clean
water
REPOI
TO
COOG
U.S. ENVIRONME
WASHINGTON, D. C
-------
dean
water
REPORT
TO
COflGR6//-1974
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
June 1974
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
June 30, 1974
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President:
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, as required by Section 516(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the second of a series of annual reports covering
measures taken to implement the objectives of the Act. The report covers calendar year
1973 except for grants, which are reported on a fiscal year basis.
Highlights of the report include:
• In fiscal year 1973, EPA made municipal construction grant awards of
approximately $3 billion of which $1.6 billion was awarded from fiscal years
1973/74 funds.
• Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, 2,037 municipal
and industrial permits were issued and 6,266 draft permits were forwarded to
States for certification.
• 531 Federal enforcement actions were initiated or pursued in 1973; most
concerned oil and hazardous substances liability.
• A study of the operation of municipal waste treatment works shows that: 71
percent need follow-up actions to correct operational, mechanical or manpower
deficiencies; 21 percent are hydraulically overloaded; 21 percent do not have
adequate laboratory facilities and/or adequate laboratory testing programs; and
30 percent do not meet BODs design criteria, 50 percent do not meet
suspended solids design criteria, and 21 percent do not meet settleable solids
design criteria.
• Of the 3,155 waterway segments classified, 1,546 should be able to meet water
quality standards using secondary treatment for municipal plants and best
practicable treatment for industrial plants; 1,609 are expected to require more
stringent controls.
• A study of the 22 largest and most populated waterways concludes that the
poorest water quality and worsening trends are associated with nitrogen and
phosphorus. Pollutants that have received the most widespread control,
including oxygen-demanding loads and bacteria, show general improvement.
• Reports were published identifying methods, processes and procedures to
control nonpoint source pollution from agriculture, silviculture, mining
activities, construction activities, excavation disposal, salt water intrusion, and
hydrographic modifications.
-------
-2-
• Effluent limitation guidelines, performance standards and pretreatment
standards were published for 23 industrial categories.
• Regulations were initiated or completed covering oil and hazardous substances.
In the last 8 months of 1973, EPA received reports of 1,5^0 significant spills
that involved 5.3 million gallons of oil and 746 tons of hazardous substances.
• Research studies of a broad variety were completed.
• Nine toxic pollutants were identified and standards have been proposed which
will prohibit the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
A summary of manpower training activities, normally included in this series of
reports, was transmitted to the Congress separately on January 17,1974.
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
Federal Role 1
State Role 4
Role of Other Government Entities 5
Role of Industry 5
Role of the Public 5
II. Water Quality, Monitoring and Planning 7
Nature of Water Pollution 7
Monitoring and Extent of Water Pollution 8
Water Quality Planning 10
Nonpoint Source Control 14
III. Grants to State and Local Governments 17
Construction Grants for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works 17
State Program Grants 19
IV. Regulation 27
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 27
Oil and Hazardous Substances 30
Marine Pollution 31
Disposal of Dredge or Fill Materials 33
Enforcement 34
V. Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations 37
Water Quality Standards 37
Effluent Limitations 37
VI. Research and Development 45
Health Effects Program 45
Ecological Processes and Effects Programs 46
Municipal Pollution Control 48
Industrial Pollution Control 50
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 51
Equipment and Techniques Program 52
Quality Assurance Program 52
Data and Information Research Program 52
Environmental Management Research Program 53
Technology Transfer 54
iii
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VII. Efficiency of Treatment Works 55
Data Collection and Methodology 55
Performance of Group A Plants 55
Performance of Group B Plants 56
Analysis 58
Operation and Maintenance 61
Appendix A—Enforcement Actions Pending or Completed During Calendar Year 1973
Under PL 92-500, Section 309 (Federal Enforcement) A-l
Appendix B—Enforcement Actions Pending or Completed During Calendar Year 1973
Under PL 92-500, Section 311 (Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability) B-l
Appendix C—Enforcement Actions Pending or Completed During Calendar Year 1973
Initiated Under Previous Legislation and Saved Under PL 92-500 C-l
Appendix D—Enforcement Actions Pending or Completed During Calendar Year 1973
Under Refuse Act D-l
Appendix E—Enforcement Actions Pending or Completed During Calendar Year 1973
Under Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(Ocean Dumping) E-l
iv
-------
I. Introduction
Evidence of water pollution can be found in
virtually every large population center and,
increasingly, in rural areas. The pollution comes
from many sources and exists in many forms—
from oil slicks and floating debris assailing the
eyes to subtle changes in the aquatic environ-
ment that may affect the water's odor and taste.
Public concern about the condition of our
Nation's waters has stimulated a broad and
vigorous national effort to control and abate the
pollution. Although Federal policies and pro-
grams provide direction to the effort, all levels
of Government, industry, and the general public
play major roles.
FEDERAL ROLE
Federal responsibilities are exercised primarily
through the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). They encompass—particularly
since enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972—a broad
range of authorities. On one hand, they encour-
age compliance through grants and other types
of assistance. On the other, they require compli-
ance through regulatory programs.
Assistance Programs. EPA conducts several
assistance programs. The programs include
grants for waste water treatment works, grants
for program development, technical assistance,
and manpower development.
The construction grants program is by far the
largest, involving $2 billion in Federal funds in
fiscal year 1973, $3 billion in 1974, and $4
billion in 1975. The level of assistance has
gradually increased since the first permanent
Federal pollution control legislation was enacted
in 1956. Today, the Federal s^iare is 75 percent
of a project's costs. A variety of projects are
eligible for funding including treatment plants
and interceptor sewers.
EPA also provides program grants to assist
States and interstate agencies expand and im-
prove a variety of activities essential to the
control of water pollution. The activities include
water quality planning and standards setting,
surveillance, enforcement, issuance of permits,
executive management, and administration of
the construction grants program. The level of
assistance varies from one activity to another, as
well as from year to year. In fiscal year 1973,
the States spent about $77 million on these
activities, of which $20 million was in Federal
assistance.
Technical assistance is another program re-
ceiving major EPA attention. Many pollution
problems are too complex for States, commu-
nities, and industries to handle alone. EPA
assists in such cases by providing services ranging
from technical advice and consultation to exten-
sive long-term field and laboratory studies.
Within the limits of available resources, this
assistance is provided on request, primarily to
the States and municipalities.
As might be expected, the rapid expansion of
pollution control activities has placed a strain
upon the supply of trained manpower. In
providing assistance, EPA pursues a number of
approaches. These include providing short-term
training by EPA staff to upgrade the skills of
those already in the field, and employing a
variety of ways to train sewage treatment plant
operators. EPA will submit a report to Congress
in January 1974 covering manpower develop-
ment and training activities.
Regulatory Programs. Effective and equitable
regulatory programs are essential elements of the
Nation's pollution control effort. Such programs
are necessary not only to assure compliance, but
to provide equity to those who have voluntarily
assumed the often costly burden of control.
From the start of the Federal control program
in 1948, Congress recognized the basic role of
the States in implementing and enforcing prater
1
-------
The responsibility to control and abate water pollution is shared by all levels of government, industry and
the general public.
pollution control requirements. Federal legisla-
tion, however, asserts Federal regulatory author-
ity to supplement and back up the States. Over
the years, this regulatory role has been expanded
and strengthened.
Until 1972, water quality standards author-
ized by the 1965 Act were the keystone"Of a
combined Federal-State regulatory program.
These standards consisted of two parts: (1)
criteria designed to protect present and future
uses of interstate waters through establishment
of quality levels, and (2) a plan of implementa-
tion and enforcement outlining the pollution
abatement measures required to meet those
criteria. All States established standards for their
interstate waters. In turn, these were accepted as
Federal standards subject, if necessary, to
Federal enforcement.
The 1972 Act strengthened the Federal and
State regulatory functions by requiring point
source discharges—primarily municipal and
industrial dischargers—to achieve effluent limita-
tions. Several types of effluent limitations are
imposed:
• Existing industrial dischargers must use
"best practicable" water pollution control
technology by mid-1977 and "best avail-
able" by mid-1983.
• New industrial dischargers must use "best
available demonstrated control tech-
nology."
• Industries that discharge into municipal
systems pollutants not susceptible to treat-
ment by the municipal plants must meet
pretreatment effluent standards for these
pollutants.
• Municipal treatment plants must provide a
minimum of secondary treatment by mid-
2
-------
The responsibility to preserve water quality is shared by all levels of government, industry and the general
public. DOCUMERICA—Terry Eiler
3
-------
1977 and "best practicable" treatment by
mid-1983.
• Dischargers must meet toxic pollutant
effluent standards.
• All dischargers must apply more stringent
effluent controls if needed to meet water
quality standards.
To facilitate enforcement of the many new
pollution control requirements, the 1972 Act
replaced former enforcement authorities with
new authorities and provided a new regulatory
scheme. The scheme is based largely on the
imposition of specific requirements through a
system of permits and is termed the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Permit conditions and other require-
ments of the Act are enforceable through EPA
compliance orders and civil suits. Violators are
subject to heavy penalties. A State may assume
the responsibility if it meets certain require-
ments—including the capability and authority to
modify, suspend, or revoke a permit—and has
the powers and procedures necessary for crimi-
nal penalties, injunctive relief, and other
enforcement mechanisms.
The Act also requires Federal agencies to
comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local
pollution control and abatement requirements
to the same extent as any person must comply.
EPA's role stems from the Act and is amplified
in Executive Order 11752. The role includes
review of Federal facilities compliance with
applicable standards, providing guidance to the
Federal agencies for implementing provisions of
the order, providing coordination of Federal
agencies' compliance actions with State and
local agencies, and providing technical advice on
waste treatment technology.
STATE ROLE
Although the Federal Government has taken an
increasingly greater hand in dealing with water
pollution, the States continue to bear the major
share of the responsibility. States inherently
have broad powers to deal with water pollution.
These powers, together with delegated Federal
authorities, place the States in a strong position
to regulate ail sources of pollution. State powers
and responsibilities under the Act are exercised
through a broad range of activities, including:
• States prepare an annual strategy and pro-
gram report that describes the interim goals
to be achieved during the year, the State
resources to be assigned in meeting the
goals, and the method of assigning re-
sources.
• States prepare basin water quality manage-
ment plans, as required by Section 303(e)
of the 1972 Act. These plans are designed
to be Hie central management tools of the
States in administering their water quality
programs.
• States are responsible for reviewing area-
wide waste treatment management plans
called for by Section 208 and prepared by
local agencies.
• States have major responsibilities in the
administration of the construction grants
program, including the responsibility for
assigning priorities to projects eligible for
Federal financial assistance. It is intended
that certain Federal responsibilities such as
review of plans and specifications be trans-
ferred to States as they are able to assume
them. Some States provide funds to assist
communities construct waste treatment
works. Primary responsibility for moni-
toring municipal treatment plants to see
that they operate correctly also rests with
the States.
• States have the basic responsibility for
planning and implementing programs for
control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
• Some States have assumed and others are in
tiie process of assuming responsibility for
the NPDES permit program. States that
have received the responsibility have con-
currently assumed extensive enforcement
responsibilities associated with permit
compliance.
• States and the Federal Government share
responsibility for enforcement.
• States establish and implement water qual-
ity standards. Under the 1972 Act, such
standards are extended to intrastate, as well
as interstate, waters.
• States perform monitoring and surveillance
functions to identify and assefe existing
and potential water pollution problems and
4
-------
also to measure the effectiveness of the
permit and construction grants programs.
ROLE OF OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES
Interstate, regional, and local agencies also par-
ticipate to a major extent in the Nation's effort
to achieve water quality. Their participation is
illustrated by the following involvements:
• Municipalities and regional sanitary author-
ities reduce pollution by building waste
water treatment works. Although the con-
struction of such works is greatly assisted
by Federal grants (and in many instances
by State grants), the local entities are
responsible for formulating and carrying
out the construction plans. After the works
have been completed, the municipalities are
responsible for a continuing program of
operation and maintenance. The impor-
tance of this role cannot be over-
emphasized, since reaching and maintaining
water quality requirements depend signifi-
cantly on the efficient operation of these
municipally owned facilities.
• Regional planning agencies such as Councils
of Government are responsible for estab-
lishing area wide waste treatment manage-
ment plans. These areawide plans are of
particular value where attacking water pol-
lution problems on a wide basis is con-
sidered the most desirable alternative.
• Several interstate agencies and other juris-
dictions such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands re-
ceive EPA State program grants. Through
these grants the agencies conduct a variety
of water pollution control activities.
ROLE OF INDUSTRY
With acceleration of the Nation's pollution
abatement program, industries are faced with
roqjor pollution control expenditures. EPA esti-
mates that about $12 billion will be required to
meet the 1977 goal of "best practicable" control
technology. There is only one specific Federal
financial assistance program for industries, the
small business loan program. In addition, several
incentive programs encourage and support indus-
tries in meeting their treatment requirements.
For example, industries receive indirect financial
assistance through provisions of the Tax Reform
Act of 1969. That Act permits accelerated
amortization of water pollution control facilities
for Federal income tax purposes.
Treatment of industrial wastes in municipal
plants may offer substantial advantages to both
parties, including: providing for more effective
pollution control by encouraging regionaliza-
tion; contributing to cost-effectiveness by loca-
ting responsibility for operation and mainte-
nance within a single authority; and lowering
treatment costs through economies of scale.
Although joint municipal-industrial treatment of
wastes is encouraged, EPA recognizes that there
are problems and is moving to solve them. First,
through pretreatment requirements, the dis-
charge of water pollutants that would upset the
operation of municipal systems, reduce their
effectiveness, or pass through without adequate
treatment will be controlled. Second, industries
are required to reimburse the municipality for
the costs added by treatment of their wastes.
ROLE OF THE PUBJLIC
In the final analysis, the success or failure of the
Nation's water pollution control programs will
depend largely upon an informed public. The
1972 Act emphasizes public involvement by
specifically requiring that both EPA and the
States provide for public participation in the
formulation of programs and policies. After
soliciting comments and suggestions from a
broad spectrum of public opinion—conservation
groups, trade and other organizations, and State
and Federal agencies—EPA adopted final regula-
tions on Aug. 23,1973.
The regulations state EPA's policy and estab-
lish minimum requirements for public participa-
tion. The requirements cover such areas as
technical and informational assistance to citizens
and public groups, notification of hearings,
availability of informational materials, access to
information, and participation in EPA rule-
making.
More detailed public participation require-
ments have been included, where applicable, in
program regulations adopted to implement the
1972 Act. The more detailed requirements cover
the discharge permit program, areawide waste
5
-------
treatment management, and the construction
grants program.
To further promote public understanding and
participation in the water program, EPA is
conducting a nationwide information and educa-
tion program. Under an EPA grant, the Conser-
vation Foundation is conducting a series of
seminars and work shops during 1974. These
2-day seminars are to be held at all 10 EPA
regional offices. Public interest groups, other
organizations, and interested citizens are ex-
pected to participate. The seminars are designed
to encourage the participants to initiate com-
munity work shops throughout the Nation. The
work shops, in turn, will highlight local pollu-
tion problems and promote a "grass roots"
understanding of the various water pollution
control programs.
6
-------
II. Water Quality, Monitoring and Planning
NATURE OF WATER POLLUTION
Any practical description of the nature of water
quality can only be concerned with a very
limited part of all conceivable physical, chemi-
cal, and biological aspects of actual waterbodies.
Typical water quality measurements are, in fact,
oriented toward a small group of commonly
observed pollution problems:
• Harmful substances. A stream may be
polluted by harmful substances in very low
concentrations. A few of these are well
known—heavy metals, pesticides, herbi-
cides, and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's), for example.
• Physical Modification. Aquatic habitats are
sensitive to fluctuations of many physical
characteristics of water, including tempera-
ture and transparency. Temperature fluc-
tuations occurring naturally can be ampli-
fied by human activities through large
discharges of industrial cooling water, such
as from power plants or Bteel mills, from
release of warm surface water held in
reservoirs, or from destruction of shade
trees along stream banks.
• Eutrophication Potential. Relatively
stagnant waters (such as lakes arid slow-
moving estuaries) rich in nutrients can grow
such heavy crops of algae and other aquatic
plants that the water may be seriously
depleted of oxygen. This prevents the
survival of oxygen-sensitive food species
and fish. In extreme cases, floating algal
scum, thick bottom slimes, and odors
result.
• Salinity, Acidity, Alkalinity. Major changes
in the salt content of water can seriously
disrupt aquatic communities and decrease
the value of water for irrigation and water
supply purposes. Acidity changes can be
equally damaging by eliminating many
desirable fish species. Changes in alkalinity
create disruptions ranging from reduced
agricultural production to the fouling of
water pipes.
• Oxygen Depletion. The dissolved oxygen
level is widely considered to be the single
most important indicator of pollution;
actually, there is no reason to consider it
more or less important than indicators such
as toxicity, salinity, and algal population.
Oxygen-consuming or oxygen-demanding
substances come from many sources-
forested and agricultural areas, industrial
and municipal discharges, storm sewers,
sanitary sewer overflows, and bottom sedi-
ments.
• Health Hazards and Aesthetic Degradation.
An assessment of health hazards from
polluted water involves considerable uncer-
tainty because there are unresolved
questions about the die-off rates of patho-
gens in natural waters as well as their
infectiousness for swimmers or other
recreational water users. The evidence for
waterbome toxicity via fish and shellfish is
stronger, at least in the case of relatively
high concentrations of mercury and cad-
mium. Waterbodies can be degraded
aesthetically by increases in murkiness,
color, algae, scums, floating solids and oils,
and odors. Floating solids and oils generally
originate in combined sewer overflows,
storm sewer discharges, and unsewered
runoff. Unpleasant odors can stem from
many sources, including decaying organic
matter and numerous industrial chemicals.
7
-------
An assessment of health hazards from polluted water involves considerable uncertainty because there are
unresolved questions about the die-off rates of pathogens in natural waters as well as their infectiousness for
swimmers or other recreational water users. DOCUMERICA—Bill Strode
MONITORING AND EXTENT OF WATER
POLLUTION
To determine the extent of the Nation's water
pollution problems, the States knd EPA
cooperated in 1973 to produce an inventory and
provisional classification of 3,313 waterway
segments which are polluted or threatened with
pollution:
• 1,546 segments that should be able to meet
water quality standards using point source
controls Congress requires to be available
by 1977. These are the so-called effluent-
limited segments.
• 1,609 segments where more stringent con-
trols might be required to meet standards,
or where new sources might threaten to
degrade water quality. These are the water-
quality-limited segments.
