EPA 910/9-87-168
United States	Region 10	EPA
Environmental Protection	1200 Sixth Avenue	Oregon Operations Office
Agency	Seattle WA 96101	Portland OR	
Office of the Regional Administrator
&ERA Environmental Programs in
Oregon
An EPA Report
1987

-------
INTRODUCTION
EPA is often regarded by the public as an invisible agency that only
materializes in the event of catastrophic environmental spills. In truth,
EPA, and the federal environmental laws it administers, are an unseen
presence in almost every phase of Oregon life. EPA does not work alone. In
nearly every major environmental program a close working relationship exists
between EPA and its counterpart state agencies. EPA and its state partners
monitor the air we breathe, the water we drink, the disposal of our sewage,
and the by-products of industry that provide us with goods and jobs.
The reason for EPA's existence is clear: the American public wants
clean water, air, and soil. Public opinion surveys reveal an impatience
with the pace of cleanup, along with a willingness to pay "whatever 1t
takes" to achieve a clean environment.
The most comprehensive environmental laws are the product of federal
action, such as the Clean Water Act and Superfund. Most of the federal
environmental statutes have state counterparts, many of them predating the
federal acts. In fact, Oregon has been in the forefront of many
environmental initiatives which later were embodied In federal law. Our
national experience with environmental regulation has consistently
emphasized the key responsibility of the states. States have assumed a lead
role in many of the environmental monitoring, inspection, reporting,
permitting and enforcement functions. The federal government retains
oversight responsibility for these activities and provides substantial grant
funding and technical assistance. At present, Oregon agencies, particularly
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ>. have assumed direct
responsibility for approximately 75% of the federal programs. A listing of
grant funding provided by EPA to support state environmental programs is
included at the end of this report.
Delegation has certain clear implications for Oregon. Staffs and
budgets may have to grow. Cooperation, communication, and trust between EPA
and state counterpart agencies become critical to ensure that the ultimate
goals of all environmental programs - better health and a better place to
live - are kept in view. The citizens of Oregon justifiably pride
themselves on the environmental richness of their state. The high
professional standards and dedication of state employees, along with an
effective state-federal partnership, have contributed much to an improved
natural environment.
This report will Introduce pertinent environmental programs and then
highlight the most pressing issues. This document should not be considered
the definitive reference for federal and state environmental laws and
programs 1n Oregon. For further information the following senior EPA
personnel should be consulted:
Regional Administrator
Deputy Regional Administrator
Oregon Operations Office Director
Regional Counsel
Air and Toxics Director
Environmental Services Director
Hazardous Waste Director
Management Division Director
Water Division Director
Robie G. Russell	(206)	442-5810
-Ralph R. Bauer	(206)	442-5810
Michael Gearheard	(503)	221-3280
James Moore	(206)	442-1073
Gary O'Neal	(206)	442-4152
Robert Courson	(206)	442-1295
Charles Findley	(206)	442-1906
Nora McGee	(206)	442-1233
Robert Burd	(206)	442-1237

-------
AIR PROGRAM
The air programs are designed to protect and improve air quality in
Oregon. EPA sets national ambient air quality standards for major
pollutants and each state develops a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
achieve and maintain the standards. The Oregon SIP includes regulations on
major industrial emissions, inspection/maintenance programs for motor
vehicles in Portland and Medford, smoke management plans for field and slash
burning, and rules pertaining to domestic wood stoves. The Oregon SIP has
been successful in promoting good air quality in the state, but some of the
major cities (Portland, Eugene, Salem, Medford, and Grants Pass) still
exceed ambient standards for one or more pollutants. The existing SIP is
expected to remedy these problems except for Medford and possibly Portland.
The situations in those cities and other principal air quality issues are
discussed below.
Medford Air Shed
The Medford area 1s located 1n a valley ringed with mountains. The
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and wood stoves, abetted by poor
air dispersion, result in some of the worst air quality in the nation for
carbon monoxide and suspended particulates. The air quality standard for
total suspended particulates (TSP) was violated 39 times in 1985 in
Medford. Woodstove emissions account for 27% of the emissions and have
become the main target of remedial efforts.
Over the years, carbon monoxide levels have frequently exceeded the air
quality standards. To solve this problem, DEQ recently implemented a
vehicle inspection and maintenance program similar to the program in
Portland. The Medford program is projected to provide sufficient additional
reduction in tailpipe emissions to attain standards within a few years. The
program will also further reduce ozone levels, which are already meeting the
ai r quali ty standards.
Strategies to attain the standards for suspended particulates
originally focused on industrial emissions and certain less important
sources. In the last several years wood stoves have been identified as a
major additional source. It seems clear that reductions in current stove
emissions are needed to attain standards. DEQ's current program, among the
most progressive in the nation, requires new wood stoves to meet tight
emission standards. However, it will take years for the cleaner new stoves
to replace existing unimproved models.
In an effort to control existing wood stoves, the City of Medford
passed an ordinance providing for mandatory curtailment of wood stove use
during pollution episodes and for mandatory weatherization of homes before
sale. However, the mandatory curtailment program has been replaced with a
voluntary program and mandatory weatherization has been repealed DEQ is
now exploring two additional approaches. First, the Department is working
with the local electric utility to establish lower rates for home owners
with wood stoves. A pilot program of this type has been initiated in
California. Secondly, DEQ has proposed the replacement of existing wood
stoves in Medford with clean burning models. Funding would be provided by
2

