the dry eastern
farmlands of the state. Information from 50
water quality sampling stations was used for
this report.
Figure 10 compares the water quality of
principal rivers in Oregon. The circle
represents the annual average Water Quality
Index for the river. The square represents
the average value of the worst 3
consecutive months.
The WQI values presented are derived from averaging
WQI values from those river portions with adequate
data
"Portions of these streams were evaluated using
criteria designed to protect warm water aquatic
species.
WORST THREE-MONTH VALUE ~
AVERAGE ANNUAL VALUE O
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 ol the Act.
The neutral color gray is used in the graphs when the water quality status is unknown because
of inadequate data.
Figure 10.
Water Quality Index Values for Oregon's
Principal Rivers
Middle Snake
'Lower Malheur
Grande Ronde/Wallowa
'Umatilla
John Day, Incl. N. & S. Forks
Columbia
Bear Creek
Mainstem, N. & S. Umpqua
Lower Snake
'Klamath/Williamson/Sprague
Tualatin
Willamette
'Owyhee
Rogue
Siuslaw
Nehalem
Deschutes
Santiam, Mainstem, N & S.
Clackamas
McKenzie
WQI VALUE
20 40 60 80 100
<>-~
•a
8
-------
Sources and Control of Water
Pollution
Pollutants that reach Oregon 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 e'asily identified
"non-point source" pollution, consisting of
stormwater from urban areas, irrigation
water, 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, agricultural best
management practices might include waste
storage areas to keep organic wastes from
reaching nearby streams, or contour
plowing to prevent erosion of soil into rivers.
The responsibility for developing such
means to control non-point source pollution
has been given to local and state agencies
assigned to develop waste quality
management plans as provided by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Quality of Oregon's Principal
Rivers
As Figures 11 and 12 show, none of
Oregon's 20 major rivers are severely
polluted year round. (Size of the river and
proximity to major urban areas were the
main criteria for inclusion in the Profile.)
However, the majority have marginal water
quality with respect to the criteria, and a few
experience severe pollution during certain
months of the year. Although these marginal
streams are to be found throughout the state
(Figure 11), the greater portion lie east of the
Cascades where hot, dry summers result in
low flow, elevated stream term peratures, and
favorable conditions for algae and bacterial
Figure 11.
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers
in Oregon
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WOI
~ MARGINAL - INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
H ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL OR NO POLLUTION
I STATUS UNKNOWN
9
-------
growth. In Western Oregon, the moderate
temperatures and significant rainfall curtail
such problems.
Compared to the 1978 Profile, the water
quality of the Klamath and Owyhee and
lower Umatilla and Malheur Rivers appears
to have improved appreciably. This apparent
improvement, however, is primarily because
those segments are now evaluated against
criteria devised to protect warm-water
aquatic species. Because these criteria are
more lenient than the cold-water fisheries
criteria formerly required of the four streams,
they are no longer considered to have
temperature problems.
marginal - intermittent, OR MODERATE Water quality status based upon the average annual WQI.
POLLUTION River mileages shown pertain only to the mainstem of each
stream, unless otherwise indicated
ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
STATUS UNKNOWN
Causes of River Water Quality
Problems
Figure 13 shows the status of 25 Oregon
river stretches with respect to each of the
10 pollution categories shown in the Water
Quality Index. Many Oregon streams on
both sides of the Cascades have
experienced peak summer temperatures in
excess of the criteria. The most significant
case is the lower Grande Ronde River. The
normally hot summer ambient temperatures,
combined with low flows experienced during
the 1977 drought, are responsible for the
"unacceptable" rating for this stream and
presumably for the "marginal" rating for the
other streams. Water temperatures only a
few degrees above the criteria may be
detrimental to desirable aquatic species and
may indirectly inhibit recreational fishing.
However, in many Eastern Oregon streams,
traditionally cold water species such as trout
and salmon have adapted to warmer
temperatures so that this criteria may not be
applicable statewide.
The only Oregon stream portions that have
occasionally failed to meet the dissolved
oxygen criteria are the Snake River below
Hell's Canyon Dam, lower Bear Creek, and
the Klamath River between Klamath Lake
and Big Bend Dam Irrigation wastewater
from nearby agricultural areas introduces
organic debris and nutrients to these
streams during the summer and early fall,
promoting growth and subsequent decay of
algae and aquatic weeds, processes which
cause dissolved oxygen levels to fall below
recommended criteria.