• 158 segments where classification was not
made.
Based on State assessments, 1,343 of the
1,546 effluent-limited segments should be able
to meet standards by 1977. Delays in installing
controls may extend the date beyond 1977 for
the other 203 effluent-limited segments. The
date for clean-up of the 1,609 water-quality-
limited segments will generally extend beyond
1977, and in some cases beyond 1983.
Twenty-Two Major Waterways. As a first step
toward describing the specific quality of the
Nation's navigable waters (required by Section
305(a) of the 1972 Act), EPA selected the 22
largest and most populated waterways for inten-
sive study. These are:
• The 10 longest rivers in the country: the
Missouri, Mississippi, Rio Grande, Yukon,
Arkansas, Colorado, Columbia-Snake,
Ohio, Red, and Brazos Rivers.
8
-------
An EPA study of 22 major waterways shows that the poorest water quality and worsening trends are
associated with nitrogen and phosphorus. DOCUMERICA—Bruce AcAllister
9
-------
• The 10 rivers with the highest volume of
stream flow: the Tennessee, Alabama-
Co osa, Susquehanna, and Willamette
Rivers—in addition to the Mississippi, Ohio,
Columbia, Missouri, Red, and Arkansas
listed above,
• The rivers or harbors on which the 10
largest urban areas are located: Hudson
River-New York Harbor; Los Angeles
Harbor; Lake Michigan shore and other
waters of the Chicago area; Delaware River
(Philadelphia); Detroit River (Detroit);
Sacramento River and San Francisco Bay;
Potomac River (Washington, D.C.); and
Boston Harbor—in addition to the Ohio
River (Pittsburgh) and Mississippi and
Missouri Rivers (St. Louis) listed above.
The study utilized chemical and physical
information from over 1.2 million data values
stored in EPA's computerized data system,
STORET. The data values were taken from
samples collected during the 1963-72 period and
involved 1,300 locations.
The study shows that the poorest water
quality and worsening trends are associated with
nitrogen and phosphorus, the nutrients most
often blamed for eutrophication. On the other
hand, the pollutants that have received the most
widespread controls, including oxygen-
demanding loads and bacteria, are improving:
• For nutrients, up to 54 percent of the
reaches exceed EPA's guidelines for phos-
phorus set to protect against accelerated
eutrophication in flowing streams. Further-
more, 84 percent of the reaches show
increased phosphorus levels in 1968-72
over the previous 5 years. The nitrogen
nutrients exceed reference levels in one-
quarter of the reaches measured and in-
creased in up to 74 percent of the reaches.
• Other pollutants present in high levels are
phenols (industrial compounds that can
affect fish flesh palatabUity and produce
taste and odor in drinking water) and
suspended solids (which interfere with
some aquatic life processes). These results
are not as disturbing as the nutrient data,
because in up to 80 percent of the reaches
with data, phenols and suspended solids
improved in the past 5 years.
• The pollutants receiving the most wide-
spread controls—coliform bacteria and
oxygen-demanding organic materials—show
general improvements in the past 5 years.
Dissolved oxygen and oxygen-demand
levels improved in up to 72 percent of the
reaches, and coliform bacteria improved in
up to 75 percent of the reaches.
A number of the 22 rivers were studied in
greater detail than the others because they had
the most data readily available. The results show
, that all have substantial problems in at least
some major pollution areas (Table II-l).
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
The complexity of the Nation's water quality
problem, as well as provisions of the 1972 Act,
requires an overall strategy to ensure that EPA
and State activities are consistent with major
goals and with each other, that the activities are
balanced, and that critical goals are met within
financial and other constraints. Analysis of
current water quality, future trends, and accom-
plishments to date reveals, however, that it is
unlikely that all of the 1972 Act's goals will be
reached within the mandated deadlines.
To minimize the effects of these delays, EPA
gives the highest priority to two efforts-
issuance of permits which have the greatest
impact on water quality, and awarding of
construction grants.
Overall, EPA's water quality program is
proceeding in two phases. Phase I aims to
achieve for the majority of the water, a level of
water quality that will allow boating and fishing
and support aquatic life by 1977; in this phase,
the emphasis will be on issuing permits and
grants to point sources. The goal of Phase II will
be water clean enough for swimming by 1983.
Research will play a large role preparing for this
phase. New technologies will be developed for
both municipal and industrial point sources,
nonpoint sources, toxic pollutants, ocean dump-
ing, ground water pollution, and eutrophication.
Management techniques—including cost-benefit
functions, effectiveness criteria, analyses of
alternatives, and assessments of overall environ-
mental impacts of proposed water quality man-
agement strategies—will be improved.
The level of pollution control will differ for
the two phases of the program. In the first,
10
-------
TABLE 11-1
CONDITIONS OF EIGHT MAJOR RIVERS
River
Harmful
Physical
Eutrophication
substances
modification
potential
Mississippi
High* turbidity and
solids below Missouri
River
High,* increasing nutri-
ents but no algae
Missouri
Trace metals present in
High* suspended solids,
High,* increasing nutri-
middle river
turbidity in middle,
lower river
ents but no algae
Ohio
High,* increasing iron
High* suspended solids
High* nutrients but no
and manganese
in lower river; some
improvements
algae
Tennessee
Small increase in nutri-
ents but no algae
Detroit area
Cyanides present but
Suspended solids im-
High but decreasing
improving
proving; local temper-
ature effects from
discharges
nutrients discharged
to Lake Erie
Columbia
Severe gas super satura-
Occasional high* tem-
High* nutrients but no
tion; some radio-
peratures
algae, except for
activity, lower river
slime growths in
lower river
Snake
Severe gas super satura-
Turbidity from natural
Nuisance algae blooms
tion; significant
erosion, agricultural
each summer
pesticides
practices, reservoir
flushing
Willamette
Significant sulfite waste
High* turbidity at high
High* level of nutrients
liquor from pulp,
flow; high temper-
but no excessive
paper wastes
ature in summer
algae
River
Salinity, acidity,
and alkalinity
Oxygen depletion
Health hazards and
aesthetic degradation
Mississippi
High* salinity, acidity
Oxygen-demanding
Commercial fishing
below major tribu-
loads from large cities
eliminated in lower
taries
evident
river by phenols,
bacteria near cities
Missouri
High* dissolved salts in
High* organic loads
High* bacteria and
middle, lower river
from feedlots, etc.;
improved near cities
viruses in wet, dry
periods
Ohio
Low* alkalinity, espe-
Occasional low* dis-
High* bacteria espe-
cially in upper river
solved oxygen near
Cincinnati, Pittsburgh
cially in high popu-
lation areas
Tennessee
Low* BOD. and decreas-
ing COD In reservoirs
High* bacteria in small
areas near cities; low
radionuclides
Detroit area
Acids, chlorides low,*
Low* dissolved oxygen
Phenols decreasing;
improving despite
only at mouths of
bacteria unchanged-
large discharges
area tributaries
to-higher
Columbia
Approaches ideal for
fresh waters
Dissolved oxygen close
to saturation
Very low* bacteria
Snake
High* dissolved solids
Dissolved oxygen close
High* bacteria below
from irrigation in
to saturation
population centers
middle river
Willamette
Low* dissolved mineral
Improved dissolved oxy-
High* bacteria, but
salts; improved pH
gen, no standards
violations
improving
•High (or low) relative to other riven, or relative to other section* of river, or to national reference level*. Doe* not
necessarily imply standard* violation or dangerous condition.
11
-------
EPA's water quality programs are being administered to achieve for the majority of the Nation's waters a
level of quality that will allow boating and fishing and support aquatic life by 1977. DOCUMERICA-Ted
Rozumalski
12
I
-------
effluent limitations will be based primarily on
technology—best practicable treatment for
industrial dischargers, secondary treatment for
municipal dischargers. In segments where these
effluent limitations cannot achieve the goals,
more stringent limitations necessary to meet
water quality standards or other requirements
will be applied. To achieve the 1983 goals of
Phase II, more demanding standards will be
needed—best available technology for industrial
dischargers and best practicable technology for
municipal dischargers. During both phases,
industries discharging into municipal plants will
be required to pretreat their effluents to protect
the operation of the municipal plant and to
prevent delivery to the plant of any pollutant
that it cannot treat adequately. Thermal effluent
limitations can be adjusted if the discharger can
prove that the limitations are more stringent
than necessary to protect indigenous species.
Groundwater, as well as inland surface waters,
are of concern to EPA. Such water will be
exposed to increasing danger from the sub-
surface disposal of highly toxic substances. The
1972 Act gives EPA little authority to deal with
pollution of ground water, even though the
stringent treatment requirement for surface dis-
charges will probably encourage subsurface dis-
posal.
Oceans will be threatened by increased off-
shore drilling, transportation of petroleum
products, and coastal refineries, as well as
continued pollution from streams, atmospheric
fallout, and dumping.
Statewide Planning. The Statewide planning
required by Section 303(e) of the Act is the
central management tool of the States in admin-
istering their water quality programs. By estab-
lishing priorities and schedules of action, the
planning process helps direct resource expendi-
tures, construction grant planning, and areawide
planning. The planning requirements of several
other sections of the Act will be achieved
through the statewide planning process, includ-
ing the preparation of water quality inventories,
protection and restoration of lakes and water
quality surveillance. Basin planning, which will
be emphasized, will identify water quality prob-
lems and their relative severity.
During 1973, States took the first steps to
implement the planning process:
• States classified all river segments as either
water-quality-limited or effluent-limited.1
States submitted the classification list as
part of their initial plan.
• For water-quality-limited segments water
quality analyses for load allocations were
either begun, or resources were identified
to perform the analyses.
• For effluent-limited segments, States began
preparing management plans.
In 1974, the planning process will continue to
develop basin plans on a time-phased schedule.
The level of planning for a basin is being tailored
to the complexity of the pollution problems in
the basin, and to the amount of information
necessary to make decisions for water quality.
All basin plans include*.
• A display of in-stream water quality data to
indicate that segments are properly classi-
fied as effluent-limited or water-quality-
limited.
• An assessment of needs for publicly owned
treatment works.
• An inventory and ranking of significant
municipal dischargers, and an inventory of
significant industrial dischargers.
• Schedules or target dates for compliance,
and effluent requirements.
• Recommendations for revisions of water
quality standards.
• Identification of necessary controls over
residual wastes.
In addition, plans for water-quality-limited
segments include:
• An assessment of total maximum daily
loads necessary to meet water quality
standards.
• Established or targeted waste load alloca-
tions and effluent limitations.
• An assessment of nonpoint source pollu-
tion and needed control measures.
Areawide Planning. In 1974, areawide waste
treatment management (AWTM) planning will
1 See page 8.
13
-------
begin in selected areas. This type of planning
primarily involves metropolitan areas that have
water quality problems requiring treatment levels
beyond secondary for municipal wastes and best
practicable control technology for industrial
wastes. The planning is limited to areas where
units of local government have agreed, or have
indicated their intent, to operate a coordinated
waste treatment management system. Generally,
the State governor will designate the AWTM
areas and the planning agencies that will conduct
the work. The planning will include description
of the regulatory programs required to ensure
pretreatment of industrial and commercial
wastes, to abate nonpoint source pollution, and
to regulate the location, modification and con-
struction of any facilities in the area that have
an impact on water quality.
Establishment of areawide planning agencies
will begin in 1974; by the end of fiscal year
1975, 125 agencies should be in existence. Most
of these agencies will be established in urban-
industrial areas, but they will also be established
in areas facing acute growth demands over the
next several decades or those with substantial
groundwater pollution problems. The eventual
plan adopted for the area should include an
integrated program of point source controls
(including controls of combined storm and
sewer discharges), nonpoint source control, and
control of land use and growth patterns. Fur-
thermore, the plan must include a management
system to insure plan implementation.
Facilities Planning. Facilities planning is the
first step in the process of constructing publicly
owned waste treatment works. Basically, facili-
ties planning includes:
• A statement of the problems.
• An inventory of existing systems.
• A projection of future conditions.
• Setting of goals and objectives.
• An evaluation of alternatives to meet those
goals and objectives-^or example, land
treatment or reuse of waste water and flow
reduction measures (including correction of
excessive infiltration/inflow), treatment of
overflows, alternative system configura-
tions, phased development of facilities, or
improvements in operation and mainte-
nance.
• An assessment of the environmental
impacts of the alternatives.
• Selection of the best alternative waste
treatment system.
• Design of selected treatment work.
• Provision for plan implementation.
Facilities planning provides for cost-effective
and environmentally sound treatment works to
meet applicable effluent limitations. Thus, facili-
ties planning provides a firm foundation for the
construction grant program in areas not desig-
nated for areawide waste treatment management
plans, and serves as an integral part of more
comprehensive planning. The facilities planning
process will maximize the environmental effec-
tiveness of the accelerated program for con-
struction of treatment works and avoid
unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL
State program assessments indicate that present
requirements for point source controls (effluent
limitations) will enable about one-third of the
Nation's classified water segments to meet the
1977 goals. Part of the problems in the remain-
ing segments are due to nonpoint source pollu-
tion. In 1971 EPA estimated that-approximately
one-third of the pollution in streams not meet-
ing standards derived from nonpoint sources.
The relative significance of nonpoint sources will
increase as discharges from municipal and indus-
trial point sources are brought under more
effective control.
Nonpoint sources are not defined in the Act,
although they are cited in several sections.
Nonpoint sources are essentially those sources
resulting in runoff, seepage, and percolation of
pollutants to surface and groundwaters through
diffuse and undefined routes. They are not now
subject to NPDES permit requirements.
Nonpoint sources contribute a variety of
pollutants. Sediments, nutrientB, and pesticides
are the predominant pollutants from non-
irrigated farming, while build up of salts is the
major problem from irrigated farming.
Pollutants from mining vary with the type of
mining types of pollutants depending on the
particular kind of mining. Pollution problems
14
-------
The significance of nonpoint sources of pollution such as from strip mining will increase as municipal and
industrial point sources are brought under control. DOCUMERICA—Bill Gillette
15
-------
from construction activities are almost entirely
related to accelerated erosion and the resulting
sediment runoff to surface waters.
The EPA strategy to control nonpoint sources
calls for two major thrusts. The first is the
technological/engineering effort to develop,
demonstrate, and apply the best practical con-
trol technologies through Federal, State, and
local mechanisms. The second thrust is a broad-
based effort to assess and control the water
quality impact of nonpoint sources. The effort
will first identify, monitor, assess and predict
the nature and extent of nonpoint pollution,
particularly in segments where point source
controls alone will be inadequate to meet water
quality goals. Then it will develop new institu-
tional arrangements where necessary to assure
comprehensive nonpoint source management.
These new arrangements include area-wide plan-
ning under sections 208 and 303(e) of the Act,
as well as other implementing mechanisms.
Control Program Approach. EPA has identi-
fied 21 categories of nonpoint source con-
tributions (Table II-2). Each category will
require a different mix of assessment and imple-
menting mechanisms, ranging from permitting
under NPDES, to developing model laws and
ordinances.
State assessments and reports will be prepared
in early 1975 to provide an initial identification
and evaluation of nonpoint sources.
Section 208 areawide planning and manage-
ment program requires the inclusion of nonpoint
source assessment and control strategies. Several
plans are expected to be developed in 1975 to
include the proper analysis of nonpoint source
designations and specify the contributing areas
under Section 303(e).
Concurrently, through the initiation of non-
point source pilot programs EPA will develop,
demonstrate, and apply feasible control tech-
nologies.
Program Accomplishments in 1973. Major
accomplishments in 1973 include:
• Reports were issued to assist in the identi-
fication and evaluation of pollutants from
nonpoint sources; and to identify methods,
TABLE 11-2
CATEGORIES OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Agriculture
Dry land
Irrigation
Animal wastes
Range lands
Silviculture
Forestry management
Harvesting
Mining
Active
Inactive
Tailings and overburden
Ground water
Hydrographic modification
Salinity
Irrigation
Oil field brines
Natural
Deicing
Municipal and Industrial
Effluents
Urban Runoff
Storm sewers
Surface runoff
Rural sanitation
Construction
Land development
Heavy construction
processes, and procedures to control pollu-
tion from agriculture, silviculture, mining
activities, construction activities, excava-
tion disposal, salt water intrusion, and
hydrographic modifications.
• Guidelines for Statewide, areawide, and
basin planning were developed to require
consideration of nonpoint source con-
tributions.
• Agency policies were issued for control of
nutrient runoff from agricultural lands and
for disposal of pollutants by deep well
injection.
• Nonpoint source pilot control projects
were established in four EPA Regions:
Region III, mining activities; Region VIII,
irrigation return flows; Region IX, ground-
water pollution; and Region X, silvicultural
activities.
• Contacts were made with other Federal
agencies, particularly to develop and imple-
ment interagency agreements.
• In cooperation with the National Associa-
tion of Conservation Districts, institutes
were held in 30 States to develop appro-
priate State legislative programs to control
runoff of sediment.
16
-------
III. Grants to State and Local Governments
The 1972 Act clearly recognizes the primary
responsibilities and rights of the States in con-
trolling water pollution. In accordance with the
Act, EPA's strategy to reduce water pollution
places the basic responsibility on the States for
direct action against the sources of pollution.
On the other hand, EPA is providing strategic
guidance to develop a national, coordinated
approach to water pollution abatement. EPA
provides financial assistance to State and local
entities for construction of municipal waste
treatment plants and for the operation of the
wide spectrum of activities conducted by
individual State water pollution control
agencies. EPA also conducts research and devel-
opment activities, and issues and enforces per-
mits in States not yet prepared to assume
responsibility for these functions.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
The program of Federal grants to aid com-
munities in the construction of municipal waste
treatment works was initiated with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1956. Although
Federal funding at that time was not significant,
subsequent amendments to the Act have made
more Federal funds available and led to
accelerated plant construction.
Since 1957 the Federal government has pro-
vided $6.8 billion for the construction and
expansion of more than 14,200 projects (Table
III-l). The total cost of these projects was
approximately $16.7 billion. Federal appro-
priations were less than $100 million per year
through the early 1960's and then doubled in
the latter half of that decade. Accelerated
growth in the funding of this program began in
1970 with an appropriation of $800 million.
Allocations made under the 1972 Act reached
$2 billion in fiscal year 1973 and $3 billion in
1974 (Tajbles III-2 and III-3).