-------
money avai'able to the state from the settlement of federal price-fixing
lawsuits against certain oil companies. This proposal, along with other
proposals from various agencies, has been reviewed by the Oregon Department
of Energy and has been referred to the Governor's Office.
Portland Ozone
Ozone Is a result of sunlight interacting with hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides in the air. The hydrocarbons are mostly byproducts of
incomplete automobile engine combustion. Gasoline has also become more
volatile, releasing more hydrocarbons, as a result of lead-substitute octane
additives. The Portland metropolitan area exceeds the ozone standard about
once a year. An average of one exceedance (violation of the standard) per
year is allowed under the law. During the unusually hot summer of 1986,
however, three exceedances occurred, causing some concern about the adequacy
of current control strategies. Data for Portland do not give assurance that
attainment of the ozone standard will be achieved by the statutory deadline
(December 31, 1987). This has raised some important questions:
1.	Have unusually hot summers (the prime condition for ozone
production) merely been a temporary obstacle?
2.	Have other sources (slash and field burning, unregulated point
sources) contributed to the problem?
3.	Will the world-wide greenhouse effect and resulting increased
temperatures make ozone accumulation even more common in the
future?
DEQ Is projecting attainment of the ozone standard by the end of 1987,
the deadline established by federal law. If exceedances continue,
additional controls may be needed. The most likely candidates are reduction
in gasoline volatility through process changes at the refineries, and
additional gasoline vapor controls either at service stations or through
vehicle modifications.
Slash and Field Burning
When a forest is logged a large amount of natural debris (slash) is
left behind. It is not considered economical to remove the slash so it is
burned to make room for the new growth. Slash burns generate high smoke
plumes that travel great distances. The Oregon Department of Forestry
implements a smoke management plan designed to minimize smpke intrusions
into populated areas, but less populated areas frequently experience heavy
intrusions.
After grass seed is harvested in the Willamette Valley and elsewhere,
the stubble is burned in the fields to destroy disease organisms and to
prepare for replanting. DEQ manages the burning operations and is effective
in steering the smoke away from Urge cities but, again, less populated
areas frequently suffer.
3

-------
A1- monitoring by DEO shows that slash and field burning do not cause
exceedances of the air quality standards. Nonetheless, this burning causes
a major nuisance for those living in the path of the plumes. Recently there
has been concern about herbicides used on slash to dry the material before
burning, so-called "brown and burn". DEQ has begun to investigate whether
this practice creates toxic combustion products that constitute a health
problem.
Grass seed growers are charged a fee to burn their fields. The money
is used to finance OEQ's smoke management operation and to research field
burning alternatives. The research is directed at developing alternative
crops, less severe burning techniques, other means of sanitizing fields, and
commercial uses for the grass stubble. While progress is being made, it
will take years to produce an appreciable effect.
The 1985 Oregon Legislature directed DEO to conduct a study into the
health effects of field burning. This study is underway and is projected
for completion in early 1987.
New Particulate Standard (PMm)
The current air quality standards for suspended particulates include a
large range of particle sizes but do not emphasize the small particles which
most easily penetrate deep within the lungs. Accordingly, EPA has proposed
revisions to the standards to focus on particulate matter 10 microns and
less in diameter, hence the designation PM^g. Promulgation of the
standards is anticipated in 1987.
Depending on the level at which the final standard is set there may be
several cities where the standard is exceeded. This will require additions
to the SIP to provide attainment strategies for the problem cities. The
strategies could require tighter control of industrial sources and reduction
in wood stove use. Also, if field or slash burning causes exceedances of
the PMio standard, changes in those operations may be necessary.
The lesson we are learning is that a few belching smoke stacks are not
the source of our air problems. Climate, geography, lifestyles, and a
variety of livelihoods all contribute to adverse air quality. As citizen
demands for clean air increase and as science expands its knowledge of
pollutant sources and effects, government must accelerate its efforts to
keep pace.
4