Elevated pH values in excess of criteria were
noted in the lower Deschutes, lower John
Day, and Middle Snake Rivers.
Bacteria and nutrients typically have
common sources. Over half of the streams
evaluated, including the Klamath River and
Bear Creek, had excessive levels of bacteria
and nutrients, primarily from run-off from
cropland, grazing, and stock yard and feed
lots in Eastern Oregon. In Western Oregon,
dairy and livestock operations and municipal
and industrial point sources accounted for
bacterial contamination in several streams,
RIVER MILES
200
Figure 12.
River Miles Meeting Water Quality Criteria
in Oregon
100
Middle Snake
Malheur
Grande Ronde/Wallowa
Umatilla
John Day, Incl. N. & S. Forks
Columbia
Bear Creek
Main, N. & S. Umpqua
Lower Snake
Klamath/Williamson/Sprague
Tualatin
Willamette
Owyhee
Rogue
Siuslaw
Nehalem
Deschutes
Santiam, Incl. N. & S. Forks
Clackamas
McKenzie
10
-------
but only the Willamette and Tualatin show
elevated nutrient levels from such sources.
To date however, these nutrient levels have
not stimulated blooms of algae in the
Willamette.
The aesthetic quality of a river is largely
related to whether the water is clear or
muddy. Excessive turbidity generally means
that there are high levels of suspended
solids present, indicating that eroded soils
have been carried into the river. The highest
solids levels appeared in the Wallowa and
lower Umatilla Rivers, and to a lesser extent
in other rivers, during the winter and spring,
indicating run-off from rainstorms and
spring snowmelt. Agricultural operations in
Eastern and Southern Oregon, and forestry
practices in the western part of the state,
aggravate these naturally occurring
conditions.
Organic toxicants include pesticides and
other chemical substances poisonous to
humans and other life. It was only recently
that intensive monitoring began to detect
minute concentrations of organic toxicants.
There is a significant lack of data on organic
toxicants in Oregon streams, even though
pesticides and herbicides are used in both
agricultural and forestry activities
throughout the state. Regular monitoring for
a relatively small number of these chemicals
has been performed during the past few
years only in the Snake River near Nyssa,
and in the lower Tualatin, Nehalem, and
Rogue Rivers. Though this limited
monitoring program has not detected
significant levels of organic toxicants to date,
Klamath
IMPROVING TREND
| ^ | DETERIORATING TREND
J UNACCEPTABLE SEVERE POLLUTION NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
J NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
J MEETS STANDARD QUALITY GOALS
J MARGINALLY MEETS GOALS
The colors represent recent most-degraded three-month status of each parameter group;
the arrows result from the comparison of 1976-78 data versus that of 1973-75 Each river
entry is represented by only one station.
Lower Siuslaw
Lower Nehalem
Lower Deschutes
Santiam near
mouth
Lower
Clackamas
McKenzie
Lower Umatilla
Lower Owyhee
Lower John Day
Columbia above
Willamette R.
Columbia below
Willamette R.
Lower Bear Creek
(Jackson Co.)
Main Umpqua
Lower Snake
Figure 13.
Trends in River Water Quality
Categories, Oregon
Middle Snake
Lower Malheur
Wallowa
Grande Ronde
at Elgin
Lower
Grande Ronde
Lower Rogue
Lower Tualatin
Willamette at
Springfield
Willamette near
Salem
Willamette at
Portland
11
-------
more widespread sampling for a much larger
number or organic toxicants is needed to
better assess the extent of these compounds
in Oregon's streams.
Inorganic toxicants include the heavy metals
zinc, lead, and nickel, which can harm fish
and persons who eat contaminated fish. A
number of Eastern Oregon rivers were
analyzed for inorganic toxicants. However,
with the limited data it is unclear at this time
whether a problem exists with inorganic
toxicants or whether it is simply a problem
with insufficiently sensitive analytical and
monitoring techniques.