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 substantially altered the
methods of funding the construction grants
program and the methods of providing assistance
to individual projects. Rather than awarding a
grant to an applicant for the Federal share of a
project, EPA is now authorized to enter into an
arrangement with the applicant wherein EPA
creates a contractual obligation for payment of
tiie eligible proportional costs of the separate
elements of each project. Under this authority,
EPA will incur contractual obligations for the
Federal share of the costs of (1) preliminary
plans and studies and other eligible preliminary
work, (2) design plans and specifications, and
(3) the construction of the waste treatment
facilities. Payments against these contractual
obligations are made to the applicant as all or
parts of each of these elements are completed.
While the new legislation has made significant
amounts of money available for the planning
and construction of wastewater treatment
works, the new requirements of the Act have
necessitated a major restructuring of the con-
struction grants program. EPA is revising the
overall planning and grant award process and
developing new regulations for managing the
program. In fiscal year 1973 EPA made grant
awards of approximately $3 billion of which
$1.6 billion was awarded from fiscal years
1973/74 funds.
As required under Section 516 of the 1972
Act, EPA conducted a -survey to determine the
cost of construction of all needed publicly
owned treatment works in each of the States
and in the Nation as a whole. The survey results
were forwarded to Conpess in October 1973
and were used as the basis for allocating the
fiscal year 1975 allotment of funds to the
States. The total costs for all facilities reported
17
-------
The Federal government has provided $6.8 billion for the construction and expansion of 14,000 municipal
waste treatment works such as this 'plant serving the Washington, D.C. and neighboring areas.
DOCUMERICA-John Nuebauer
18
-------
TABLE 111-1
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS (1957-74)
Fiscal
year
Authorization
Appropriation
Fiscal year
obligations
Expenditures*
(thousands of dollars)
1957
50,000
50,000
50,000
844
1958
50,000
45,657t
45,657
16,884
1959
50,000
46,816+
46,816
36,429
1960
50,000
46,10lt
46,101
40,295
1961
50,000
45,645t
45,645
44,085
1962
80,000
80,000
80,000
42,103
1963
90,000
90,000
90,000
51,738
1964
100,000
90,000
89,642
66,432
1965
100,000
90,000
88,225
69,755
1966
150,000
121,000
120,946
81,479
1967
150,000
150,000
150,000
84,476
1968
450,000
203,000
203,000
122,109
1969
700,000
214,000
214,000
134,530
1970
1,000,000
800,000
800,000
176,377
1971
1,250,000
1,000,000
990,000*
478,366
1972
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000*
413,408
1973
2,000,000
1,900,000
0
1973
5,000,000**
2,000,000+t
1,368,801
684,400
1974
6,000,000**
3,000,000tt
222,464***
Total
19,320,000
11,972,220
6,651,297
2,593,710
•Payments during fiscal year.
'Includes supplemental appropriations of $657,000 in 1058, $1,816,000 in 1959, $1,101,000 in 1960, and
$645,260 in 1961.
^Estimated to nearest million dollars.
**Contract authority (method of funding changed from authorized appropriation to contract authority by 1972
++Act)"
''Amount of contract authority released by Presidential action.
* """Obligated as of 6/30/73.
in the survey was $60.1 billion; treatment plants
and interceptor sewers alone amounted to $35.9
billion. In setting the formula for fiscal year
1975, Congress provided that allotments would
be based 50% on total needs and 50% on needs
for treatment plants and interceptor sewers with
the provision that no state's allotment would be
less than that received in 1972.
Surveys conducted in 1969, 1970, and 1971
showed needs of $10.0 billion, $12.6 billion,
and $18.1 billion, respectively for treatment
plants and interceptor sewors. The $35.9 billion
reported in the 1973 survey was double that
reported two yean previously. The reasons for
this large increase include a more comprehensive
survey of facilities, minimum treatment require-
ments at the secondary level, more stringent
water quality requirements, better estimating
procedures, and inflation.
STATE PROGRAM GRANTS
EPA grants assist the States to carry out a
variety of activities essential to comprehensive
State efforts to control water pollution. These
19
-------
TABLE 111-2
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1973 FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS, BY STATES*
State
Allocations
Obligations
Percent
obligated
Alabama
$ 7,224,000
$ 212,450
3
Alaska
4,504,000
4,159,847
92
Arizona
2,692,000
1,467,775
55
Arkansas
7,072,000
7,072,000
100
California
196,352,000
62,666,211
32
Colorado
6,332,000
—
—
Connecticut
33,620,000
32,776,250
97
Delaware
13,130,000
—
—
District of Columbia
14,228,000
14,228,000
100
Florida
72,528,000
18,792,728
26
Georgia
19,460,000
18,439,360
95
Hawaii
6,606,000
—
—
Idaho
4,354,000
3,126,765
72
Illinois
124,978,000
78,596,290
63
Indiana
67,324,000
26,191,860
39
Iowa
23,114,000
23,114,000
100
Kansas
7,484,000
5,340,210
71
Kentucky
13,198,000
10,274,100
78
Louisiana
18,856,000
13,289,140
70
Maine
19,350,000
19,350,000
100
Maryland
85,164,000
71,124,430
84
Massachusetts
75,152,000
74,426,750
99
Michigan
159,628,000
159,337,150
99
Minnesota
40,638,000
40,405,275
99
Mississippi
7,870,000
534,141
7
Missouri
33,112,000
20,851,150
63
Montana
3,324,000
2,979,450
90
Nebraska
7,416,000
5,295,780
71
Nevada
5,754,000
4,819,350
84
New Hampshire
16,618,000
16,618,000
100
New Jersey
154,080,000
154,080,000
100
New Mexico
4,216,000
764,620
18
New York
221,156,000
211,454,750
96
North Carolina
18,458,000
6,531,896
35
North Dakota
934,000
701,175
75
Ohio
115,474,000
115,474,000
100
Oklahoma
9,216,000
6,254,760
68
Oregon
16,988,000
16,721,092
98
Pennsylvania
108,428,000
69,092,280
64
Rhode Island
9,778,000
8,367,000
86
South Carolina
12,910,000
6,731,061
52
South Dakota
1,896,000
992,250
52
Tennessee
23,210,000
12,210,468
53
Texas
55,388,000
52,291,210
94
Utah
2,816,000
—
—
20
-------
TABLE II1-2 (Continued)
State
Allocations
Obligations
Percent
obligated
Vermont
4,436,000
2,059,586
46
Virginia
58,286,000
57,977,750
99
Washington
17,812,000
17,500,524
98
West Virginia
9,998,000
3,217,050
32
Wisconsin
34,830,000
2,419,050
7
Wyoming
536,000
425,925
79
Guam
1,744,000
—
—¦
Puerto Rico
17,690,000
—
—
Virgin Islands
1,786,000
—
—
American Samoa
96,000
—
—
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
756,000
297,675
39
Total
$2,000,000,000
$1,481,052,574
74
*As of December 31, 1973.
TABLE 111-3
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1974 FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS, BY STATES*
State
Allocations
Obligations
Percent
obligated
Alabama
$ 10,836,000
$
—
Alaska
6,756,000
6,184,292
92
Arizona
4,038,000
—
—
Arkansas
10,608,000
8,053,890
76
California
294,528,000
—
—
Colorado
9,498,000
—
—
Connecticut
50,430,000
7,970,870
16
Delaware
19,695,000
—
—
District of Columbia
21,342,000
21,135,400
99
Florida
108,792,000
—
—
Georgia
29,190,000
—
—
Hawaii
9,909,000
—
—
Idaho
6,531,000
361,206
6
Illinois
187,467,000
—
—
Indiana
100,986,000
—
—
Iowa
34,671,000
1,322,460
4
Kansas
11,226,000
__
—
Kentucky
19,797,000
—
—
Louisiana
28,284,000
237,480
1
Maine
29,025,000
14,580,815
50
Maryland
127,746,000
20,444,700
16
Massachusetts
112,728,000
62,437,851
55
Michigan
239,442,000
9,456,125
4
21
-------
TABLE 111-3 (Continued)
State
Allocations
Obligations
Percent
obligated
Minnesota
60,957,000
6,230,000
10
Mississippi
11,805,000
—
—
Missouri
49,668,000
—
—
Montana
4,986,000
165,000
3
Nebraska
11,124,000
—
—
Nevada
8,631,000
—
—
New Hampshire
24,927,000
8,552,660
34
New Jersey
231,120,000
60,233,760
26
New Mexico
6,324,000
912,000
14
New York
331,734,000
129,230
—
North Carolina
27,687,000
—
—
North Dakota
1,401,000
1,310
—
Ohio
173,211,000
3,091,085
2
Oklahoma
13,824,000
237,890
2
Oregon
25,482,000
20,048,732
79
Pennsylvania
162,642,000
—
—
Rhode Island
14,667,000
—
—
South Carolina
19,365,000
—
—
South Dakota
2,844,000
_
—
Tennessee
34,815,000
—
—
Texas
83,082,000
301,350
—
Utah
4,224,000
—
—
Vermont
6,654,000
465,480
7
Virginia
87,429,000
26,021,040
30
Washington
26,718,000
4,474,375
17
West Virginia
14,997,000
—
—
Wisconsin
52,245,000
—
—
Wyoming
804,000
—
—
Guam
2,616,000
—
—
Puerto Rico
26,535,000
—
—
Virgin Islands
2,679,000
—
—
American Samoa
144,000
—
—
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
1,134,000
—
Total
$3,000,000,000
$283,049,001
9
~As of December 1,1973.
EPA grants supplement State funding and
strengthen the capacity of State agencies to
achieve the goals established by the Act.
Federal expenditures for State water pollu-
tion control program grafts have grown from $3
million in fiscal year 1957 to $40 million in
fiscal year 1974. Expenditures doubled between
fiscal years 1973 and 1974. At the same time,
State appropriations have also grown rapidly.
Total Federal and State spending has increased
from about $40 million in fiscal year 1971 to an
estimated $115 million in 1974 (Table III-4). In
fiscal year 1973, the latest period with reliable
data on State programs, the largest expenditure
(about a quarter of the total) was for surveil-
lance activities (Table III-5). On the average, the
states spent $4 for every $1 they received from
Federal funds (Table III-6).
22
-------
TABLE 1114
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM GRANTS
Fiscal Years 1949-1974
Fiscal
year
Federal
allotment
Federal
expenditure
State
expenditure
Total
(thousands of dollars)
Federal
participation
as percent
of total
1949
783
783*
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1950
845
845*
2,287
3,132
27
1951
815
815*
2,993
3,808
21
1952
769
769*
4,017
4,786
16
1953
—
—
3,912
3,912
0
1954
—
—
3,989
3,989
0
1955
—
—
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
1956
—
—
4,216
4,216
0
1957
1,800
1,683
4,005
5,688
30
1958
2,700
2,539
6,009
8,548
30
1959
2,700
2,621
6,515
9,136
29
1960
2,700
2,582
6,756
9,338
28
1961
2,700
2,642
7,606
10,248
26
1962
4,500
4,262
8,163
12,425
34
1963
4,700
4,471
9,277
13,748
33
1964
4,700
4,525
9,531
14,056
32
1965
4,700
4,596
11,205
15,801
29
1966
4,700
4,535
12,271
16,806
27
1967
4,700
4,584
17,643
22,227
21
1968
9,000
8,704
19,035
27,739
31
1969
9,000
8,860
22,284
31,144
28
1970
9,400
9,335
24,956
34,291
27
1971
9,465
9,454
29,992
39,446
24
1972
14,100
14,060
37,939
51,999
27
1973
18,900
18,900
58,240
77,140
25
1974
38,900
38,900
76,800
115,700
34
~Figure shown is Federal allotment; actual expenditure not
Program Changes in 1974. The 1972 Act
provided an impetus for change in Federal/State
relations. The program cycle of fiscal year 1974,
the first full cycle after passage of the Act,
illustrates the changing partnership between the
States and EPA in implementing the Act.
The new program cycle starts in January
when EPA issues a national water strategy paper
setting emphasis and objectives for the next
fiscal year. Each State then prepares a pre*
liminary strategy, which outlines the State's
major problem areas and the means of abating
pollution in these areas. The State submits its
known.
strategy, with preliminary output and resource
data, to the EPA Regional Office by April 15.
Outputs include, for example, the number of
permits to be issued in the following fiscal year.
Resources are the dollars and man-years required
to reach the output in ^ch program element.
After public meetings on this preliminary
document and negotiations with the EPA
Regional Office concerning outputs and
resources, the State submits its final program by
June 15. The EPA Regional Office then has until
July 16 to approve or disapprove the State
program.
-------
TABLE 111-5
TABLE 111-6
EXPENDITURES FOR STATE PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES FOR STATE PROGRAMS
BY PROGRAM ELEMENTS (FY 1973) BY STATE (FY 1973)
Program element
Millions
of dollars
Percentage
Planning and
13.8
20.8
standards
Pollution control
12.2
18.3
facilities
Other programs
8.1
12.5
Surveillance
17.4
26.2
Enforcement
5.5
8.3
Executive and
9.2
13.9
auxiliary
Total*
66.2
100.0
~Excluding four States that did not provide a breakout
by program element.
Part of the negotiations between the State
and the Regional Office centers on the distri-
bution of resources between elements of the
program. The Regional Office sets aside addi-
tional funds for those program elements stressed
in the national strategy. For example, in fiscal
year 1974 approximately 50 percent of Federal
grant funds were earmarked for permitting,
planning and monitoring, and review of con-
struction project plans and specifications. The
precise division of Federal grants varies from
State to State depending on individual needs,
but the use of the incentive grant mechanism
allows EPA to influence water pollution abate-
ment activities throughout the country in con-
formance with the national strategy.
The final major phase of the program cycle is
in December and January when the State and
the Regional Office meet to conduct a midyear
evaluation of the State program. Actual outputs
are compared with target outputs, major prob-
lems are identified, and mutually acceptable
solutions are worked out.
Thus far, it appears that the program changes
introduced in response to the 1972 Act have
resulted in more harmonious State/Federal rela-
tionships and a concentration of State and
Federal resources to attack priority water pollu-
State
Federal
State
Total
(thousands of dollars)
Alabama
267
233
500
Alaska
26
125
151
Arizona
181
146
327
Arkansas
162
405
567
California
1,045
9,075
10,120
Colorado
138
316
454
Connecticut
251
463
714
Delaware
126
241
367
District of Columbia
165
480
645
Florida
438
1,363
1,801
Georgia
315
935
1,250
Hawaii
71
331
402
Idaho
61
229
290
Illinois
661
4,459
5,120
Indiana
360
651
1,011
Iowa
185
173
358
Kansas
140
556
696
Kentucky
246
789
1,035
Louisiana
267
454
721
Maine
95
550
645
Maryland
280
5,034.
5,314
Massachusetts
529
973
1,502
Michigan
556
1,919
2,475
Minnesota
241
1,293
1,534
Mississippi
191
225
416
Missouri
302
278
580
Montana
56
196
252
Nebraska
99
155
254
Nevada
52
74
126
New Hampshire
151
714
865
New Jersey
475
952
1,427
New Mexico
74
207
281
New York
726
3,567
4,293
North Carolina
378
698
1,076
North Dakota
52
87
139
Ohio
680
1,335
2,015
Oklahoma
177
278
455
Oregon
151
876
1,027
Pennsylvania
740
2,915
3,655
Rhode Island
232
257
489
South Carolina
216
582
798
South Dakota
63
54
107
Tennessee
328
758
1,086
24
-------
TABLE 111-6 (Continued)
State
Federal
State
Total
(thousands of dollars)
Texas
637
5,382
6,019
Utah
83
209
292
Vermont
111
489
600
Virginia
310
1,589
1,899
Washington
275
1,295
1,570
West Virginia
151
459
610
Wisconsin
309
2,263
2,571
Wyoming
32
46
78
Guam
114
57
171
Puerto Rico
274
145
419
Virgin Islands
105
53
158
Total
14,340
57,388
71,728
tion problems. In fiscal year 1975, EPA will
make minor modifications to clearly define
Federal and State roles in the joint effort to
clean up the Nation's waters.
25
-------
IV. Regulation
The 1972 Act greatly strengthened the regula-
tory authority of EPA and the States in water
quality control. Through the permit system,
known as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), stringent require-
ments are applied to individual dischargers.
Streamlined enforcement measures replace
former enforcement mechanisms, with heavy
penalties applicable in cases of violation. Other
regulatory programs under the Act govern pollu-
tion by oil and hazardous substances and sewage
from vessels.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
Section 402 of the Act requires that any
discharge into the Nation's navigable waters
from any point source may be made only in
accordance with the conditions of a discharge
permit issued by EPA or by a State with an
approved permit program. The permit must be
written so as to ensure that the discharge will
meet all applicable requirements of the Act
regarding effluent limitations, prohibited dis-
charges, new source performance standards,
toxic and pretreatment effluent standards, ocean
discharge criteria, and the inspection, monitor-
ing, record-keeping, reporting, and entry
requirements.
NPDES supplants the Refuse Act permit
program, established December 1970 but effec-
tively halted in December 1971 by a Federal
court decision. Unlike the old program, which
could not be applied to control municipal
sewage discharges, NPDES applies to municipal-
ities, industries, Federal facilities and certain
agricultural and other dischargers. Violations of
permit requirements and permit conditions sub-
ject dischargers to the Act's enforcement
procedures.
Permit applications under the Refuse Act are
considered permits under NPDES (and vice
versa). The new program, particularly with
respect to industrial permits, had a workable
basis in the old program. Good relations with
State agency personnel, the results of industrial
waste effluent studies, and staff experience
gained under the earlier program—all are largely
applicable to NPDES.
The 1972 Act provides for public participa-
tion in various aspects of the water program.
Public participation in NPDES is more particu-
larly provided for in the regulations governing
permit issuances by EPA (40 CFR 125) and by
States with approved programs (40 CFR 124).
State Participation. The Act directs that any
State requesting authority to administer the
NPDES permit program for dischargers within
the State should receive that authority from
EPA if it meets certain requirements. These
include capability and authority to modify,
suspend, or revoke a permit, and the powers and
procedures necessary for recourse to civil relief,
criminal penalties, injunctive relief, and other
enforcement mechanisms. EPA may review State
permit programs and under certain circum-
stances object to the issuance of a permit.
During 1973, five States received approval to
administer the NPDES permit program-
California, Oregon, Connecticut, Michigan, and
Washington—and another 11 States had made
application for the authority. The five States
with permit authority issued 401 permits in
1973.
Under interim authority provided in the Act,
17 States and American Samoa were authorized
to issue NPDES permits until March 19,1973. A
total of 183 were issued by 16 jurisdictions
before the interim authority ended.