-------
HAZAROOUS WASTE
Superfund
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) is the federal law governing cleanup of locations where
hazardous wastes have been improperly dumped or released. The law provides
for recovery of cleanup costs from responsible parties. It also imposes a
tax on Industrial waste generators. This revenue (the so-called
"Superfund") may then be applied to cleanup costs.
The cleanup process involves identification and listing of potentially
eligible sites. These sites are then scored by means of a formula that
evaluates the relative danger of the toxic wastes to human health and the
environment. Sites with scores exceeding an established threshold are then
placed on the National Priority List (NPL) as eligible for federal cleanup.
Oregon currently has five sites on the NPL:
-	Martin Marietta (The Dalles)
-	United Chrome (Corvallis)
-	Gould (Northwest Portland)
-	Teledyne Wah Chang (Mi 11ersburg)
-	Umati11a Army Oepot
Federal law requires states to provide 10% matching funds for cleanups
financed by Superfund. United Chrome is the only NPL site in Oregon
currently expected to require Superfund financing. Revenue for this
matching fund is generated by a 1935 state law that imposes a $10 per ton
"tipping" or disposal fee at the Arlington Hazardous Waste Facility. As
other sites are added to the NPL, revenue needs for state matching funds
will increase.
The 1985 Oregon Legislature also provided additional support for a
viable state program. Staff has been authorized and hired and an EPA
employee has been detailed to the state as a program manager. Dedication of
these resources to hazardous waste cleanup has already resulted in a
Memorandum of Understanding between Oregon and EPA that schedules the
assumption of some Superfund responsibilities by the state.
The development of experience and technical expertise within the
state's staff has become even more critical after passage of the Superfund
reauthorization of 1986. Federal law now favors permanent, on-site
Superfund solutions to replace the practice of hauling waste from one
location to another. Permanency therefore will require more sophisticated,
more expensive treatments. The state, in order to effectively fulfill its
role in approving Superfund feasibility plans, must be prepared with
knowledgeable staff and a dependable funding source.
Oregon's preparation for an increased Superfund role will be further
stimulated by the number of potential sites. As of October 31, 1986,
CERCLIS, the inventory of potential hazardous waste sites, listed 202
locations in Oregon, including those on the NPL. This number will likely
increase by 75-100 during the coming year. Even if the sites do not qualify
for the NPL and Superfund financing, some degree of remedial cleanup will
probably be needed.
5

-------
Fesource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is designed to avoid
creation of future Superfund sites by regulating wastes from creation to
disposal ("cradle to grave"). The program licenses treatment, storage, and
disposal sites to accept hazardous wastes only if the operators can
demonstrate that they have adequate technology, appropriate management
practices, and sufficient financial resources to minimize the chance that
they will become environmental hazards.
In 1984 Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
to RCRA. The scope of the program was expanded immensely to cover hundreds
of small quantity generators previously exempted. The new law also mandated
the phaseout of land disposal of hazardous waste, added new requirements for
double liner and leachate collection systems for surface impoundments, and
placed new controls on the burning and blending of used oil and hazardous
waste fuels.
The State of Oregon has made remarkable progress in building its
hazardous waste program during the past three years. OEQ has been granted
delegation of the original RCRA program effective January, 1986. However,
EPA will continue to administer the 1984 HSWA requirements in Oregon until
the state qualifies for further program delegation. Qualification will
require legislative and budget authority in order to provide the legal and
resource foundation for a successful program. Additional technical
capability, particularly in groundwater monitoring, will be necessary to
effectively regulate prior releases and prescribe corrective action, as
provided by HSWA. HSWA is among the most complicated programs ever
established by Congress; the transition to a fully delegated state program
will require careful attention by both state and federal administrators.
HATER PROGRAMS
Major federal efforts to regulate water pollution began in the 1960's.
Real momentum was gained in 1972 with the passage of the Clean Water Act and
in 1974 through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Water pollution control in
Oregon, however, long antedated federal programs. As early as 1938 the
State Sanitary Authority was formed to clean up the Willamette River.
Historically, federal and state programs have been primarily concerned
with surface waters (rivers, lakes and streams) and controlling "point
source" pollution. Thus, municipal sewage treatment plants are regulated
and sophisticated treatment is required. Large industrial sources, such as
pulp mills or aluminum plants, must operate under a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) permit that limits pollutants and may
require pretreatment of wastes to reduce their toxicity. In the drinking
water program, community water systems must monitor their sources for
certain contaminants, provide for laboratory testing, and report water
quality to the state on a frequent — sometimes daily — basis. A variety
of remedial and enforcement measures are available in the event of
non-compliance.
6