EPA monitoring data on radiation in the
Columbia River near Richland, Washington,
and Astoria, Oregon, are insufficient to
calculate the Water Quality Index for this
parameter. However, radiation levels are less
than 3 percent of the drinking water
standard, well below any level of concern.
I
River Water Quality Trends
Figure 15 compares annual water quality
conditions in Oregon over the past 6 years
based on data collected at 20 representative
monitoring stations. The trend has been
relatively stable, though water quality may
be deteriorating at those eastern stations
located in watersheds with intense
agricultural use. Incomplete data from some
of the monitoring stations make any real
trend difficult to confirm, and minor
fluctuation in the percentages of stations
meeting the goals may probably be
attributed to variations in climatic conditions
and sampling times.
The greater percentage of stations only
provisionally meeting the Federal goals as
shown on this year's graph, compared to the
1978 issue of this report, is mainly due to a
change in analytical methods. Previous
reports analyzed trends on the basis of data
averaged over 12 months. The percentages
shown in Figure 14 are based on data
averaged over the worst 3 consecutive
months at each station. This evaluation
scheme is more sensitive to changes
in water quality than using the average
annual status.
Figure 14.
Water Quality Trends in Oregon
PERCENT OF STATIONS
40 60 80 100
3
Based upon the most-degraded three consecutive month
status of twenty monitoring stations within, and bordering
upon Oregon. Organic and inorganic toxicity parameter
categories not included.
J UNACCEPTABLE — SEVERE POLLUTION
[Bl TO OUT I ON INTERMITTENT OR MODERATE
I ACCEPTABLE — MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
12
-------
Many existing water quality problems in
Oregon are due to non-point sources of
pollution, especially from agricultural
sources. Runoff from dairy and cattle
operations, for example, can elevate bacteria
levels in receiving streams. Irrigation return
flows from cropland can increase sediment
and nutrient levels in rivers. To address this
problem, the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) has assessed
their state's non-point source pollution. They
are now developing and are beginning to
apply best management practices to farms
identified as pollution sources. DEO works
with agricultural agencies to encourage
farmers to voluntarily use approved
practices. Projects are underway that should
reduce pollution levels in Bear Creek
(Jackson County), the Owyhee and Malheur
Rivers (Malheur County), the Umatilla River
(Gilliam, Marion, Sherman, Umatilla and
Wasco Counties), and the lower Columbia
(Wasco County).
Forestry practices, which can also increase
sediment and nutrient levels, are controlled
in Oregon through the Forest Practices Act,
which requires road construction and
logging activities to be done in a manner to
minimize erosion and restricts logging
adjacent to streams to protect stream cover.
It is enforced by officers who cite and fine
contractors and private operations that do
not comply with the Act.
Control of point sources from industrial and
sewage treatment operations through the
NPDES permit system should improve water
quality along specific stream segments. A
new regional treatment plant being
constructed for the Eugene-Springfield area,
for example, should significantly reduce
bacterial levels in the Willamette River.
Industries discharging to tributaries of the
Willamette, such as the Teledyne Wah
Change plant at Albany, and the Crown
Zellerbach paper mill at Lebanon, are
reducing the levels of ammonia in their
effluent. This should improve the level of
Figure 15.
Water Quality Index Values for Region 10
River Basins
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 Coast
Clark Fork/Pend Oreille
Willamette
Washington Coast
Puget Sound
Upper Yukon
N.W Alaska
Copper
Bristol Bay
Kenai-Knik
The WQI values presented are derived from averaging those values calculated from the
principal rivers in each basin, only.
woi VALUE
60
100
~ WORST 3 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS
O ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
~ INSUFFICIENT DATA
13
-------
dissolved oxygen in the stream, reduce
toxicity and reduce nutrient levels.
Installation of secondary treatment facilities
at several fruit processing plants has
resulted in decreased discharges of
pollutants to the Columbia River.
The Regional Outlook
The Water Quality Index is used in Figure 15
to compare 26 major Pacific Northwest River
Basins within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. Figure 16 depicts the relative
extent of water quality degradation within
each river basin, and Figure 17 shows similar
information on a regional map.
Figure 15 reveals that several Alaska river
drainages have the highest Water Quality
Index values in Region 10. These are caused
by naturally 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. Most criteria that were exceeded
are in the categories of temperature,
bacteria, trophic, aesthetic, and solids
parameters. 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 16.