Regulations. A major program effort in 1973
was the preparation, publication, and promulga-
tion of regulations governing NPDES. Much
groundwork had been done while the 1972 law
was going through the legislative process. Guide-
lines for State participation in NPDES were
published in proposed form on Nov, 11, 1972,
27
-------
Discharges into the Nation's navigable waters form any point source may be made only in accordance with
the conditions of a discharge permit. (Discharge from a pulp mill.) DOCUMERICA—Doug Wilson
and in final form with some revisions on Dec.
22, 1972. This early effort responded to Con-
gressional emphasis on State participation. Regu-
lations prescribing policy and procedures to be
followed in connection with EPA issuance of
permits were published for comment on Jan. 11,
1973. They became effective on their publica-
tion in final form on May 22, 1973, enabling
EPA to begin to issue permits for applications
that had been received and processed. The
regulations also govern EPA permits for the
disposal of sewage sludge under Section 405 of
the Act.
EPA review and issuance of permits is cen-
tered in the 10 Regional Offices. By the end of
1973, a total of 2,999 permits had been issued,
(Tables IV-1 and IV-2). Many more permits were
being processed at year's end. A total of 6,266
drafts were forwarded to the States to give them
the opportunity to certify that the discharge
covered by an EPA-issued permit (a Federal
TABLE IV-1
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT ACTIVITY IN 1973 UNDER
NPDES
Region
Permit
to States
Permits
to public
notice
Permits
issued
I
1,008
617
158
II
490
242
24
III
626
300
149
IV
1,421
1,226
849
V
1,578
661
217
VI
384
263
78
VII
468
468
272
VIII
415
407
252
IX
120
382
289
X
225
225
184
Total
6,266
4,539
2,472
28
-------
TABLE IV-2
MUNICIPAL PERMITS DRAFTED AND ISSUED IN 1973
Applications
Permits drafted
Permits issued
Region
received
Major
Minor
Total
Major
•
Minor
Total
I
736
15
161
176
0
3
3
II
1,064
30
265
295
0
0
0
III
1,278
2
362
364
0
3
3
IV
1,937
1
349
350
0
78
78
V
3,468
6
1,166
1,172
0
170
170
VI
1,673
9
1,002
1,011
0
0
0
VII
1,422
1
224
225
1
7
8
VIII
1,403
14
246
260
1
115
116
IX
510
5
66
71
2
27
29
X
524
0
142
142
0
120
120
Total
14,015
83
3,983
4,066
4
523
527
permit) will meet applicable effluent limitations,
standards, prohibitions, and other appropriate
requirements. EPA Regional Offices issued
public notices on 4,539 permit applications.
Public notices are issued on all permit applica-
tions. If sufficient interest is shown, public
hearings are held. More formal adjudicatory
hearings also may be requested. In some cases
permit applicants have requested adjudicatory
hearings and later withdrawn the request. If the
request concerns matters that will be considered
initially at a public hearing and resolved there,
the request for an adjudicatory hearing may be
denied as untimely. Such a hearing may again be
requested after the public hearing if any matters
remain unresolved. During 1973 118 adjudica-
tory hearings were requested, and one was held.
In spite of this apparent indication of interest,
public participation in the permit program has
not been high. Applicants request hearings, and
several citizen organizations are very active, but
general citizen involvement in the permit issu-
ance process has not materialized.
Objectives in 1974, A number of major
objectives have been set for 1974. One is to
develop a computer monitoring program in-
volving EPA, other Federal agencies, and the
States. Increased State participation, both the
formal assignment of authority to issue NPDES
permits and informal cooperation, is another
major objective. EPA will seek to harmonize
national and State priorities for permit issuance
and also continue the policy of involving the
State to the maximum extent up to the point a
permit is issued. If the State lacks only legal
authority, the permit may be completely proc-
essed by the State, although it must be issued
by EPA. The EPA goal is the issuance of all
major NPDES permits by Dec. 31, 1974, draft-
ing all minor permits by that date, and the
completion of all permits by June 30,1975.
Permits are being processed at an increasingly
rapid rate, and more attention is being given to
major facilities. Much of the language in permits
has been standardized to facilitate rapid draft-
ing. The permit program will require a sustained
effort after the first round of permits are issued
to ensure compliance with permit conditions.
Permittees are required to submit different types
of reports, which must be processed, reviewed,
and in some cases response made. Performance
must be monitored. Noncomplying dischargers
will be subject to enforcement action.
Municipal Permits. Under the NPDES permit
program, discharge of waste water from munici-
pal facilities will be legal after 1974 only if in
accordance with a permit. Permit conditions are
primarily designed to limit the quantity and
concentration of pollutants in the discharge. The
Act requires that these pollutants be reduced by
mid-1977 to the level provided by secondary
treatment or to the level necessary to protect
29
-------
established water quality standards, whichever is
more stringent. By mid-1983, pollutant dis-
charges are to be reduced to the level possible
from "best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology," or to the level necessary to meet water
quality standards.
Every municipal facility discharging waste
water must apply for a permit. Each permit
issued establishes effluent limitations in terms of
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics
of pollutants. An industry piping its waste into a
municipal sewage plant is not required to obtain
a permit. The municipal permit, however, will
specify effluent limitations for both the indus-
trial and municipal components of the discharge
from the municipal plant. The municipality will
be responsible for imposing local pretreatment
requirements on industrial effluent if necessary.
Compliance with permit conditions will be
monitored closely. Municipalities are required to
report regularly on the nature and amounts of
their pollutant discharges, and these reports will
be spot checked with field visits by Federal and
State officials. Operation and maintenance of
plants will also be inspected regularly. Munici-
palities having difficulty meeting permit condi-
tions will receive technical assistance to the
extent Federal and State resources allow.
Special conditions may be included in permits
where treatment plants are approaching overload
or are already overloaded. If deemed appro-
priate, the State or EPA Regional Office drafting
a permit may require the permittee to accommo-
date any increase in waste water flows by such
means as improving the operational performance
of the treatment plant, reallocating flows and
pollutant loads among industrial and domestic
sources, and using interim facilities. Permittees
may also be required to undertake certain
planning and managerial actions to forestall
future overloads and violations of permits.
Permit applications had been received from
14,015 municipalities by the end of 1973 (Table
IV-2), "Minor" facilities (serving a population of
less than 10,000 without significant industrial
waste water flows piped to the plant) are
required to complete a short application form.
All other facilities, called "major," are required
to submit much more detailed information. Of
the 527 permits issued in 1973, only four were
major permits; however 4,066 permits were
drafted, of which 83 were for major facilities.
Aquaculture. Section 318 of the Act provides
for the issuance of special (non-NPDES) permits
for discharges associated with approved acqua-
culture projects. An EPA regulation has been
drafted covering aquaculture facilities designed
to use pollutants for the maintenance, growth,
and propagation of fresh water, marine, or
estuarine organisms, as well as for development
of new aquaculture crops. Not covered by the
regulation are facilities such as fish hatcheries,
fish farms, and similar projects that do not use
waste from a separate industrial or municipal
point source.
Applications to operate aquaculture projects
are to be filed with EPA Regional offices.
Permits will be reviewed by EPA with assistance
from the Corps of Engineers, the Department of
Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and
the appropriate State agencies. A formal period
of public comments is provided before a
decision is made on the proposed project.
OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
The primary objective of EPA's oil and hazard-
ous substance program is to protect water
quality by preventing spills and minimizing the
impact of spills on the environment. Section 311
of the Act specifies a threefold approach to the
control of spills: response, prevention, and
enforcement. Implementation of Section 311
requires promulgation of key regulations, devel-
opment of the National Contingency Plan, estab-
lishment of spill response programs, and
development of an aggressive spill prevention
program.
Regulations. Six regulations were completed
in 1973 to implement the spill control program
(Table IV-3). Additional regulations are being
developed including several that will permit the
hazardous substances program to become opera-
tional.
The National, EPA Regional, and Coast Guard
District Contingency Plans provide the mech-
anism for coordinated actions of Federal and
State agencies to ensure effective response
activities to minimize damages resulting from
spills. The National Plan will be revised to reflect
new response procedures resulting from the
promulgation of the key hazardous substances
regulations.
30
-------
TABLE IV-3
REGULATIONS GOVERNING OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Title
Status
Harmful Discharges of Oil—311(b)(4)
Discharge of Oil for Research, Development, and Demonstration
Purposes—311 (b )(4)
Criteria for State, Local, and Regional Oil Removal Contingency
Plans—311(j)(l)(A)
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan—311(c)(2)
Liability Limits for Small Onshore Oil Storage Facilities—
311(f)(2)
Oil Pollution, Nontransportation Related—311 (j)(l)(C)
Oil Removal Methods—311(j)(l)(A)
Hazardous Substances Prevention, Nontransportation Related—
311(j)(l)(C)
Designation of Hazardous Substances—311(b)(2)
Hazardous Substances, Harmful Quantities and Rate of Penalty—
311(b)(4), 311(b)(2)
40 CFR 110 issued 9/11/70
Guidelines issued 4/17/71
40 CFR 109 issued 6/28/71
40 CFR 1510 issued 8/13/73
40 CFR 113 issued 9/13/73
40 CFR 112 issued 12/11/73
Target date—fall 1974
Target date—spring 1975
Target date—summer 1974
Target date—fall 1974
Response to Spills. Spills are defined as
noncontinuous discharges or dumping that occur
as a result of accidents, malfunctions of equip-
ment, human error, deliberate discharges of bilge
or ballast water, and convenience dumping of
hazardous substances and oil into sewers,
streams, estuaries, coastal waters, and upon land
areas. EPA responds to spills in inland waters,
while the U.S. Coast Guard responds to those.in
coastal (including the Great Lakes) waters.
Over 10,000 spills occur annually in the
United States; approximately 80 percent involve
oil, including crude and petroleum products
ranging from grease to gasoline and waste
lubricating oil. From May 1 to Dec. 31, 1973,
EPA received reports of 1,520 significant spills
involving 5.3 million gallons of oil and 746 tons
of hazardous substances including cyanide, acry-
lonitrite, valeraldehyde and other materials that
cause severe stress on the aquatic environment.
In accordance with the law, it is EPA's position
that the discharger should take actions to
remove the spilled material; if he fails to do so,
EPA will undertake the cleanup, and the dis-
charger will pay the removal costs.
Spill Prevention. The major emphasis of the
oil spill program is on implementing pollution
prevention regulations. The Coast Guard is
responsible for prevention in transportation
facilities (such as vessels, tank trucks, railroads,
and pipelines), while EPA has the responsibility
for nontransportation-related operations (such
as oil wells, refineries, and tank farms). Those
affected by EPA regulation have 1 year from the
effective date to prepare and implement spill
prevention control and countermeasure plans,
unless EPA grants an extension. Initially, EPA is
directing its efforts at repeat violators and major
dischargers; a 50 percent reduction of spills is
anticipated within 2 years.
MARINE POLLUTION
EPA has played a key role in developing strong
technical studies to support and strengthen the
United States' position at the 1973 International
Marine Pollution Conference held in late 1973.
Agreement was reached in principle to control
ship-generated discharges of oil, noxious liquid
substances, packaged dangerous goods, sewage,
and garbage into the oceans.
Vessel Wastes. In 1972, EPA promulgated
standards of performance for marine sanitation
31
-------
More than 10,000 spills occur annually in the United States of which about 80 percent involve oil.
DOCUMERICA—Hope Alexander
32
-------
The Coast Guard with EPA assistance is preparing regulations governing design, construction, installation,
and operation of marine sanitation devices.
devices, and the Coast Guard, with EPA's
assistance, is now preparing regulations govern-
ing design, construction, installation, and
operation of the devices.
The 1972 Act contains a new provision
permitting States to maintain no-discharge
zones, if EPA determines that adequate treat-
ment facilities are available in that area.
As the marine sanitation devices become
widely used, another problem will arise: How to
dispose of the wastes onshore. In port areas, the
city sewage treatment plants are not capable of
treating discharges from large commercial
vessels; in rural areas, sewage treatment facilities
simply do not exist, and the disinfectants used
are quite often too toxic to be injected into the
ground. The problem may require development
of a packaged sewage treatment system capable
of receiving and treating the wastes. At present,
only limited technology is available in this area.
DISPOSAL OF DREDGE OR FILL
MATERIALS
The Army Corps of Engineers is authorized
under Section 404 of the 1972 Act to issue
permits for the disposal of dredged or fill
materials in navigable waters and to specify
disposal sites.
EPA is developing guidelines in conjunction
with the Army Corps of Engineers defining
procedures for site specification and use. The
guidelines are being prepared to minimize or
prevent the harmful effects of disposal of
dredged or fill material in inland navigable
waters. The most stringent safeguards will be
employed to prevent irreversible damage to
those waters. An important consideration in
preparation of the guidelines, however, is the
need to avoid undue restrictions on waters that
must be dredged and filled to maintain naviga-
33
-------
Guidelines are being prepared to minimize or prevent the deleterious impacts of dredged or fill materials.
bility. Before the guidelines are issued in final
form, comments will be considered from other
Federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the
Department of Interior, private industries, and
environmental organizations.
ENFORCEMENT
EPA Actions Under 1972 Act. EPA regula-
tory activity in the water quality area was
primarily directed during calendar year 1973 to
the implementation of the stringent require-
ments of the Act. Hence large numbers of
enforcement actions were not expected to be
brought during 1973; only 531 were initiated or
pursued by EPA during the year including 133
cases under the Refuse Act and two cases under
Public Law 92-532, the ocean dumping law,
which complements the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in the control of ocean waters
pollution (Table IV-4).
The 1972 Act replaced former enforcement
authorities with a new regulatory scheme, based
largely on NPDES permits.
Under Section 309, EPA can issue a com-
pliance order or bring a civil action for a
violation of any provision of the Act respecting
effluent limitations, water quality related
effluent limitations new source performance
standards, toxic or pretreatment effluent stand-
ards, or inspection, monitoring, record-keeping,
reporting, and entry requirements, or any
condition or limitation of a permit implement-
ing those provisions, including the phased
schedule of compliance.
Any point-source discharge made without a
permit, or any discharge whatever of a radiologi-
cal, chemical or biological warfare agent or
high-level radioactive waste, is prohibited and
likewise subject to enforcement action.
Violators are subject to civil penalties not to
exceed $10,000 a day. Willful or negligent
violations subject violators to fines of up to
$25,000 a day, 1 year's imprisonment, or both;
34
I
-------
TABLE IV-4
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN 1973*
Federal enforcement (Section 309)
Administrative orders 19
Civil actions 2
Criminal actions 7
State enforcement NPDES permits 3
Oil and hazardous substance liability
(Section 311) 338
Cases initiated under the Act as formerly
in effect and saved under PL 92-500 27
Enforcement under Refuse Act
Civil actions initiated by EPA 48
Criminal actions initiated by EPA '76
Civil actions initiated by Justice
Department with EPA assistance 7
Criminal actions initiated by Justice
Department with EPA assistance 2
Enforcement under Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act 2
Total 531
~For details, see Appendices A through E,
second convictions are punishable by fines of up
to $50,000 a day, imprisonment for not more
than 2 years, or both. Intentional false state-
ments, or tampering with a monitoring device,
subjects the violator to a fine of not more than
$10,000, 6 months imprisonment or both.
If a State has authority to administer the
NPDES within that State, EPA may first notify
the State of a permit violation; in such a case,
EPA may issue an order or bring a civil action
only if the State fails to act after 30 days. The
law explicitly preserves the right of the States to
adopt and to enforce requirements at least as
stringent as those in effect under the Act. The
States are encouraged to establish and to carry
out strong enforcement programs.
Section 402(k), the so-called immunity provi-
sion states that a discharge covered by a proper
permit application, on which final administrative
action has not been taken, will not be a violation
of basic effluent limitations, new source per-
formance standards, NPDES provisions, or the
Refuse Act, until December 31,1974.
The Refuse Act of 1899, which prohibits the
discharge of refuse (except liquid sewage) into
navigable waters without a permit or in violation
of permit conditions, was extensively used in
water quality enforcement to fill gaps in the law
in the period prior to the enactment of the 1972
Act. The Refuse Act remains a useful instrument
in some cases, such as discharges from nonpoint
sources, discharges that impede navigation, and
spills.
More than 60 percent of the total number of
water enforcement actions taken in 1973
involved Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Sub-
stance Liability. The oil pollution control
authorities had been carried over largely
unchanged from the previous legislation. Parallel
authorities governing hazardous substances other
than oil were added by the 1972 Act.
• Two enforcement provisions of the Act
showed no activity during 1973: Section
402(h), court action to restrict or prohibit
the introduction of pollutants to publicly
owned freatment works.
• Section 504, Emergency Powers, which
authorizes EPA to seek court action in a
case of imminent and substantial endanger-
ment to the health of persons, or to their
welfare in certain cases endangering their
livelihood.
Section 505 confers on any citizen or group
of citizens whose interest may be adversely
affected the right to bring a civil action. EPA
regulations prescribing procedures for giving
prior notice of citizen suits appeared in the
Federal Register in final form on June 7, 1973
(40 CFR 135). Of interest are suits pending at
year's end brought under the citizen suit author-
ity by the Natural Resources Defense Council,
concerning effluent guidelines, permit
exemptions and the toxic pollutant list.
Reserve Mining Case. Among the 27 actions
continued under the Act as formerly in effect is
the Reserve Mining Co. case. It had its origin in
the Lake Superior Enforcement Conference,
first convened in May 1969 under former
Section 10 of the Act. The Federal-State confer-
ence, which met again in 1969, as well as in
1970 and 1971, considered but did not resolve
the problem of Reserve's daily discharge of
67,000 tons of taconite tailings into Lake
Superior. In April 1971, EPA, acting under
another provision of former Section 10, issued
to Reserve a 180-day notice of violation of
Federally approved water quality standards for
35
-------
Lake Superior. When voluntary compliance did
not follow, EPA, on Jan. 19, 1972, requested
the Attorney General to institute immediate
legal action to abate the pollution.
Suit was filed Feb. 18, 1972, under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the
Refuse Act. The complaint was amended to
include a count under the Federal common law
of nuisance. The court permitted the States of
Wisconsin and Michigan and four environmental
groups to intervene as plaintiffs, and 11 local-
ities and business groups as defendants.