-------
Substantial progress has been made in regulating municipal and
industrial pollution sources. Meanwhile, a thornier problem has become
evident in the form of non-point source pollution. Septic tanks, livestock
waste, runoff from agricultural lands, and urban runoff are among the many
contributors to non-point source pollution. Sources are difficult to
identify and government agencies have had limited success in developing
control strategies. Issues of local land use and fundamental lifestyle
patterns are among the obstacles to minimizing non-point source pollution.
Cooperative community efforts have achieved some control of non-point
sources — the successful program to control animal waste at dairy farms
around Tillamook Bay is a noteworthy example. A recent survey of Oregon's
lakes and streams suggested that over 50% of the surface waterways were
severely or moderately Impaired by non-point source pollution, and over 207.
of the state's smaller lakes (under 5,000 acres) were moderately impaired by
non-point sources.
Non-point sources, groundwater contamination, and the increasing
burdens of urban development will continue to pose problems for the
foreseeable future.
Sensitive Rivers
Under the Clean Water Act, the state has primary responsibility for
designating the beneficial uses of its waterways (e.g., recreation, fish
spawning) and then establishing water quality criteria designed to protect
those beneficial uses. States are also expected to set limits for allowable
pollutant loadings In rivers and streams that are particularly sensitive to
pollution impacts. A pollutant load exceeding these limits may threaten the
stream's ability to support beneficial uses.
Portions of certain river basins, including the Tualatin River, South
Umpqua River, Bear Creek, and others, violate water quality standards at
certain times of the year. The reasons for the violations vary and often
are not fully understood, but may include inadequate sewage treatment
capacity, non-point source pollution (animal waste, runoff from agricultural
lands and increased urbanization), and even reduced stream flow from
naturally occurring conditions.
DEQ, with EPA support, has embarked on an initiative to improve water
quality in these rivers. Each river must be studied to design a remedy
tailored to local conditions. The potential solutions are river-specific
and could include more stringent municipal and industrial discharge limits,
non-point source controls, or other measures. So far, efforts have focused
on defining the most seriously polluted rivers in Oregon. The severity of
water quality problems is being estimated and causes of pollution are being
identified. The current studies on the Tualatin River will help to develop
approaches for solving these complex water quality problems throughout
Oregon. The systematic river by river approach is being challenged in a
lawsuit which alleges that both EPA and the state have failed to establish
adequate and timely pollutant limits for Oregon rivers.
7

-------
Groundwater
The Intensive pollution control programs of the past two decades
focused almost exclusively on rivers and lakes, not groundwater. In recent
years public health and environmental officials have grown increasingly
concerned about contamination of our groundwater supplies. The value of
this resource, particularly for agriculture and drinking water, is well
known. Approximately one-half of the nation's population relies on
groundwater as a drinking water source. Incidents of serious groundwater
contamination have occurred in Oregon and every other state in the nation.
Groundwater faces contamination from a wide range of sources:
-	Underground storage tanks, such as those at gasoline stations
-	Agricultural run off and Infiltration (pesticides, fertilizer)
-	Septic tanks and cesspools
-	Waste disposal activities (solid and hazardous)
-	Salt water intrusion
The multiple sources of groundwater contamination complicate regulatory
activities. The task becomes more complex due to the extraordinary
difficulty of cleaning up a contaminated underground water-bearing layer
(aquifer). In many cases damage is irreversible; cleanup, where possible,
may take years and Is often extremely expensive.
State and federal agencies have found groundwater contamination in
several areas In Oregon. Aquifers in the Portland and Eugene areas, on the
coast, in the Willamette Valley, and east of the Cascades are polluted from
agricultural chemicals, septic tanks, and cesspools. Cleanup efforts are
addressing cesspool contamination in East Multnomah County and septic tank
contamination in the River Road/Santa Clara area of Eugene. These projects,
while effective, are reminiscent of early efforts to control surface water
pollution. They are site- and source-specific and do not reflect any
comprehensive, systematic groundwater protection strategy.
Both organizationally and legally, groundwater regulatory efforts are
complex. In Oregon, at least four state agencies have some involvement with
groundwater. The legal authority and administrative concerns of each are
different. This piecemeal approach is further complicated by the federal
laws that create environmental programs. Both hazardous waste laws (RCRA
and Superfund) are fundamentally groundwater protection statutes In
addition, the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1986 require state programs
to protect drinking water wells. The Clean Water Act reauthorization which
was recently vetoed also contained groundwater provisions. A similar bill
is likely to be considered by the new Congress. Moreover, a proposed
revision of the federal pesticides law will further crowd the groundwater
arena.
In many ways groundwater pollution control is at about the same level
of capability and sophistication that surface water pollution control
efforts were 15 or 20 years ago. Staff technical capability is needed,
monitoring networks must be set up, a full description of existing pollution
problems must be assembled, and programs to prevent future problems set in
place. DEQ is now working to develop a statewide groundwater protection
strategy. EPA supports this effort since a close state-federal inter-agency
working relationship is essential.
8