Miles Within Principal Region 10 River Basins
Meeting Water Quality Criteria
RIVER MILES
400
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 Coast
Clark Fork/Pend Oreille
Willamette
Washington Coast
Puget Sound
Upper Yukon
N W Alaska
Copper
Bristol Bay
Kenai-Knik
-L-L
~
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WQI
UNACCEPTABLE — SEVERE POLLUTION
MARGINAL — INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
~ STATUS UNKNOWN
Only the principal rivers and streams within each basin are included in the mileage totals
shown.
14
-------
Figure 17.
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers in
Regon 10
S.E Alaska Basin
Arctic Slope Basin
0 NOTE State of Alaska is represented at
approximately 30% of true scale
Regional water quality trends have been
analyzed by comparing data from 84
representative monitoring stations over a
6-year period (Figure 18). 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 18.
Water Quality Trends in Region 10
PERCENT OF STATIONS
20 40 60
WATER
TEAR
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 toxicant pollution categories not included.)
BASED UPON THE AVERAGE ANNUAL WOI
UNACCEPTABLE - SEVERE POLLUTION
~
MARGINAL - INTERMITTENT. OR MODERATE
POLLUTION
ACCEPTABLE - MINIMAL. OR NO POLLUTION
STATUS UNKNOWN
15
-------
Lake Water Quality
Inland lakes and waterways constitute one
of Oregon's most important recreational and
commercial resources. Moreover, the quality
of these waters affects the beauty and
aesthetic character of the state. It is
generally felt that the lake water quality in
Oregon and the Pacific Northwest is among
the best in the nation. Only a few of the
major recreational lakes in the state have
significant water quality problems which
impair their recreational use.
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 Oregon
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 aquatic plants cover much of the
surface, and the water may appear bright
green. As the lake becomes eutrophic, the
amount of aquatic life, including fish within
the lake, increases. However, the species
composition shifts from species such as
trout to catfish and suckers. As
eutrophication continues, dead algae are
decomposed by bacteria which can
consume nearly all the dissolved oxygen in
the water, which in turn kills fish. 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 Oregon 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 19 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
Seventeen lakes are moderately impaired,
mostly due to aesthetic conditions. A
primary problem has been massive
infestation by aquatic weeds, which choke
shallow water areas and interfere with
boating and fishing. Most of Oregon's
coastal lakes and some in the Willamette
Valley are affected. Some lakes also
experience periodic algae blooms which can
cause odor problems and can be toxic to
fish and swimmers. Nutrients which support
the weed and algae growth are in some
cases supplied by bottom sediments and in
other cases are due to sewage drainage
from recreational and residential
development. Excessive sedimentation due
to erosion is also a problem in some lakes.
Recreational use of lakes in itself can
affect water quality. Power boats create
waves that erode banks, contributing to
sediment, nutrients, and muddy water. They
also release mixtures of oil and gasoline
and associated contaminants to the water.
Removing vegetation along shorelines to
enhance public access can also lead
to erosion.
How Recreational Use is Being
Restored
Some measures being implemented to
improve lake water quality include dredging
to remove nutrient-containing sediments
and decomposing plant material that
consumes oxygen, flushing, bank erosion
control, aeration, physically removing
aquatic plants, and both chemical and
biological controls to prevent
eutrophication.
Commonwealth Lake near Portland, for
example, which suffered from algae
blooms and proliferation of aquatic weeds
was successfully restored by dredging and
flushing with water diverted from a nearby
creek Riprap, bulkheads, and a perimeter
walkway reduced siltation in the lake. In
Diamond Lake, Douglas County, nutrients
16
-------
from sewage had accelerated
eutrophication. Sewage was diverted from
the lake drainage, and fish-cleaning and
trailer dumping stations were installed to
further limit nutrients reaching the lake.
Other lakes still have problems, however.
Blue Lake near Portland, for example, has
high recreational potential, but it is highly
eutrophic with summer bldoms of blue-
green algae. This is due in part to
nutrient-rich water supply. On the coast,
Devil's Lake experiences rapid siltation due
to storm water runoff.