In June 1973, EPA research indicated the
presence of asbestiform fibers in the drinking
water of Duluth, Minn., and other communities
on the western arm of Lake Superior and in the
air of Silver Bay, Minn. The trial began August
1, 1973. The plaintiffs presented testimony
showing Reserve as the source of the asbestiform
fibers, and their presence in air and water as a
health hazard. At year's end the. United States
was still considering joining the motion for a
preliminary injunction requested by the plaintiff
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
and environmental groups. Primarily for pur-
poses of accountability as to the economic
issues, the United States, Minnesota, and Wis-
consin moved to join Armco and Republic,
which own Reserve. The District Court granted
the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed
on appeal. Reserve presented evidence on the
asbestos issue, arguing that the fibers found in
the water supply are not asbestiform and do not
come from Reserve's plant. The court indicated
that the economic issues would be heard next.
The trial is expected to continue for some time
into 1974.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Case. EPA and its predecessor agencies have
been concerned with the pollution problems of
the Potomac River Basin in the Washington,
D.C., metropolitan area since a Federal-State
enforcement conference first convened in 1957.
Significant actions with respect to the area's
difficult municipal pollution problems were
taken during 1973. In October, the Department
of Justice, at EPA's request, filed suit against the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
(WSSC), the water supply and sewerage agency
serving most of Montgomery and Prince Georges
County, Maryland. The suit was based on
WSSC's excessive flows to the Blue Plains, and
its discharge of raw sewage to the Potomac and
Anacostia Rivers. The suit asked the court to
order WSSC to cease raw sewage discharges to
the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, to restrict
WSSC's issuance of additional sewer hook-ups,
and to defer the use of outstanding sewer
hook-up permits, except those for public service
facilities and for prevention of health hazards.
The case is not expected to go to trial for some
time.
Related to this suit are citizen actions brought
by the Montgomery Environmental Coalition et
al. and by Smoke Rise, Inc., et al., against EPA,
WSSC, and others. The first action seeks, among
other tilings, to compel EPA to bring an
enforcement action against WSSC; the second
action, brought by builders in Maryland, seeks
to get sewer service for their construction
activities. On Dec. 19, 1973, the court agreed
with the government motion to dismiss the
Coalition's case as to the Upited States on the
ground that enforcement action is discretionary
and not mandatory. At year's end, the Govern-
ment was seeking a stay of the Smoke Rise case
pending determination of related litigation.
As NPDES permits are issued and the Act's
requirements are implemented, there will be
increasing emphasis on compliance monitoring
and oh enforcement actions in the case of.
violations.
36
-------
V. Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations
Federal authorities to handle water pollution
problems have been strengthened over the years
since enactment of the first permanent legisla-
tion in 1956. A major increase in authority
stemmed from the Water Quality Act of 1965,
which authorized the establishment and enforce-
ment of water quality standards for interstate
waters. Although water quality standards were
expanded to cover intrastate waters by the 1972
Act, primary emphasis was placed upon a new
approach. The new approach is based on con-
trolling pollution at its source through effluent
discharge limitations. Together, the approaches
provide a complementary and broad legislative
base for pollution control programs.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The 1965 Act required States to adopt and
enforce water quality standards for interstate
waters. Each of these standards consisted of
criteria, representing the acceptable limits of
pollutants in receiving waters to protect the
designated use or uses of the water, and a plan
of implementation and enforcement. Based on
the latest scientific knowledge of the effects of
pollutants on human health, biological commu-
nities, recreation, and aesthetics, EPA developed
water quality criteria which it recommended for
inclusion in the State water quality standards.
Section 303 of the 1972 Act calls for an
expansion of the Federal/State standards system
to all navigable waters, including intrastate
waters. Accordingly, in 1973 the major effort of
the water quality standards program was to set
Federal/State intrastate standards and to bring
up to date many of the established interstate
standards. The process will be essentially com-
plete in mid-1974, and will establish a water
quality target for 1977.
Later, standards will be revised again to
designate uses and supporting criteria consistent
with the Act's 1983 goal for water quality.
These revised uses and criteria, to go into effect
no later than 1978, should provide the basis for
imposing the point and nonpoint source controls
needed to achieve the 1983 goal. Lower uses
should not be designated initially unless the
natural quality of water is lower than the
recommended minimum criteria. The socio-
economic and environmental costs and benefits
may be balanced further in hearings regarding
exceptions to water quality related effluent
limitations.
Water Quality Criteria and Information. The
1972 Act required EPA to publish revised
recommendations for water quality criteria and
information on the more stringent water quality
objectives of the Act. This requirement was met
in October 1973 with publication of a two-
volume document, Proposed Water Quality
Criteria and Water Quality Information. Volume
I contains the criteria for water quality for
protection of human health and for the protec-
tion and propagation of desirable species of
aquatic biota. Volume II contains information
on the maintenance, restoration, measurement,
and classification of waters. Also, pollutants
suitable for maximum daily load calculations are
identified. Following a public comment period,
the criteria will be re-evaluated and revised, if
necessary.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Effluent limitations axe developed separately for
municipal and industrial dischargers. The dis-
charge of heat and toxic pollutants is afforded
special consideration.
Municipal Effluent Limitations. Municipalities
and regional sanitary authorities are required to
provide secondary treatment by mid-1977. In
certain basins a higher level of treatment may be
required to meet water quality standards. The
37
-------
Municipalities are required to provide a minimum of secondary treatment by mid-1977. (Cleaned
wastewater at a Philadelphia plant pours over spillways, en route to the Schuylkill River.)
minimum level of effluent quality to be achieved
is expressed in terms of biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform, bac-
teria, and pH.
Protection of dissolved oxygen levels will
most frequently have the highest priority once
secondary treatment levels have been attained.
Less frequently, nutrient removal will be empha-
sized.
All projects funded after mid-1974 must
provide for the application of "best practicable
waste treatment technology" (BPWTT). By
mid-1983 all publicly-owned treatment works
must be in compliance with the requirements for
BPWTT. Treatment beyond BPWTT must be
provided where necessary to meet water quality
standards.
BPWTT is determined by consideration of
alternative waste management techniques in-
cluding reuse and land application, as well as
treatment processes. The selection of an alterna-
tive is left to each municipality or regional
sanitary authority. However, if the municipality
is to receive Federal funds it must be guided by
EPA's cost-effectiveness regulations.
Any alternative selected must comply with
certain additional requirements. In case of land
application or land utilization techniques, the
municipality must, to qualify for Federal
funding, comply with criteria designed to ensure
that the Nation's ground water resources remain
suitable for drinking water purposes.
The criteria for reuse may vary greatly de-
pending on the intended use of the effluent.
38 i
-------
Restrictions have been kept to a minimum to
encourage reuse of wastewaters. At the same
time, reuse should not be allowed to result in
greater pollution of either ground or surface
waters than other major alternatives. According-
ly, to qualify for Federal grants, any reuse
system must conform to the criteria for ground
water and the requirements applicable to direct
discharge of pollutants by publicly owned treat-
ment works.
Other waste management techniques involving
treatment and discharge include flow reduction
and control of storm and combined sewers. The
selection should be governed by cost-
effectiveness as well as by general environmental
considerations.
Industrial Effluent Limitations. Industries dis-
charge a broad range of pollutants into the
Nation's waters. In the aggregate, industry dis-
charges about three times the amount of waste
as do all the sewered private residences in the
United States, and the volume is increasing
several times as fast.
The 1972 Act provides for a vigorous attack
on industrial water pollution, setting deadlines
for a number of specific control actions. Guiding
the control program will be two salient require-
ments: Existing industries discharging pollutants
into the Nation's waters must use the "best
practicable" water pollution control technology
currently available by July 1, 1977; and they
must use the "best available" technology eco-
nomically achievable by July 1,1983.
EPA is publishing guidelines on effluent
limitations to define the "best practicable" and
"best available" technology for various indus-
tries. The guidelines consider several factors,
including the cost of pollution control, the size
and age of the industrial facility, the process
used, the energy requirements, and the non-
water-quality environmental impact of the con-
trols. EPAcmay require that, where practicable,
there may be no discharge of pollutants from
industrial facilities.
In addition, new sources of industrial pollu-
tion must" use the "best available demonstrated
control technology," which EPA is defining in
the form of standards of performance for
various industries.
EPA is also publishing pretreatment standards
for new industrial sources and proposing regula-
tions stating the application of effluent limita-
tions to users of publicly owned treatment
works.
Contracts were negotiated to perform the
necessary initial studies and analyses of the
industrial categories listed in Section 306 of the
Act, designated Group I (Table V-l). Of these
EPA is studying 19 industries with the most
complex problems in 2 phases (Table V-2). In
response to the Act, which directed that addi-
tional categories be identified, EPA assigned 16
more categories to Group II for intensive study
(Table V-3), and more may be added later.
Development of guidelines. During 1973,
effluent limitation guidelines for existing
sources, performance standards for new sources,
and pretreatment standards for new sources
were published in the Federal Register as pro-
posed regulations for 23 of the 30 Group I,
Phase I, categories. EPA first used technical
contractors to assist EPA in its study of each
industry. Input and review comments were
received from other Federal agencies, the States,
TABLE V-1
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES LISTED IN THE
1972 ACT (GROUP I, PHASE I)
Pulp and paper mills
Paperboard, builders
paper, and board
mills
Meat product and
rendering processing
Dairy product
processing
Grain mills
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
processing
Canned and preserved
seafood processing
Sugar processing
Textile mills
Cement manufacturing
Feedlots
Electroplating
Organic chemicals
manufacturing
Inorganic chemicals
manufacturing
Plastic and synthetic
materials manufac-
turing
Soap and detergent
manufacturing
Fertilizer and phos-
phate manufacturing
Petroleum refining
Iron and steel
manufacturing
Nonferrous metals
manufacturing
Steam electric power
plants
Ferroalloy manufac-
turing
Leather tanning and
finishing
Glass manufacturing
Asbestos manufacturing
Rubber processing
Timber products
processing
39
-------
Existing industrial dischargers must use "best practicable" water pollution control technology by mid-1977
and the "best available" by mid-1983. DOCUMERICA-John Alexandrowicz
40
/
-------
TABLE V-2
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL STUDY (GROUP I, PHASE II)
Pulp and paper mills
Meat product and
rendering processing
Grain mills
Canned and preserved
fruits and vegetables
processing
Canned and preserved
seafood processing
Sugar processing
Electroplating
Organic chemicals
manufacturing
Inorganic chemicals
manufacturing
Plastic and synthetic
materials manufac-
turing
Fertilizer manufac-
turing
Iron and steel manu-
facturing
Nonferrous metals
manufacturing
Phosphate manufac-
turing
Ferroalloy manufac-
turing
Glass manufacturing
Asbestos manufac-
turing
Rubber manufacturing
Timber products
processing
TABLE V-3
ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
REQUIRING STUDY (GROUP II)
Paint and ink for-
Machinery and mechan-
mulation and
ical products
printing
manufacturing
Converted paper
Coal mining
products
Petroleum and gas
Fish hatcheries and
extraction
fish farming
Mineral mining and
Transportation
processing
Paving and roofing
Water supply
materials (tars and
Miscellaneous food and
asphalts)
beverage processing
Wooden furniture
Miscellaneous chemicals
manufacturing
manufacturing
Auto and other
Ore mining and
laundries
dressing
Steam supply
industry, citizen groups, and the Effluent
Standards and Water Quality Information Advi-
sory Committee. These steps followed to
develop guidelines and performance standards;
• Industrial categorization. Industries were
subcategorized based on raw materials,
products, manufacturing processes, and
other factors such as age or size of plant.
• Waste characterization. Raw waste charac-
teristics were identified for each category
or subcategory. The heat content and the
chemical, physical, and biological character-
istics of all waste waters (including toxic
and other constituents) were identified.
• Identification, documentation, and verifica-
tion of control and treatment technology.
This step included consideration of:
— All existing and potential treatment and
control technologies (including in-plant
and end-of-process technologies).
— Limitations and reliability of each treat-
ment technology and required imple-
mentation time.
— Effects of application of each treatment
technology on non-water-quality pollu-
tion problems. >.
• Development of cost information. For each
treatment technology, cost information
was developed for investment costs and
annual costs (including capital, deprecia-
tion, operating and maintenance, and
energy costs). An economic impact analysis
indicated industry segments which should
have difficulty meeting pollution control
requirements.
• Evaluation of data. Data were evaluated to
determine the best practicable control tech-
nology currently available, the best avail-
able technology economically achievable,
and the best available demonstrated control
technology.
• Determination of effluent limitation. The
performance of exemplary plants in each
industry subcategory (except in case of
technology transfer) was analyzed to
determine achievable effluent limitation for
all industries in the subcategory.
Future developments. Final regulations cover-
ing most of the Group I, Phase I categories will
be published in the Federal Register during the
spring of 1974.
Effluent limitations guidelines and perform-
ance standards for industrial categories within
Group I, Phase II, and Group H are currently
41
-------
being developed and will be published during
1974.
Toxic Effluents. Most substances are toxic to
aquatic life and to other organisms when present
in sufficient concentrations for sufficient
periods of time. EPA is using Section 307(a) of
the 1972 Act to control those substances that
are toxic to important effected organisms. To
address the complex problem of toxic pollutants
EPA used the following selection criteria to
develop the initial list of pollutants:
• Data from laboratory or field studies
indicate that a pollutant could constitute a
serious environmental threat if discharged
into water. The data covered bioaccumula-
tion, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, carcino-
genicity, and high acute and chronic toxic-
ity.
• The pollutant is discharged, or has the
potential of being discharged, from point
sources.
• Data are available to establish effluent
standards meeting the requirements of the
Act.
• Setting standards under Section 307(a) is
appropriate because of the overall environ-
mental effectiveness of the control
measures available to EPA and the environ-
mental benefits to be derived.
Using these criteria, EPA promulgated the
following initial list of toxic pollutants on
September 7 following 4 public hearings held in
various parts of the country by the Effluent
Standards and Water Quality Information
Advisory Committee:
Aldrin-Dieldrin (pesticides)
Benzidine (chemical used in dyes)
Cadmium
Cyanide
DDT (DDD, DDE)
Endrin (pesticide)
Mercury
Polychlorinated biphenyls (organic com-
pounds used in heat exchangers and
other uses)
Toxaphene (pesticide)
Proposed effluent standards were published
December 27. These are expected to become
final in 1974 after appropriate public hearings.
Most toxic pollutants are intended to be
controlled primarily through effluent guidelines
and water quality standards. Both are imple-
mented through effluent limitations (or pro-
hibitions) in NPDES permits, which are issued
for periods not to exceed five years. Water
quality standards normally are revised once
every 3 years.
Appearance of a substance on the toxic
pollutant list may be viewed as a signal that
water quality criteria for the pollutant should be
incorporated in the next revision of all water
quality standards. At the same time, guidelines
for industries identified as major dischargers of
the pollutant will be reviewed, and revised if
necessary.
Thermal Discharges. Temperature is one of
the most important characteristics of water.
Aquatic plant and animal life can be drastically
affected by abnormal increases in water temper-
ature. Artificial temperature changes, even at
levels that may be far below those that are
acutely lethal, can favor predators, parasites, or
diseases that can destroy indigenous popula-
tions. Further, increases in water temperatures
can cause aquatic plants to proliferate and
accelerate euthrophication, with severe implica-
tions, both biologically and aesthetically.
A discharge of heat is a pollutant under the
Act and so is subject to effluent guidelines and
water quality standards. However, Section 316
of the Act contains provisions, unique to
thermal discharges, which
• Allow thermal control requirements to be
modified if the applicant can demonstrate
that they are excessively stringent for
aquatic life protection.
• Require that effluent limitations minimize
the potential damage of cooling water
intake structures.
• Provide assurances that a source will not be
required to make multiple modifications
regarding its heat discharges within a short
period of time.
Receiving water standards. The interim water
quality criteria published by EPA under Section
304(a) will, when final, supercede EPA's former
water temperature recommendations. By speci-
fying seasonal average and maximum tempera-
tures for individual fish species, the new criteria
42
-------
The discharge of heat is subject to effluent guidelines and water quality standards. (Cooling tower at Trojan
Nuclear Power Plant near St. Helens, Oregon on the Columbia River.) DOCUMERICA—Gene Daniels
43
-------
can provide better protection for aquatic life
than is achieved by most of the existing State
water quality standards. State standards will be
revised as necessary to integrate the new recom-
mendations. For each waterway, the State will
determine one or more species that should be
protected. The selected species should be indica-
tive of the overall local biologic situation, so
that the resulting criteria adequately protect the
balanced, indigenous aquatic population. The
temperature requirements will then apply in all
areas of the specific water body outside of
defined, limited mixing zones.
As an important initial step in its thermal
pollution control program, EPA is developing
thermal water quality criteria for both fresh and
marine waters. These criteria, to be published in
the Federal Register, will define the temperature
requirements for meeting the 1983 goal, will be
available as guidelines for the States to use in
reviewing their water quality standards, and will
define water quality needs for individual dis-
chargers seeking to prove that proposed effluent
limitations may be more stringent than neces-
sary to protect the indigenous aquatic
populations.
Effluent Limitations. Thermal effluent limita-
tions are imposed through NPDES on individual
point sources to meet the 1977 and 1983 goals.
The best available technology required by 1983
may consist of offstream cooling, which allows
little if any discharge of heated water. For
certain industries, the limitations will be deter-
mined initially by reference to effluent guide-
lines developed for existing sources and new
sources. Guidelines for the steam electric power
industry proposed in March call for the phased
achievement of offstream cooling during
1977-1983. These guidelines will be published
during the summer of 1974, following review of
public comments and possible revision.
The 1972 Act also provides that if the
thermal effluent limitations are more stringent
than necessary to protect indigenous aquatic
populations, any source may ask the permitting
agency for an exemption. An existing source can
demonstrate its need for exemption by showing
that its prior operation and discharge has caused
no appreciable harm. Or it may attempt to show
that the proposed limitations are more stringent
than necessary to protect various important
species selected by the permitting agency. If the
source can't demonstrate either of these con-
ditions, it must produce comprehensive biologi-
cal, chemical, physical and engineering informa-
tion regarding the water body and the discharge.
After a public hearing, the permitting agency
can impose alternative limitations.
Proposed regulations specifying procedures
for such exemptions will be published in early
1974 in conjunction with the effluent guidelines
for the steam electric power industry.