-------
Drinking Water
The drinking water program established by the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) has two parts. First, to insure high quality tap water, EPA sets
water purity standards. Second, the water supplier must monitor the quality
of the water delivered to the consumer and treat that water, if necessary,
to assure that water quality standards are met. During the first 12 years
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA developed standards for 26 contaminants,
including metals, turbidity (a measure of particles or cloudiness In the
water), and bacteria. Responsibility for enforcing these standards
originally resided with EPA. For the last year, however, the Oregon State
Health Division, Department of Human Resources, has enforced these standards
as part of Its direct supervisory responsibility for the protection of
public water supplies in the state.
Along with its assumption of these program duties, the Health Division
must now face the challenge presented by amendments to the SDWA passed last
June. Provisions of the new law require EPA to establish standards for 83
named contaminants by 1989, and 25 more by 1991. Two other provisions
require the state to determine which systems will be required to add
filtration of surface supplies and disinfection of all other drinking water
supplies. These technology-based measures may require substantial capital
investment for affected community water systems.
Determining which systems require mandatory treatment plus enforcing
the new standards will be both difficult and expensive for the already
strained resources of the Health Division. Moreover, local water systems
will bear the added burden of monitoring and controlling all of these newly
regulated contaminants. Small water systems, lacking the resources and
expertise to meet federally mandated regulations, appear to pose the
greatest challenge.
PESTICIDES
Although pesticides help produce greater yields and better quality
agricultural products, they pose an enormous potential health risk to
pesticide applicators and to the general public. State and federal
regulatory efforts focus on identifying the health risks associated with
specific chemicals and selectively banning or restricting pesticide use
through labeling or other mechanisms. These efforts make sense, but the
overall level of budget support is barely adequate considering the scope of
chemical application and the potential for accidents and misuse. As we
learn more about groundwater contamination, experts predict that leachable
pesticides will take center stage as the principal pollutants of this vital
source of drinking water.
The federal grant resources for pesticides regulation in Oregon are
devoted mostly to training and certification of pesticides applicators
Little is left over for enforcement, which includes import inspections,
labeling and container violations, as well as investigation of
misapplication and misuse.
Pesticide regulation remains a major challenge for the state and EPA
A re-authorization of FIFRA (The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act) will soon begin its journey through Congress. The new bill
carries the potential for a dramatic alteration of the regulatory structure
for pesticides.
9

-------
FEDERAL FUNDING
EPA PROGRAM GRANT FUNDING FOR DEO
$ (Thousands)
6500
Federal Funds By Media and Total
6000
Hazardous Waste
5500
5000
Water
Total
4500 ¦¦
4000
3500 -•
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
1980
1981
1983
1986
1982
1984
1987
In addition to these program grants for DEQ, EPA has provided the following:
Since 1980, EPA has contributed to the Oregon Department of Agriculture
an average of $190,000 annually for pesticides enforcement and for the
applicator training and certification program.
Subsequent to the delegation of the drinking water program to the Oregon
State Health Division in 1986, EPA's grant for the 1985-86 state biennium
will be approximately $940,000. Funding at roughly this level is
expected to continue under the amended SDWA.
Since 1981, EPA has averaged $29,145,000 in annual grants to
municipalities for the construction of sewage treatment facilities A
comparable sum is projected for FY 1987, assuming passage of the Clean
Nater Act reauthorization by the new Congress.

-------