Figure 19.
Water Quality Status of
Oregon's Principal Recreational Lakes
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
Table 4.
Criteria for Evaluating Impairment of Lakes
DEGREE OF IMPAIRMENT
RECREATIONAL
USE
NONE
SIGNIFICANT
SCORE
CRITERIA
CRITERIA
¦
Swimming Very low bacteria levels (Fecal
coliforms geometric mean less
than 50 per 100 ml)
Fishing No adverse conditions. Healthy |
fish population.
Boating Less than 10% of surface area
affected by aquatic weeds
Aesthetics Objects visible in water to depth ¦
of 10 feet or more and low
phosphorus (Secchi Disc* at
10 feet; total phosphorus of less
than 10 ug/l")
Moderate bacteria levels (Fecal
coliforms 50 to 200 per 100 ml)
Slightly adverse conditions.
Slight reduction in fish population.
10% to 30% affected
m
Objects visible from 1.5 to 10 feet [I]
and moderate phosphorus level
(Secchi Disc at 1.5 to 10 feet; total
phosphorus 10 to 20 ug/l)
5-8
SCORE (No uses impaired) [T] (All uses moderately impaired)
'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.
Unhealthy bacteria levels (Fecal 0
coliforms greater than 200 per
100 ml)
Adverse conditions. Significant
reduction in fish population
More than 30% affected
¦
Objects not visible beyond 1.5
feet or high phosphorus level
(Secchi Disc at less than 1.5
feet; total phosphorus greater
than 20 ug/l)
(All uses significantly impaired) EH
17
Henry Hagg Lake ^ Blue Lake
¦Siltcoos
) Timothy Lake
Detroit Res
Green Peter Res
Foster Res
Fern Ridge Res
A
Lake
Lake Dorena Res
ahkenitch
Lake
(DOIaliie Lake
^•Chinook Lake
^Suttle Lake
• Blue River Res
"fCougar Res
©Ochoco Res
^Prineville Res
N Tenmile Lake
Tenmile Lake
Diamond LakeO
Crater Lakefl
Waldo
©Paulina Lake
Cultus Lake
Crane Prairie Res
Wickiup Res
Davis Lake
Odell Lake
Crescent Lake
Hills Creek Res
Willow Creek Res O
Owyhee Res
Lake of the Woods# ^Klamath Lake
Emigrant Res
Q McKay Creek Res
Lake Wallowa I
-------
Table 5.
The Recreational Impairment and Trophic
Status of Principal Recreational Lakes in
Oregon
SURFACE
AREA
NAME (ACRES)
Willow Creek Res. 1,000
North Tenmile Lake 1,000
South Tenmile Lake 1,400
Klamath Lake 59,000
Devil's Lake/Lincoln Co. 600
Blue Lake/Multnomah Co. 65
Emigrant Res. 800
Siltcoos Lake 3,000
McKay Creek Res. 1,200
Ochoco Res. 1,100
Owyhee Res. 14,000
Suttle Lake 270
Cleawox Lake 1,400
Tahkenitch Lake 1,500
Hills Creek Res. 2,700
Fern Ridge Res. 9,400
Diamond Lake 2,000
Chinook Lake 3,600
Prineville Res. 3,000
Crane Prairie Res. 4,900
Davis Lake 3,700
Wickiup Res. 11,000
Lake of the Woods 1,200
Henry Hagg Lake 1,100
Green Peter Res. 3,700
Timothy Lake 1,300
Lake Paulina 1,400
Odell Lake 3,300
Waldo Lake 6,700
Crater Lake 13,000
Crescent Lake 3,500
Lake Wallowa 1,800
Cultus Res. 1,300
Olallie Lake 180
Detroit Res. 3,000
Blue River Res. 1,000
Cottage Grove Res. 1,000
Dorena Res. 1,800
Foster Res. 1,200
Cougar Res. 1,200
/
/
-------
Marine Water Quality
The coastal and estuarine waters of
Oregon contribute greatly to the
commercial and recreational assets of the
Northwest. While the majority of these
waters are relatively free of pollution, there
is contamination from municipal sewage
discharge and from agricultural and
logging operations carried to the ocean by
Oregon's rivers.