44
-------
VI. Research and Development
A strong scientific and technical base is
crucial to EPA's success in formulating policy,
setting standards, program implementation, and
enforcement. The Agency is conducting a
research, development, and demonstration pro-
gram focussed on developing new or improved
pollution control technology, improving moni-
toring instrumentation and methods, increasing
understanding of pollution processes and their
effects on health and the ecology, and develop-
ing more effective methods to utilize scientific,
technical, and socio-economic data for environ-
mental decision-making. Together, these inter-
related programs provide technical support to
EPA and other agencies responsible for cleaning
up the Nation's waters.
HEALTH EFFECTS PROGRAM
The health effects program concentrates on two
major activities—assessing the effects of water
pollutants on health and developing criteria and
standards for ensuring safe supplies of drinking
water.
Health Effects. The objectives of the water
quality health effects program are: To develop
criteria for safe treatment and disposal of
effluents and sludges from wastewater treatment
facilities; and to develop health-related criteria
for fresh and marine recreational waters.
Research is being directed towards assessing
potential health hazards associated with the use
of land for wastewater and sludge treatment and
disposal. Airborne emissions from wastewater
treatment facilities are being investigated to
determine if they could result in carryover of
pathogenic microorganisms to the surrounding
population. Studies are underway in recreational
waters to relate incidence of diseases among
swimmers to various indices of pollution. These
will result in development of health-related
criteria for recreational waters.
Water Supply. The water supply research and
development program is developing criteria for
promulgating water quality standards for mu-
nicipal drinking water. This research effort
includes studies of the biological effects of
infectious agents and toxic contaminants in
drinking water. New or improved technology is
being developed for the effective and economi-
cal control of drinking water contaminants
during storage, treatment, and distribution.
Specifically, efforts are being directed to demon-
strate technologies for inactivation of infectious
agents and removal of toxic contaminants so
that municipalities can achieve compliance with
present and future drinking water standards. The
more significant research efforts and achieve-
ments are:
• Reverse osmosis has been used to isolate
trace organics from tap water. The nature
and toxicity of these organics are being
determined.
• A cooperative study has been initiated with
the National Institute of Heart and Lung
Disease to correlate drinking water quality
and chronic diseases.
• A ten-year review of waterborne disease
outbreaks has been completed.
• Toxicological and epidemiologic studies are
being conducted for lead, cadmium,
nitrate, barium, silicate, and asbestos in
drinking water.
• Trace metals and organic compounds are
being determined in highly treated waste-
water effluent to identify best reuse of
such effluents (agricultural, industrial,
municipal or recreational).
• A miniaturized sample and an improved
carbon extraction procedure have been
developed for determination of the general
organic content of drinking water.
• Treatment processes are being improved for
the removal of mercury, barium, selenium,
arsenic, and nitrates.
45
-------
EPA's health effects program concentrates on two major activities—assessing the effects of water pollutants
on health and developing criteria and standards for ensuring safe supplies of drinking water.
DOCUMERICA—Erik Calonius
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS
PROGRAMS
Ecological studies are directed primarily toward
development of criteria to be used in setting
water quality standards. Two major studies
underway cover estuaries and the Great Lakes.
Estuarine and Coastal Zone Research. The
objectives of the estuarine and coastal zone
research program include developing (1) scien-
tifically and legally defensible water quality
criteria; (2) information for assessment of dam-
age to marine ecosystems from acute and
chronic exposures to pollutants; (3) criteria for
ocean disposal via outfalls and dumping; and (4)
predictive models for the long-term effects of
pollutants on marine ecosystems.
The following studies were initiated in 1973
in response to Section 104(n):
• Description of pollution stress in arctic and
sub-arctic estuarine ecosystems.
• Ecological impact of petroleum substances,
heavy metals and synthetic organic com-
pounds on estuary ecosystems.
• Characterization of the Nation's estuaries
according to energy flow via the food chain
and pollutant stress.
• Ecological requirements essential for the
protection of estuarine ecosystems.
Great Lakes. EPA's research program on the
Great Lakes provides a scientific basis for assess-
ing the source, fate, effects, and importance of
pollutants in large lakes in general, with particu-
lar emphasis on the Great Lakes. As an integral
part of this program, predictive mathematical
models for lake water quality management are
being developed and improved.
Among the specific pollution problems being
addressed are:
46
-------
-------
• Eutrophication
• Thermal pollution and related power pro-
duction problems
• Hazardous materials, including industrial
wastes
• Disposal of dredging spoils.
During 1973 the International Field Year for
the Great Lakes (IFYGL) program in Lake
Ontario comprised the major fraction of EPA's
research effort. (EPA is the U.S. lead agency for
the IFYGL chemistry-biology program.) Reports
from EPA and agency-supported scientists on
various aspects of the chemistry and biology of
Lake Ontario were issued. Development of a
predictive mathematical model based on the
IFYGL data is proceeding on schedule and will
be continued through 1975.
The agency continued to support studies on
Lakes Erie and Huron, which are being coordi-
nated by the U.S.-Canadian International Joint
Commission (IJC). A report on the status of
Lake Erie was issued. In anticipation of the
conclusion of IFYGL field research in 1974,
EPA's field research emphasis began to shift to
Saginaw Bay-Lake Huron as part of the IJC-
Upper Great Lakes reference study.
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
The quality of water in many river basins is
presently below prescribed standards because of
pollutants discharged from urban sources. Con-
ventional wastewater treatment technology,
originally developed to remove suspended solids
and biodegradable materials, generally lacks the
effectiveness necessary to meet today's require-
ments. The characteristics of municipal waste-
waters have been changing because of the
increasing amounts of industrial wastes accepted
by sewerage systems. Continued urban growth is
overloading existing systems and will require
development of more efficient technology.
A major portion of the municipal pollution
control research, development, and demon-
stration effort has therefore been applied to
developing new technology to upgrade the per-
formance of existing treatment processes. Up-
grading municipal plants can take many forms,
depending on the particular system. In all cases,
the key element in upgrading systems is ensuring
that existing facilities are used to their maxi-
mum capability. Present efforts are concen-
trating on two broad areas:
• Development of methods to ensure the
plant will operate at its design efficiency
over a wider range of loadings.
• Development of methods and unit proc-
esses that may be added to existing systems
to increase treatment efficiencies.
Examples of plant upgrading activities include:
• Conversion of secondary treatment air
activated sludge process to permit use of
pure oxygen.
• Conversion of existing primary treatment
systems to an oxygen activated sludge
process.
• Conversion of rock media trickling filter
systems to plastic media trickling filter
systems.
• Addition of chemicals to primary treat-
ment systems together with operation of
activated sludge for nitrification.
• Addition of alum to secondary clarifier
systems to remove more phosphorus in a
trickling filter system.
• Addition of chemicals to stabilization pond
effluents to facilitate removal of algae.
Many cities are now applying new or improved
technology to upgrade municipal treatment
works (Tables VI-1 through 3). For the most
part, the technologies have been brought to the
field application stage through the EPA research,
development, and demonstration program.
Completely new processes are also being
developed. One of the more recent concepts to
be incorporated in the municipal research, devel-
opment, and demonstration program is the
physical-chemical treatment system. This tech-
nique differs from conventional technology in
that the system no longer depends on biological
degradation of the waste materials. Instead,
advanced waste treatment techniques utilizing
processes more familiar to chemical engineering
disciplines are being actively pursued. While
physical-chemical systems may cost more to
operate, they also have the potential for in-
creased throughput, reduced land acquisition
costs, and more stable performance. Table VI-4
48
-------
TABLE VI-1
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS USING OXYGEN
Location
Type of system
Flow
(million gallons
per day)
Status
(October ±973)
Detroit, Mich.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Philadelphia, Pa.
New Orleans, La.
Tampa, Fla.
Danville, Va.
New York, N.Y. (Newton Creek)
Fairfax County, Va.
Speedway, Ind.
Calabas, Ga.
Submerged turbine
Surface aerator
Surface aerator
Surface aerator
Surface aerator
Surface aerator
Submerged turbine
Surface aerator
Surface aerator
Converted air diffusers
300
210
150
122
60
24
20
12
7.5
1.8
Startup
Design
Design
Construction
Construction
Construction
Operational
Operational
Operational
Operational
TABLE VI-2
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS REMOVING NITROGEN
Location
Type of process
Flow
(million gallons
per day)
Status
(December 1973)
Washington, D.C.
N-DN,* suspended growth
300
Construction
Tampa, Fla.
N-DN,* suspended growth fixed
60
Construction
film
Alexandria, Va.
Ion exchange
54
Design
Arlington, Va.
Breakpoint chlorination
30
Design
Madison, Wis.
Nitrification, suspended growth
30
Design
Fairfax County, Va.
Ion exchange
22.5
Design
Owosso, Mich.
Breakpoint chlorination
6.0
Design
Orange County, Calif.
Ammonia stripping
15
Operational
Central Contra Costa, Calif.
Suspended growth system
1.0
Operational
Eosemount, Minn.
Ion exchange
0.6
Operational
El Lago, Tex.
N-DN,* suspended growth fixed
0.5
Operational
film
~Nitrification-denitrification.
lists some of the plants where carbon absorption
technology is planned or under construction.
A small municipal facility (500,000 gpd) at £1
Lago, Texas, was converted to an advanced
wastewater treatment plant with no disruption
of services. Existing capital equipment was
retained and utilized as useful components of
the advanced waste treatment facility. High
quality effluent is being produced by the proper
combination of chemical-physical and biological
processes to meet effluent requirements for
biological oxygen demand, suspended solids,
phosphorus, and nitrogenous pollutants.
A major problem that received additional
attention in 1973 is the development and
demonstration of programs to utilize or dispose
49
-------
TABLE VI -3
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION CONTROL
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
WORKS REMOVING PHOSPHORUS
Number of plants
State Under
^ con. Planned
tional , ,.
struction
33 10 30
11 14 17
10 3 7
4 3 4
3 3 3
111
1-2
- - 8
TABLE VI-4
MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS
USING GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON
Location
Flow
(million
gallons
per day)
Status
(December
1973)
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
60
Design
Cleveland, Ohio
50
Design
Garland, Tex.
30
Construction
Fitchburg, Mass.
15
Construction
Rocky River, Ohio
10
Construction
Cortland, N.Y.
10
Construction
Lake Tahoe, Nev.
7.5
Operational
Owosso, Mich.
6
Construction
Rosemount, Minn.
0.5
Operational
Colorado Springs, Colo.
4
Operational
of sludges generated by wastewater treatment
systems. Techniques for determining criteria for
land disposal of sludges are being developed. In
addition, techniques to promote better sludge
digestion and concurrent generation of methane
as a new energy source are under active review.
EPA's industrial research and development is
directed toward innovative, efficient, and
economical methods to control the pollution
from industrial sources. This program provides:
• Demonstrated technologies to upgrade
present industrial wastewater treatment
practices.
• An expanding data base for establishment
of technically and economically feasible
effluent guidelines.
• Definition of pretreatment parameters for
discharge of industrial wastes to sewer
systems.
• Alternative methods for control or reuse of
waste heat.
Wherever possible, the programs focus on devel-
opment of technology that will allow industry
to recover all or part of the costs of control
through reuse or sale of the control by-products.
During 1973, the industrial program was
reoriented to ensure that the research efforts
would conform to the 1972 Act. One of the
Act's requirements calls for private industry to
install "best practicable technology" by 1977.
After mid-1974, programs to develop industrial
wastewater control technology will be focused
on satisfying the 1983 requirements- for "best
available technology" and the 1985 goal of "no
discharge."
A significant effort was initiated in 1973 to
review and assist in preparation of the effluent
limitation guidelines. This effort, which will
continue in 1974, is directed towards definition
of pollution from industrial wastes and best
available treatment systems, giving due regard to
costs. Emphasis will be on developing systems
for industries deemed likely to:
• Have the greatest difficulty in meeting
waste quality requirements.
• Contribute the most significant pollution
loads.
• Discharge toxic or potentially toxic
materials.
On a selective basis, EPA will continue to
support technology development programs for
small, fragmented industries either unable or
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
Indiana
Illinois
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
New York
50
-------
Advanced wastewater treatment facility at El Lago, Texas.
unlikely to develop effective technology without
outside support.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
CONTROL
The EPA nonpoint source research and develop-
ment program develops the knowledge and
techniques to abate and control water pollution
from such sources as agriculture, mining, con-
struction, and spills.
During the past year the program was re-
oriented to provide the technical basis for
decisions to implement the 1972 Act. The major
emphasis is now on:
• Assessing the comparative pollutant dis-
charge from nonpoint sources on a regional
and national basis.
51
-------
• Developing and verifying procedures for
estimating pollutant discharges from spe-
cific nonpoint sources and land use com-
plexes, and for predicting reductions in
pollutant discharges resulting from imple-
mentation of specific controls.
• Evaluating the performance of nonpoint
source controls and their applicability to
representative regional conditions.
• Developing and demonstrating new or
improved controls for sources where avail-
able controls are clearly inadequate.
Wherever possible, efforts are being concen-
trated on control and prevention of discharges at
the source rather than on collection and treat-
ment of pollutants after their discharge.
During 1973 a manual was published out-
lining available environmental control practices
for beef feedlot operations, and an evaluation
technique was developed for determining the
potential pollution impact of strip mining on a
given area. This technique is expected to be of
considerable value as strip mining activities are
accelerated in response to the national energy
problem.
To predict the runoff from agriculture lands,
EPA is developing a mathematical model that
describes pesticide runoff quantitatively as a
function of different combinations of con-
ditions, such as pesticide type and formulation,
soil properties, climatic conditions, watershed
characteristics, and agricultural practices. The
model accounts for the fate of pesticides on and
in the soil during rainfall and between rainfall
events. It will permit the evaluation of corrective
management or engineering practices. It will also
provide a basis for making recommendations for
pesticide usage. And finally, the model will
guide pesticide manufacturers in tailoring pesti-
cide formulations to meet regional requirements
for pollution prevention. The model is now
being extended to include plant nutrient runoff.
EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
PROGRAM
Research efforts have been concentrated on
developing test procedures required under
various sections of the Act. New and improved
analytical methods for determining chemical and
biological pollutants have been developed for
use both in the field and laboratory. Specific
developments of the past year include:
• A technique that will simultaneously
identify and measure 72 of the 92
naturally-occurring chemical elements was
adapted to the analysis of wastewaters and
sediments.
• The problem of determining coliform
bacteria in chlorinated secondary effluent
was resolved through improvements in the
membrane filter used in the analytical
procedure.
• A new method was developed to measure
NTA, a proposed substitute for phosphates
in detergents, in municipal sewage.
• Development of an EPA-wide com-
puterized biological data handling system
was started and will be completed in 1974.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
To maintain and improve the reliability of
environmental data, EPA has intensified its
comprehensive program for quality assurance.
Key elements of the program are laboratory
quality control and method standardization. The
significant achievements of the year include:
• A compendium of analytical methods em-
ployed by major laboratories within EPA
was published and distributed to encourage
selection of uniform methods.
• Approximately 4,000 sets of reference
standards were distributed to Federal,
State, local, and private water-monitoring
laboratories for verifying their analyses.
• Guidelines for effluent test procedures
were promulgated on October 16,1973, as
required by Section 304(g) of the Act.
• Three manuals were published detailing
tentative procedures for monitoring aquatic
micro-biological, biological, and marine
environmental parameters.
DATA AND INFORMATION RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Remote Sensing. Development is well under-
way of an aerial monitoring procedure for
detecting and classifying wastewater outfalls. In
52
-------
each of EPA's 10 Regions, three major outfalls
have been surveyed, and "signatures" amenable
to aerial detection are being established for each
type of source.
Technical assistance is being provided to
Regional Offices in the identification through
photo analysis of nonpoint pollution sources. A
study of a 2,200 square-mile area of the
Calcasieu River Basin in Louisiana has been
completed. Studies are underway of a 3,500
square mile area of the Monongahela River Basin
in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, a 8,000
square mile area of the Elkhorn River Basin in
Nebraska, and a 6,000 square mile area in Iowa.
Technical assistance is being provided to
Regional Offices in the aerial detection of oil
and hazardous material spills and discharges in
support of enforcement activities in California,
Idaho, Nevada, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and
New York.
Lake Eutrophication. The eutrophication
threat to selected fresh water lakes and
reservoirs in 27 Eastern States is being assessed in
conjunction with State water pollution control
agencies and the National Guard. Aimed at
developing lake water quality criteria and infor-
mation concerning point and nonpoint sources
of lake degradation, the program is slated for
expansion into the western part of the United
States during 1974. The survey will provide
significant assistance to State water pollution
control planning and to the EPA nonpoint
source and water quality criteria research and
development programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Engineering, economics, and physical, biological,
and social sciences, in conjunction with systems
analysis techniques, are brought together in a
interdisciplinary effort to develop improved
environmental quality management methods.
The Program's goal is to provide decision-makers
with data and techniques to minimize the social
cost of pollution and its control. Research areas
include environmental quality forecasting and
analysis, comprehensive planning, procedures to
set and implement standards, cost and benefit
analysis, and environmental impact analysis pro-
cedures. While the program focuses on managing
the environment considered as a whole, it also
provides management assistance directly applica-
ble to water problems. Recent accomplishments
include:
• A report to Congress on the cost-benefit
analysis research program.
• An investigation of the economic impact of
water quality on property values.
• A handbook containing improved methods
for more accurately estimating the cost of
water quality control technology.
• A survey of the impacts of wastewater
treatment processes on air pollution and
solid wastes.
• Development of procedures for cost-
effective design of ambient water quality
monitoring programs.
• An investigation of methods for imple-
menting land use controls to protect water
quality.
• An analysis of various types of regulations
for controlling the discharge of industrial
wastes into municipal sewerage systems.
• Development of procedures for efficient
control of phosphate pollution on an area-
wide basis.
A comprehensive environmental assessment
system became operational; the system provides
national, State, and regional forecasts of
pollutants generated by the Nation's production
activities, and the amount entering waterways.
In addition, for any given actual or projected
level of environmental control, the system will
provide estimates of control costs.
Other water quality management projects
initiated or continued include:
• A series of projects investigating alternative
concepts for financing the various pro-
visions of the Act.
• Development of procedures for designing a
cost-effective program for States to use in
monitoring their permit programs.
• Analysis of the economic and environ-
mental impact on coastal areas of banning
ocean disposal of municipal wastewater
sludges, and specification of practical alter-
natives.
• Demonstration of comprehensive metro-
politan water quality planning.
53
-------
An assessment of the eutrophication threat to selected freshwater lakes and reservoirs is being conducted in
conjunction with State water pollution agencies and the National Guard.