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 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."
Oregon's Marine Waters
Of the 28,100 acres of classified
commercial shellfish growing waters in
Oregon, about 25 percent are currently
approved for commercial harvesting and
25 percent are conditionally approved,
depending on specific conditions that are
monitored throughout the year. The
remaining 50 percent are classified as
closed and cannot be used to produce
shellfish for human consumption. Fig-
ure 21 shows the location of classified
waters in Oregon.
Over half of Coos Bay is closed to
commercial shellfishing because of
bacterial pollution from sewage treatment
plant discharges, although the South
Slough of Coos Bay is approved for
commercial shellfish harvesting. Likewise,
potential treatment plant failures as well as
a number of non-point sources of fecal
pollution have made it necessary to close
or only conditionally approve Tillamook
Bay for shellfish harvest. Areas of Yaquina
Bay are either closed or conditionally
approved due to non-point source and
industrial pollution problems. The Nehalem
River also has problems related to non-
point source pollution and increasing
population density. Netarts Bay, though
not a major commercial shellfish growing
area, is considered to have good water
quality suitable for oyster culture. The
extent of closures in the various
commercial shellfish areas is compared in
Figure 22.
Figure 21.
Water Quality Map of Oregon's Commercial
Shellfish Growing Areas
Wheeler
NEHALEM BAY
Tillamook
NETARTS BAY
Newport
PAQUINA BAY
•m«Coos Bay
COOS BAY
| CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
~ CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
J APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Areas depicted represent only those portions of the total
estuarine and coastal areas that have been classified by
the Oregon State Health Division.
19
-------
Several measures are being taken to
restore Oregon's marine waters for
shellfish harvest. Sewage treatment
improvements planned for the cities of
Coos Bay and North Bend should reduce
bacterial pollution in Coos Bay. The City
of Tillamook is constructing a new sewage
treatment plant, and an EPA-funded
project is underway to identify non-point
sources of pollution around Tillamook
Bay, after which a pollution control plan
will be prepared.
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 23). 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 23.
Fecal contamination or the great potential
for 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. 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.
Figure 22.
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing
Areas in Oregon
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 mO 12.0
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Yaquina Bay
Netarts Bay
Nehalem River
Figure 23.
Status of Classified Shellfish Growing Areas
in Region 10
THOUSANDS OF ACRES
50 100 150
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.
20
-------
Noise
When sound levels become loud enough to
be disagreeable and are instead called
noise (unpleasantly loud 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.
Oregon's Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) has been enforcing noise
control standards for industry and
commerce since 1974 through its Noise
Control Program; it has nearly 40 persons
trained in enforcement procedures. Most
industrial and commercial sources are
subject to ambient noise standards;
significant noise impacts from new sources
upon surrounding property are prevented by
a non-degradation standard. State income
tax credits have enabled new and existing
sources to attain ambient standards by
defraying the cost of noise reducing
materials or devices.
In the future, the Noise Control Program
expects to concentrate enforcement
activities at noise sources, rather than
simply following up on citizen complaints.
Table 6.
Region 10 Cities and Counties with
Local Noise Ordinances
CI TIES'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
Milwaukie
N,0
N.O - Police
Dallas
N
N - Police
Monroe
M
M - Police
Portland
E.M.N.O
E - Neighborhood Env.
M,N,0
Salem
N
N - Police
West Linn
N
N - Police
Winston
M
M - Police
Multnomah Co,
0
0 - Police
ALASKA
Anchorage
E.M.N
E - Health & Env. Protection
E- Environmental land use
N- Nuisance
M- Motor Vehicle
O- Offroad Vehicles
21
-------
Drinking
Water Quality
In addition, more emphasis will be placed
on city and county comprehensive land use
plans that will limit sensitive uses near noise
sources.
The Noise Control Program has noise
emission standards for all categories of
licensed motor vehicles. In 1976, the DEQ
began a program of voluntary noise testing
at the air inspection stations in the Portland
area. Approximately 300,000 vehicles have
been screened against state motor vehicle
noise standards using a subjective
procedure, and an additional 12,000 have
been tested using more objective
procedures.
Nevertheless, most of the enforcement of
the state motor vehicle noise inspection
program is at the local level. Portland,
Milwaukie, and West Line refer a motor
vehicle to the inspection stations for noise
testing when the vehicle is stopped for
violating the city's noise ordinance. The
citation is dropped if the vehicle is repaired
or passes the inspection. In Eugene,
Monroe, and Winston, law enforcement
officers trained by DEQ enforce motor
vehicle noise standards. Portland is the only
Oregon city enforcing noise standards from
residential, commercial, and industrial
sources. Table 6 lists the cities and counties in
Oregon, as well as Alaska and Washington,
that have passed noise ordinances, and
indicates the level of enforcement by the
agencies responsible.
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. The Safe Drinking Water
Act Regulations address two types of
water systems—community water systems
which serve resident populations and non-
community water systems which serve
non-resident populations in such facilities
as campgrounds and highway rest stops.
Nationally, there are 60,000 community
water systems and an estimated 200,000
non-community water systems. In order to
phase in the Safe Drinking Water Act
Regulations in an orderly manner, the
Regulations became effective for
community water systems in 1977 and for
non-community water systems in mid-
1979.
Congress intended that the Act be
implemented by the States. As Oregon
chose not to implement a state program
at this time, EPA initiated a drinking water
program in mid-1977, is currently working
directly with the State's 950 community
water systems, and soon will initiate a
non-community water system program.
The Safe Drinking Water Act regulations
address contaminants which cause both
acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
diseases Microbiological contaminants
turbidity (which increases the risk
associated with microbiological
contaminants), and nitrate all may result in
disease if contaminated water is consumed
only once or for a very short time Heavy
metals, pesticides, and radiochemicals, at
the low levels commonly found in drinking
water, result in disease only if
contaminated water is consumed for
several years or more Therefore. EPA has
emphasized the acute contaminants,
particularly bacteria, in implementing the
community water system program in Oregon
Figures 24a and b show the degree of
compliance attained in Oregon in 1978 for
EPA regulations for microbiological
contaminants. Although only 380
community systems (41 percent) comply
with regulations, these systems serve 64
percent of the state's population using
community water systems Data for 51
percent of the systems, serving 640.000
people, are insufficient to judge compliance
Eight percent of the community systems,
serving approximately 4 percent of the
population, experience major or minor
violations.
The Safe Drinking Water Act regulations
only address finished water quality
characteristics which are evaluated by
periodically analyzing drinking water
samples. There are many other factors in
providing safe drinking water, such as
water utility service planning, construction
plan review, operator training, emergency
planning, and other preventive public
health programs. EPA is encouraging
Oregon to develop a comprehensive state
program to include such measures. These
matters are particularly important to
Oregon's smaller public water systems for
which water quality data are not adequate
to determine compliance with the
22
-------
regulations. Of Oregon's 950 community
water systems, 625 serve less than 500
persons and comprise the majority of the
systems violating monitoring requirements.
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 25a 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 24.
Compliance with EPA Drinking Water
Standards
a. Community Water Systems
Groundwater Protection
Many communities and individuals obtain
their drinking water from wells and springs
(groundwater). EPA has several programs
designed to protect groundwater resources,
including an ongoing nationwide
assessment of potential for groundwater
contamination from surface impoundments
(such as ponds and sewage lagoons). The
surface impoundment inventory will provide
a data base for preventing contamination
from these sources.
Figure 25.
a. Regional Summary Based on Percentage
of Community Water Systems
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
300 600 900 1200 1500
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
b. Persons Served by
Community Water Systems
POPULATION SERVED (IN THOUSANDS)
500 1000 1500 2000
2500
3500
4000
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
HI
IL
U
_
¦¦
I
I
i i
b. Regional Summary Based on Population
Served by Community Water Systems
11 IN COMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT LEVELS
J MINOR (1 MONTH) VIOLATION OF CONTAMINANT LEVEL
MAJOR (2 OR MORE MONTHS) VIOLATION OF CONTAMINANT LEVEL
SUFFICIENT DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
¦ IN COMPLIANCE
] MINOR VIOLATIONS
| MAJOR VIOLATIONS
I INADEQUATE DATA
23
-------
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 landfill operations. In the past, municipal
landfills have often been open dumps Open
burning of wastes has been virtually
eliminated from Region 10, but many environ-
mental 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
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.