• An investigation of the potential impact of
air quality standards on water quality.
• Development and demonstration of a
regional system for determining the most
economic degree of wastewater reuse.
• Analysis of a wide range of standards
concepts for control of ground water qual-
ity.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology transfer bridges the gap between
research and full-scale operational use by
evaluating newly developed successful tech-
nologies and transferring this knowledge to
consulting engineering firms; municipal, indus-
trial, and State design engineers; city managers;
directors of public works; industrial managers;
conservation groups and others concerned with
the design and construction of pollution control
facilities.
The program has issued a series of comprehen-
sive process design manuals. The manuals, which
cover phosphorus removal, carbon adsorption,
upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants,
and suspended solids removal, are being revised
to include the latest data available. New design
manuals have been started for sludge handling
and disposal, sulfide control, and small treat-
ment plants for municipalities and for the pulp
and paper and power industry. A handbook has
been completed for monitoring industrial waste-
water, covering such topics as sampling, flow
measurement, analytical techniques, and auto-
matic monitoring methods. The manuals and
handbook have been widely distributed.
Approximately 6,000 municipal, State, indus-
trial, and private consulting engineers attended
technology transfer seminars held during 1973.
The seminars included coverage of environ-
mental pollution control techniques for selected
industries, new technology for municipal plants,
and infiltration/inflow of sewers.
A new technical capsule report series was
introduced, summarizing critical design, opera-
tional, and economic information for a number
of successful industrial projects.
-------
VII. Efficiency of Treatment Works
EPA conducts periodic operation and main-
tenance (O&M) inspections and evaluations of
existing wastewater treatment facilities. These
inspections are conducted primarily to assure
compliance with grant conditions on facilities
constructed with Federal grants. The actual
performance of treatment works compared to
their design efficiencies, as well as other related
data, were used to prepare this portion of the
report as required by Section 210 of the Act.
DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY
The results of 1,090 inspections conducted
during the calendar year 1972 and continuing
through October 1973 are stored in a computer
file entitled The Sewage Treatment Plant Opera-
tion and Maintenance Data Base (STPOM). This
file is the main source used in developing
operational or performance information. The
STPOM file contains operational data only, so
that other sources were required to supply the
design data. Since it was not feasible to search
State files on each project for the original design
criteria, the search was restricted to data
currently available within the EPA Regional
Offices. However, since specific removal levels
often were not given for older plants, State
requirements for removal efficiencies in effect at
the time of Federal grant awards were sub-
stituted where possible. This approach made it
possible to obtain design information on all but
a few plants.
Inspection records with adequate operating
data were selected for inclusion in primary
survey group A. BODs removal was the main
criterion for selection. Of the records reviewed
approximately half contained insufficient data
to compare operating and design efficiency.
These records were placed in Group B for
analysis of physical and mechanical operational
performance.
The remaining projects were referred to the
EPA Regional Offices to complete the plant
design data. As a result, 89 records or 8 percent
of the total sample were disqualified due to lack
of design data.
The final survey samples:
Group A - Records with enough design
and operational data to allow
comparisons 461
Group B - Records without operational
performance data 540
Records without design data 89
Total 1,090
The plants in Group A represent all sizes and
types of waste treatment processes (Table
VII-1). The sample contains records from 38
States, with the number ranging from as few as
one from one State to as high as 64 from
another; the median is 14 records per state.
PERFORMANCE OF GROUP A PLANTS
Performance data, taken from operating records
of the plants at the time of the EPA/State
inspections, were used to calculate basic
efficiency of Group A plants. On the average the
plants were removing 82 percent of BOD5, 79
percent of suspended solids, and 98 percent of
settleable solids (Table VII-2). The distribution
of plants meeting or not meeting the original
design criteria for BODs removals was deter-
mined by size of plant and type of treatment
process (Table VII-3), as were the average
removal efficiencies for each group by type of
process and size (Table VII-4).
Since effluent standards of a maximum of 30
mg/1 for both BODs and suspended solids have
been established, the records from secondary
treatment plants in Group A were reviewed for
performance on these measures. Of these plants,
280 had both BODs and suspended solids data,
46 percent met the standards, 23 percent were
55
-------
TABLE VII-1
NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS IN PRIMARY SURVEY GROUP
Type of process
Group 1
(15+ mgd*)
Group 2
(5-15 mgd)
Group 3
(1-5 mgd)
Group 4
(0-1 mgd)
Total
%
Primary
3
7
24
26
60
13.0
Lagoons
—
—
1
8
9
2.0
Trickling filters
5
24
81
69
179
38.8
Activated sludge
10
23
50
130
213
46.2
Total
18
54
156
233
461
100.0
%
4.0
11.7
33.8
80.5
100.0
100.0
'Million gallons per day.
TABLE VI1-2
EFFICIENCIES OF MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT PLANTS
% Average removal
meeting efficiencies
design
criteria Primary Secondary All
bod5
70
46
%
87
82
Suspended
50
54
82
79
solids
Settleable
79
96
98
98
solids
maintaining effluents containing not more than
40 mg/1 for either measure, and the remaining
31 percent were producing effluents with more
than 40 mg/1 of one or both measures.
Problems and Deficiencies. In Group A plants
that did not meet one or more of the design
criteria, five significant problems were iden-
tified:
• 71 percent need follow-up actions to
correct operational, mechanical, or man-
power deficiencies.
• 51 percent do not have an O&M manual
designed for their specific plant.
• 26 percent are hydraulically overloaded.
• 21 percent do not have adequate
laboratory facilities and/or adequate
laboratory testing programs.
• 9 percent are affected by infiltration/
inflow during wet weather.
For Group A plants, operating in conformity
with their design standards, a review of the same
problem areas showed the following:
• 56 percent need follow-up actions to
correct operational, mechanical or man-
power deficiencies.
• 42 percent do not have an O&M manual
designed for their specific plant.
• 20 percent are hydraulically overloaded.
• 21 percent do not have adequate
laboratory facilities, and/or adequate
laboratory testing programs.
• 15 percent are affected by infiltration/
inflow during wet weather.
PERFORMANCE OF GROUP B PLANTS
Physical and mechanical performance data were
examined for the 540 plants included in Group
56
-------
TABLE VII-3
MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BOD„ REMOVAL
(Bned on B008 R»mo»«li)
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
(15+mgd*) (6-15 mgd) (1-5 mgd) (0-1 mgd)
Type of process Meeting Not meeting Meeting Not meeting Meeting Not meeting Meeting Not meeting Meeting Not meeting
No.
%
No.
Devi-
ation'
No.
%
No.
Devi-
ation'
No,
%
No.
Devi-
ation^
No.
%
No.
Devi-
ationt
No.
%
No.
Devi-
ation'!'
Primary
37
62
23
19
1
33
2
18
5
71
2
25
13
54
11
16
18
69
8
22
Lagoons
6
67
3
6
1
7
6
76
2
6
Trickling filters
108
60
71
13
5
100
—
—
8
33
16
11
56
69
25
14
39
67
30
12
Activated sludge
169
79
44
S
4
40
6
6
18
78
5
5
42
84
8
6
105
81
25
9
Total/Average
320
70
141
12
10
56
8
9
31
57
23
11
111
71
46
13
168
72
65
12
•Million gallon* per day.
'Average deviation below deelgn in percentage point* of BODs removal.
TABLE VIM
AVERAGE PERCENT REMOVAL OP MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS
Type of process
Group 1
(15+ mgd*)
Group 2
(5-15 mgd)
Group 3
(1-5 mgd)
Group 4
(0-1 mgd)
Average
removal
in percent
Average
design
removal
in percent
Lagoons
bod5
—
—
73
89
87
86
Suspended solids
__
—
51
92
83
89
Settleable solids
—
—
—
100
100
97
Trickling filters
bod5
90
78
84
83
83
85
Suspended solids
85
74
83
83
82
85
Settleable solids
99
98
98
98
. 98
98
Activated sludge
BOD5
85
87
90
93
91
87
Suspended solids
82
81
83
83
82
87
Settleable solids
98
98
98
99
98
98
Primary
BODg
28
56
40
50
46
44
Suspended solids
66
72
49
53
54
57
Settleable solids
99
98
97
95
96
95
All plants
bodb
77
79
79
85
82
81
Suspended solids
81
77
78
81
79
93
Settleable solids
98
95
98
98
98
98
•Million gallons per day.
57
-------
B. These plants were grouped by size and by
types of treatment process (Table VII-5). The
majority of these plants are small, less than 1
mgd.
The most significant findings for these plants
are:
Laboratory related:
• 75 percent have inadequate laboratory
testing for process control, the majority of
them primary treatment plants and
lagoons, smaller than 5 mgd.
Maintenance related:
• 60 percent do not have an O&M manual for
the plant.
• 41 percent list spare parts inventories as
inadequate.
• 36 percent indicate that records of mainte-
nance repairs and replacement are inade-
quate.
• 25 percent indicate that routine mainte-
nance schedules are inadequate.
Operations related:
• 71 percent require follow-up actions to
correct deficiencies in the plant, its opera-
tions, or its staff and training needs.
• 31 percent indicate that operations and
other plant personnel do not routinely
attend short courses, school, or other
training.
Structural/design related:
• 56 percent have varying degrees of infiltra-
tion problems.
• 18 percent of plants having both design and
average daily flow rates are overloaded.
ANALYSIS
Except for the limitations in availability of
laboratory based performance measures, the
results of this survey are generally encouraging.
In the sample where operational performance
and design criteria could be compared, the
national averages show that 30 percent of the
plants sampled were not meeting their design
efficiency in terms of BOD5 removal. However
the average percentage of BODs removal for all
plants slightly exceeds the average design values.
For settleable solids, the average operational
efficiency also meets the design requirements.
Only in the case of suspended solids do the
operational figures fall below (and only slightly)
what the plants were designed to do.
Almost one third of the plants surveyed were
operating below design efficiency; however, the
survey sample cannot be assumed to fully
represent the nation. Still, if the survey results
did apply nationally, approximately 6,000
plants would be contributing unnecessarily high
pollution loads to their receiving waters.
The most significant problem encountered
was the lack of operational data. The plants
TABLE VII-5
NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS WITH INSUFFICIENT OPERATIONAL DATA
Type of process
Group 1
(15+ mgd*)
Group 2
(5-15 mgd)
Group 3
(1-5 mgd)
Group 4
(0-1 mgd)
Group 5
(no mgd data)
Total
Primary
1
5
43
55
4
108
Lagoons
—
6
16
126
25
173
Trickling filters
—
5
41
51
1
98
Activated sludge
5
30
118
9
162
Total
1
21
130
350
39
540
~Million gallons per day.
58
-------
Plant maintenance must be performed on a routine, planned basis by qualified personnel.
making up Group B were generally smaller than
those making up Group A, with Group B having
a much higher percentage of plants under 1 mgd.
Thus, it appears that the reporting failure
occurs predominantly in the very small plants,
particularly in the primary treatment and lagoon
categories. Many of these plants do not have the
equipment or trained personnel to conduct
laboratory analyses, or have never been required
to report test results, as indicated by the fact
that 75 percent have inadequate laboratory
testing for process control.
The second largest problem area related to
O&M deficiencies. Of plants not meeting design
efficiencies and of those in Group B, 71 percent
required corrective actions, which is 15 percent
higher than the plants that were meeting their
design goals. In addition, the plant inspectors
assessments of the physical and mechanical
performance of Group B plants showed that
more than 30 percent were deficient in one or
more of the following areas: spare parts inven-
tories, maintenance record keeping, and staff
training.
To meet the requirements of the NPDES
program, many plants will have to improve their
capability for testing and laboratory analyses
and to increase the effectiveness of their O&M
59
-------
Improvements in laboratory control and recordkeeping have been identified as the most widespread need in
maintaining treatment plant efficiency.
programs. The NPDES program will also
strengthen State O&M programs. The delegation
of the NPDES permit authority to a number of
States has involved them to a much greater
extent in the definition and enforcement of
detailed treatment plant performance criteria.
These States must assume a stronger position in
improving plant O&M.
The eligibility requirements for the con-
struction grants have been strengthened to
emphasize O&M at various project stages. At the
planning stage, the grantee must consider possi-
ble increases in treatment efficiency due to
improved O&M at existing facilities as an alter-
native to new facilities. In his final project plan
the grantee must also assure that the grant-
assisted facility will be operated and maintained
properly. In addition, grant regulations now
require clearer identification of intended design
efficiencies in project submissions as well as
reviews based on meeting effluent limitations
specified in the permit. Under construction
grant regulations, the State also must have an
effective O&M monitoring program to assure
compliance with various provisions of the Act
and the regulations.
EPA took additional steps during 1973 to
encourage better coverage of O&M by its State
program grants. These grants will impact the
States' O&M capability by providing for com-
pliance monitoring and for direct review of each
State's O&M program. The existence of major
plant O&M deficiencies has been known for
some time and was the basis for organizing the
Federal O&M programs and staffs. Many of the
activities initiated since are now having em
impact through the publication of source
documents, guidelines, and manuals.
Another major activity emphasized during
1973 is the development of a technical assist-
60
-------
ance program. As municipalities begin to en-
counter difficulties in complying with the
effluent limitations specified in NPDES permits
and as the economic and performance benefits
of improved O&M are demonstrated, demand
for such technical assistance services will grow.
This increased demand should provide an incen-
tive for the private sector to develop and market
operation and maintenance services.
While experience with technical assistance is
still limited, the experiences of four activated
sludge plants in Colorado demonstrate what can
be achieved:
• A 7 mgd plant was removing only 73
percent of the applied BODs resulting in a
discharge of over 6,500 pounds per day of
BODs to the receiving stream. At the
conclusion of the technical assistance
effort, the plant was removing 86 percent
with a discharge of less than 3,500 pounds
per day of BODs—a 46 percent decrease in
the amount of pollutant passing through
the plant.
• Technical assistance at a 5 mgd plant
increased the BOD5 removal efficiency
from 82 to 91 percent. The average
effluent BOD5 decreased from approxi-
mately 30 mg/1 to approximately 15, and
the average total suspended solids in the
effluent decreased from approximately 40
mg/1 to less than 20.
• The BOD s removal efficiency of a 0.5-mgd
plant was increased from 45 to 75 percent,
and the effluent BODs was decreased from
over 100 mg/1 to approximately 40.
• The BOD5 removal efficiency of a 5.5 mgd
plant was increased from 81 to 94 percent.
The effluent BOD5 concentrations
decreased from 35 mg/1 to 15 and the
effluent concentration of total suspended
solids decreased from 35 mg/1 to 18.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A comprehensive municipal operations strategy
is being implemented. The strategy links
issuance of municipal permits with efforts to
improve the operational efficiency of plants. To
maximize the impact of the strategy, EPA is
emphasizing the following:
• Improving the consideration of proper
O&M at all stages of new construction
grant projects.
• Insuring that O&M considerations and
interim performance criteria are adequately
integrated into municipal permits.
• Realigning EPA inspection priorities to
concentrate on intensive initial and
follow-up inspections on critical plants in
priority areas.
• Establishing a technical assistance capa-
bility for improving existing plant
operations.
• Providing guidance to state agencies on
improving their municipal operations pro-
grams. The States must be established in
the lead role in improving treatment plant
operations.
In addition, these activities are considered
essential to the success of an aggressive nation-
wide effort to improve operations:
• A public information program to promote
better O&M of municipal treatment
facilities.
• Training efforts fully integrated with and
responsive to operational requirements.
• Improved data handling and assessment
capabilities to provide an improved data
base for program support and direction.
• Continued development of technical pub-
lications and other information sources on
O&M aspects of plant design and
operations.
The O&M inspections provide the basic data
to evaluate an existing facility's performance
and to identify operational problems that could
be corrected to produce higher operating
efficiencies. Based on the O&M inspection
results, the municipal permit conditions can be
written to incorporate more stringent conditions
achievable by improved operation of a facility.
Technical assistance will be offered to munici-
palities to help them improve plant operations
to meet the more stringent permit conditions
and reduce the pollution load on receiving
waters.
61
-------
Appendix A
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PENDING OR COMPLETED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1973
UNDER PL 92-500, SECTION 309 (FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT)
TABLE A-1
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 309
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving
waters
Alleged violation
Date of
order
Results or status 12/31/73
Basic Materials Co.
Missouri
VII
Mississippi River
Compliance schedule
12/19/73
Company requested additional
time to comply
Browning Ferris Industries
of Kentucky, Inc.
Boone County,
Walton, Kentucky
IV
Mud Lick Creek;
Big Bone Creek,
a tributary of
Ohio River
Continuing leaching of
liquid wastes from
company's solid waste
disposal site
12/17/73
Company complying with
schedule set out in order
BSAF Wyandotte Corp.
Wisconsin
V
Wisconsin River
Violation of effluent
limits
12/18/73
Awaiting compliance
Comstock Foods, Inc.
Rushville,
Ontario County,
New York
II
West River
Failure to supply
monitory data as
mandated by condi-
tion of NPDES permit
12/11/73
Periodic monitoring data now
being received; company letter
indicates that comprehensive
monitoring report will be sub-
mitted when controlled re-
lease program gets under way
again in spring 1974
East Point Seafood Co.
Alaska
X
St. Paul Harbor
Interim permit date
missed
12/19/73
Work in progress
Great Western Sugar Co.,
Eaton Mill
Colorado
VIII
Cache la Poudre
River
By-pass prohibition in
permit
11/12/73
Compliance 11/29/73
Great Western Sugar Co.,
Longmont Mill
Colorado
VIII
South Platte
River
By-pass prohibition in
permit
10/23/73
Compliance 11/2/73
Great Western Sugar Co.,
Loveland Mill
Colorado
VIII
South Platte
River
By-pass prohibition in
permit
11/12/73
Compliance 1/24/74
Holly Sugar Corp.
Montana
VIII
Yellowstone
River
Effluent limitations in
permit
12/14/73
Compliance 1/11/74
Husky Oil Co.
Wyoming
VIII
Crow Creek
Effluent limitations in
permit
12/5/73
Company unable to achieve
compliance; 309(b) action
being prepared
Idaho Springs, City of
Colorado
VIII
Clear Creek
By-pass prohibition in
permit
11/26/73
Compliance 12/7/73
Kennecott Copper Corp.
Arizona
IX
Gila River
309(a)(3)-permit
condition
11/6/73
Discharge to cease by 1/15/74
North Pacific Processors
Alaska
X
St. Paul Harbor
Interim permit date
missed
12/19/73
Work in progress
Pan Alaska Fisheries, Inc.