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 daily cover and proper
compaction, will reduce many of these
problems.
Resource Recovery
RCRA provides financial assistance for
cities and public solid waste management
authorities to develop and implement
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. Lane County,
Oregon, and Tacoma, Washington, are
testing RDF plants. Portland and Roseburg,
Oregon, and Cowlitz County. Snohomish
County, and King County. Washington, are
also studying the feasibility of converting
waste energy. The economics of recycled
materials are typically very good in the
Portland and Puget Sound areas, but
recycling programs in Idaho and Alaska
suffer from higher transportation costs
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.
Hazardous Materials
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) 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 26
shows locations of disposal sites in
Region 10.
Compared to other parts of the country,
there are fewer industrial sources of
hazardous waste in Region 10. Most of it 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.
24
-------
Figure 26.
Location of Hazardous Waste and
Recovery Sites in Region 10
^ CHEMICAL/WASTE OIL PROCESSORS
¦ OPERATING CHEMICAL LAND FILLS
~ PROPOSED CHEMICAL LAND FILLS
A CONSTRUCTED RDF PLANTS
A ENERGY RECOVERY PLANT FEASIBILITY
STUDY UNDERWAY
0 WASTE EXCHANGES
O LOCALITY WHERE RECYCLING FACILITY
AVAILABLE (MORE THAN ONE TYPE
HOUSEHOLD WASTE-GLASS PAPER
ALUMINUM ETC I
NOTE: State of Alaska is represented at
approximately 30% of true scale
.VHATCOM I OKANOGAN
STEVENS
•HOMISH \
•r*tl J
(CHELAN
UAILA
EHCE/ \ " \ [
'RSTON < —U, \
®LEWi' ® / Q
A/ WALLA \
YAKIMA ©
tnomam
? WASCO
MARION
BENTON I
o
I DESCHUTES
vAMh
GIL l 1AM
PAVFTTl
BANNOt
,JACKSON
JOSEPHINE! A
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
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.
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 feedstock
for another product. Regulations determine
how some substances are used; for instance,
labeling and disposal procedures have been
established for the mo're 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 addition 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.
25
-------
Radiation
As Figure 27 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 27 are based on national
statistics, but are representative for
Region 10 as well.
Figure 27.
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
250
AVERAGE U.S. CITIZEN S ANNUAL EXPOSURE.
IN MILLIREMS
INDUSTRIAL VARIOUS
NUCLEAR POWER 002
PRODUCTS 025
127
FALL-OUT 2
125
MEDICAL'DENTAL 20
105
NATURAL. COSMIC 45
60
NATURAL. TERRESTRIAL 60
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. Conven-
tional 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.
The law that gives EPA authority to regulate
pesticides is 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.
The EPA and state agencies work together to
regulate the manufacture and use of
pesticides. During 1979, EPA had
cooperative enforcement agreements with the
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington State
Departments of Agriculture. This means
that primary enforcement responsibilities
covering such things as fines, restricting use,
and suspending licenses, rest with the state,
but EPA can take further action if warranted.
The major thrust of the FIFRA program is
directed toward pesticide users. Since 1976,
EPA has worked with the states in developing
training and certification programs.
Applicators of restricted use pesticides
(pesticides with greater potential for
causing adverse effects) must be certified to
ensure that they are competent in the use
of these pesticides. EPA and the states
combine efforts to see that pesticides are
being used according to label directions.
After pesticides are used, the Food and Drug
Administration is responsible for checking
that pesticide residues on raw agricultural
commodities are within required limits.
Environmental monitoring for pesticides,
through the offices of EPA, is conducted by
certain state health departments through
EPA grants.
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.
26
-------
Photo Credits
Cover (upper loft) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Cover (upper right) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Cover (lower loft) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Paqe 1 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Paqe6 (upper) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 7 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 8 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 9 (left) C Bruce Forster. Portland. Oregon
Paqe9(right) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 10 Documenca
Page 12 flower left) Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 16 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page 19 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Page?? O Bruce Forster. Portland Oregon
Paqe?3 Oregon State Highway Travel Section
Paqe 24 Documerica
------- |