Alaska
X
St. Paul Harbor
Interim perhtit date
missed
12/19/73
Work in progress
Peavey Paper Mills, Inc.
Wisconsin
V
Flambeau River
Violation of effluent
limits
12/24/73
Awaiting compliance
Plastene Supply Co.
Missouri
VII
Portage Bay
Compliance schedule
U/21/73
Order complied with
Pueblo Board of Water
Works
Colorado
VIII
Arkansas River
Effluent limitations in
permit
11/21/73
Compliance not yet achieved;
negotiations continuing
Ursin Seafoods, Inc.
Alaska
X
St. Paul Harbor
Interim permit date
missed
12/19/73
Work in progress
Whitney-I'idalgo Seafoods,
Inc.
Alaska
X
St. Paul Harbor
Interim permit date
missed
12/19/73
Work in progress
A-1
-------
TABLE A-2
CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 309
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving
waters
Alleged violation
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Results or status 12/31/73
Great Western Sugar Co.,
Eaton Hill
Colorado
VIII
Cache la Poudre
River
By-pass prohibition in
permit
11/28/73
Complaint filed 1 2/2 1/73; court
order (1/9/74) extended time to
answer to 2/6/74
U.S. v. W. Langston
Holland; Robert D. Wray;
Kirk T. Pierce; Lewis II.
Kent; Robert D. Wray
Construction Co.; George
F. Young, Inc.; C. E.
Pierce Construction Co,
St. Petersburg,
Florida
IV
Papy's Bayou
33 U.S.C. Section
1311(a), 33 U.S.C. Sec-
tions 403,407
12/13/73
Temporary restraining order,
12/21/73; preliminary injunction,
1/1 1/74; initial settlement offer,
1/24/74; second settlement offer,
1/30/74
TABLE A-3
CRIMINAL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 309
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving
waters
Alleged violation
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Results or status 12/31 /73
Central Nebraska Packing
Co.
Nebraska
VII
North Platte
River
Non-filer
10/12/73
Pending
Continental Cheese, Inc.
Nebraska
VII
Crooked Creek
Non-filer
10/9/73
Pending
Elmer Duerfeldt Co.
Nebraska
VII
Half Breed Creek
Non-filer
6/30/73
Pending
Libbey-Owens Ford
Ohio
V
Otter Creek
Discharging without a
permit
9/12/73
Under review
Mapes Industries
Nebraska
VII
Salt Creek
Non-filer
4/26/73
Company now discharging into
city sanitary sewer; U.S. Attorney
declined to prosecute 7/3/73
Runny Meade Estates, Inc.
Missouri
VII
Belleau Creek
Discharge of pollutants
11/23/73
Pending
Tri County Logging Co.
Michigan
V
Bear Creek
Discharging without a
permit
12/07/73
Under review
TABLE A-4
STATE ENFORCEMENT NPDES PERMITS UNDER SECTION 309
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving
waters
Alleged violation
Date of EPA
notice
Results or status 12/31/73
Eaglc-Picher Industries,
Inc.
Missouri
VII
Lone Elm Creek
Effluent limitations
compliance schedule
10/26/73
Company requested permit modi-
fication
Moss-American, Inc.
Missouri
VII
Drainage di tch to
Dry Creek
Effluent limitations
compliance schedule
10/26/73
Appropriate enforcement action
taken by State
Stock Yards Service &
Supply Co.
Iowa
V(I
Missouri River
Compliance schedule
12/11/73
Appropriate enforcement action
taken by State
A-2
-------
Appendix B
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PENDING OR COMPLETED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1973
UNDER PL 92-500, SECTION 311 (OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY)
TABLE B
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 311
Name of discharger
Location
HPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
Kl'A action -
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
A. B. Chance Co.
Missouri
Vli
Bush Creek
Tank control valve
311(b)(6)
311 (b)(5)
U.S. Coust Guard
(IJSCil) and U.S.
A!lonk-y, 7/2/7J
USCG collected $300, 10/10/73
A. & O.C. Trailer ('ourt
Missouri
Vli
Fabius River
Opened tank valve
311(b)(6)
usee;, 8/31/73
USCG assessed preliminary penalty
of $5,000, 12/17/73
Albert Gibson
California
IX
Fresno Slough
Spill
313(b)(6)
USCC.ii 9/11/73
Pending
Alger &. Smith Trans-
portation Co.
Massachu seits
J
¦
Overfilled tank
10/2/73
Pending
Allied Chemical Co.
Baton Rouge,
Louisiana
VI
Bayou Branch,
Mississippi River
Spill
''
USCC, 3/27/72
Pending
American Off Co.
Georgia
IV
Tributary ro Sope
Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(h)(5)
9/28/73
9/28/73
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Under consideration (criminal action)
American Smelting &
Refining, C'o.
Tennessee
IV
Cedar Creek
Spil!
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 12/14/7.1
12/14/7:1
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Under consideration (criminal action}
Amoco
Wyoming
VII!
Little Teapot Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCC, 5/31/73
Patulty of'$2()0 paid 8/30/73
Amoco
"
VIII
Silver Tip Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/17/73
Pending
Amoco & Clark
Trucking
Utah
VIII
Farmington Bay
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCCJ, 5/24/73
Case dismissed, 10/26/73
Amoco Pipeline Co.
Cleburne, Texas
VI
Lake Cleburne
Spill
3f1(b)(6)
USCG, 9(10/73
Pending
Amoco Refineries
Missouri
vu
Sugar Creek
Open valve
311(b)(6)
USCC, 10/19/73
Pending
Arapahoe Pipeline Co.
Colorado
VIII
Plum Brush Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 4/5/73
Pending
Archer-Daniels Midland
Co.
South Carolina
IV
Todd Branch, Little
Lynch River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 1/23/7 3
USCG has not reported
At co
Washington
X
Scribner Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCC, 5/21/73
Penally of SI,501) paid
Area Oil Co.
Illinois
V
Spoon River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCC, 4/19/73
Penally of $250 paid 7/17/73
ArcoOil Co.
California
IX
Mud Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/26/7 3
Penally of SI ,000 paid 1/15/74
Argo Petroleum
California
IX
Bear, Maple, Tar
Creeks
Spill
3 U (b)(6)
USCC, 11/7/73
Pending
Arizona Fuel Corp.
l/iait
VIII
Big Sand Wash
Spill
311 (b)(6)
USCG, 12/10/73
Pending
Arizona-Pacific Truck
Lines
Utah
Vill
Beaver Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/12/73
Pending
Ashland Oil & Trans-
portation Co.
Kentucky
IV
Big Pitman Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
1/23/73
1/23/73
Penally of $ 1,000 assessed 3/21/73
(civil action)
Case dismissed without prejudice;
will not be tried until appeal proce-
dure in Ashland's Little Cypress
Creek ease is completed (criminal
action).
AsUland Oil & Trans-
portation Co.
IV
NatCrcek, tributary
lo Levisa Fork of
Big Sandy River
Spill
3 V 1(b)(6)
3/22/73
Penalty of $500 assessed 5/7/73
Ashland Oil & Trans-
portationCo.
IV
Burning Fork Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
6/8/73
USCG has not reported
Ashland Oil Co.
Wyoming
viu
Cottonwood Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/28/73
Penalty «V$5,()00 assessed 12/17/73
Ashland Oil Co.
Kentucky
IV
South Branch
Panther Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
LU/10/7 3
Penalty of $200 1/23/74
Ashland Oil Co.
IV
Little Cypress Creek
Spin
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
4/24/73
4/24/73
Penalty of $300 assessed 5/15/73
(civil action)
Motion to dismiss overruled; Guilty
plea; $500 fine pending appeal
(criminal action)
Ashtand Oil Co.
IV
Swift Creek, tribu-
tary to Red River
Spill
311(b)(6)
4/18/73
USCG has not reported
Ashland Oil Co,
Indiana
V
Ohio Rive?
Spill
B-l
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/18/73
Penalty assessed
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Nairn- of discharger
Local ion
KPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision +
I/PA action
referral to
and date
Result* or status 12/31/73
Ashland Oil Co.
Indiana
V
Putoka River
Spill
3i Kt»i(6)
USCG, 10/30/73
Under consideration
Ashland Oil Co.
"
V
Barr Creek
Spill
SI !(b)(6)
USCG, 12/3/73
Under consideration
Ashland Oil Co.
"
V
11 ig Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCC J, 12/3/73
Under consideiaiion
Ashhnd Pipeline C'o.
Kentucky
IV
Unnamed tributary
to Salt River
Spill
311(b)(6)
4/18/73
HSCCj has noi reported
Ashland Pipeline Co.
Illinois
V
Black Rivet
Spill
.Ult'bXO)
USCG, 7/5/73
Penalty of $'300 paid 1 2/1 2/73
Ashland Pipeline Co.
Indiana
V
Sand Creek
Spill
31 HbK6)
USCG, 5/18/73
Penalty of $500 assessed 8/73
Ashland Pipeline Co.
"
V
Yellow Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/13/73
Penalty of J 100 paid 12/6/73
Ashland Pipeline Co.
"
V
Tributary to Bayou
Creek
Spill
3! 1(b)(6)
USCG, 10/30/73
Under consideration
Ashland Pipeline Co.
Ohio
V
Black Rivet
Spill
31 Hb>(6)
IJSCG,')/ IH/7 3
Penalty assessed
11 & K Oil Co.
Maine
I
¦)
Gas spill
USCG, 8/1/73
Penalty of $500 assessed 9/28/73;
case closed
i\ & R Iranspoit Co.
North Carolina
IV
Broad River
Spill
31 hb><6)
311(b)(5)
V/29/12
4/29/72
Penalty ot $3,500 6/20/73 (civil
action)
Declined to prosecute (criminal
action)
Baker Gasoline Co,
Iowa
VII
Corydon Reservoir
Storage tank over-
How
31 1(b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
USCG
and
U.S. Attornev
7/24/73
USCG collected $200 11/13/73
(civil action)
Declined to prosecute (criminal
action)
Bangor Hydro 1 -Hoctrie
Co.
Maine
I
Penobscot River
Oil leak
31 1(b)(6)
31 1(b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
USCG, 8/73
U.S. Attorney
8/73
Pending (civil ;iciion)
Line of $5,000; case closed 12/73
(criminal action)
BaTringeT Oil Co.
North Carolina
IV
Oelia Creek
Spill/bridge
collapsed
311 (b)l b)
1/31/73
Penalty of $500 assessed 4/4/73
Berks Associates
Pennsylvania
HI
Schuylkill River
Crank case oil
<3-5 bbl.j
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/6/73
Of original assessment ot $ 1,000,
$350 paid
Beverly Hills Oil Co.
California
IX
Ballona Creek
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
USCG, 1 1/28/73
to U.S. Attorney
1/31/74
Pending
Blaloek HauIingCo.
Georgia
IV
Blue John Creek
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
3/13/73
Penalty of $2,500 assessed 5/24/73
Illaloek Hauling Co.
Georgia
IV
Unnamed creek to
Price Pond
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
4/13/73
4/13/73
Penally of $2,500 assessed 5/23/73
(civil action)
Under consideration (criminal
action)
Boeing
Washington
X
White River
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 1/30/73
Penalty of $3,000 paid
Bowers Supply Co.
West Virginia
ill
Harmon Creek
Kerosene (.6800
gal.)
3 11 tb>t 6>
USCG, 8/8/73
Ol original assessment of $ 1,000,
$500 paid 12/3/73
liroyhill Industries,
Inc.
North Carolina
IV
Lower Creek
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
3/7/73
Penalty of $900 paid as assessed
6/26/73
Buckeye Pipeline Co.
Indiana
V
Billy Creek
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 7/5/73
Penalty of $300 paid 12/12/73
Hurley Mayberry
Kentucky
IV
Smith Branch to
Powder Mill Creek
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
10/4/73
10/4/73
Penalty oi"$lOD assessed 12/3/73
(civil action)
Under consideration (criminal
action)
Burlington Northern
RR
Washington
X
Columbia River
Spill
3 11(b)(6)
USCG, 9/27/73
Penalty of $ 100 assessed
Burlington Northern
RR
Camden Iron &, Steel
Nebraska
South Carolina
VII
IV
Salt Creek
Catawba River
Outfall discharge
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 3/9/73
U.S. Attorney
3/9/73
8/21/73
USCG final assessment of $250 paid
5/29/7 3
USCG has not reported
Carolina Aluminum Co,
North Carolina
IV
Unnamed Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/3/73
Declined (lack of evidence that oil
reached water)
Carolina Aluminum Co.
JV
Tributary to
Chowan River
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/3/73
Penalty of $750 3/1/73
Casino PieT, inc.
Missouri
VII
lake of O/.arks
Automatic shutoff
failed
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG
U.S. Attorney
8/19/73
USCG final assessment of $ 150
12/28/73 (civil action)
Declined to prosecute 10/3/73
(criminal action)
Castle Tool
Pennsylvania
m
Darby Creek
Fuel oil (20 gal.)
B-2
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/3
Penally of $250 paid 9/17/73
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
EPA uctioit-
refenal to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
Cavalier Towing, Inc,
d/b/a "Pamela D"
Tennessee
IV
Ohio River
Overfilled tank
311(b)(6)
11/29/72
Penalty of $1,500 2/13/73
Celanesc Corp.
North Carolina
IV
Tributary to Sugar
Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/19/73
')
Central Vermont RR
Vermont
1
Lake Chanapl ain
Spill
•>
3/!4/73
Penalty of .¥3,000 paid; case closed
Chamberlain Mfg.
Massachusetts
i
Nashroad Pond
Oil escape, contin-
uous
US CO, 11/14/73
Pending
Charter International
oh
Texas
VI
Houston Ship Chan-
nel
Spill
3 M (b)(6)
USCG, 4/6/73
Declined
Chemquici Disposals,
Inc.
Emerson, New
Jersey
II
Cedar Crock
Spill, from kak in a
tanker truck, of
roJuo), acetone,
xylene
311 (b)(6)
USCG, 2/1/73
Penalty of S3,500 asked, $3,500 fine
Chevron
Montana
VJI1
Flat Lake
Spill
31 1 (b)(6)
USCG, 6/1 1/73
Case dismissed 7/20/73
Cities Service
Mississippi
!V
Kitt-ersng Cicck
Spill
311 (b)(6)
H/23/73
\JSCG has noi reported
Clark Chemical Corp.
Massachusetts
I
-J
Spill
USCG, 8/16/73
Penally of $ 100 assessed 9/13/73;
Ca.se closed
Coastal S tales Gas
Prod. Co.
Houston, Texas
VI
Colorado River
Spill
31J (b)(6)
USCG, 3/3(1/73
Pending (also see table E-2)
Conoio pipeline Co.
Kansas
VII
Unnamed tributary
Pipeline leak
3-11 (b)(6)
USCG. 7/2/73
12/(1/73 -Final assessment $100
Conservation Chcnih
calCo.
Missouri
VII
Missouri River
Storage lagoon over-
flow
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11)/31/7 3
Pending
Continental Pipeline
Co.
Kansas
VII
Arkansas River
Pipeline leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/10/73
Pending
CoWan Oil Co.
Tennessee
IV
Millers Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG 4/9/73
U.S. Attorney,
4/9/73
Penalty of $2,500 assessed 10/3/73
(civil action)
Acquitted 7/3 1/73 (criminal action)
CRA, Inc.
Kansas
VII
Caney River
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/23/73
Pending
CRA, Inc.
.Nebraska
VII
North Platte River
Trap overflow
311 (b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
USCG, 7/12/73
U.S. Attorney
Coast Guard collected $200 12/3/73
(civil action)
Declined to prosecute 7/19/73
(criminal action)
Cracker Slate Oil Co.
Georgia
IV
Private lake
Spill
31 1 (b)(6)
311(b)(5)
11/2/73
1 J/2/73
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Under consideration (criminal action)
Craig & Johnson
Massachusetts
I
7
Oil discharge
<)
USCG, 1/19/73
Penalty of $ 1,000 paid; case closed
Crown Central
Houston, Texas
VI
Houston Ship
Channel
Spill
USCG, 2/29/72
Pending
Crucible Steel
Pennsylvania
HI
Ohio Rivtj
Tai (minor quan-
tity)
3.11(b)(6)
USCG, 8/31/73
Penally of S 300 paid 12/3/73
Crystal Refining Co.
Michigan
V
Fise Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/21/7 3
Pending
Davis Transportation
Co.
North Carolina
IV
Moccasin Creek
Overturned truck
3U(b){6)
1/19/73
Penalty of $250 4/20/73
Diamond Shamrock
Co.
Wyoming
VUI
Lightening Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/25/7 3
Penalty of$300 paid 12/21/73
Dick's Truck Line
Wyoming
Vlil
Flat Creek
Spiit
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/2/73
Penalty of $200 paid 1/21/74
Dixie Drilling Co.
Tennessee
IV
Bear Blanch, Ivy
Branch, Oak Creek,
Clear Fork Rivei
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 9/11/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Guilty. 1 2/1 7/73; $3,00(1 fine
(criminal action)
Duke Power
North Carolina
IV
Lake Norman
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/19/73
No penalty
Ivdm os Corporation
NortEi Carolina
IV
Walker Branch,
Clark Creek, South
Fork River
Spill
311(b)(6)
8/30/73
USCG lias nut reported
Electric Wiring, Inc. or
Elmore Construction
Co.
North Carolina
IV
Unnamed
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/3/73
Penalty of 5 1,000 3/5/73
Ellisville, City of
Missouri
VEI
Oak Hill Brunch of
Keifcr Creek
Lift station
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/15/73
Penalty of $200 paid 10/30/73
Film City Oil Co,
New Hampshire
1
Wamer\s Pond
Spill
¦)
USCG, 1/29 m
Penalty of $2,000 assessed 11/15/73
B-3
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
lpa
regic.ni
Receiving waters
Problcm/ineidenl
Applicable
provision*
LPA action
referral to
and date
Results or status 1 2/3 !/73
Lureka Pipe Line
Parkersburg, Wesr
Virgin Li
HI
North Fork Hughes
River
Crude oil (1 30
bbU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/6/73
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $200; case being appealed
Lureku Pipe Line
''
It!
Johnson Creek
Crude oil (35 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/6/73
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $ 100; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
Ill
Sugar ('reek
Crude oil ('15 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 2/7/7 3
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $250; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
III
Green Creek
Crude oil 130 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/7/73
Original penalty $300; revised pen-
alty $100; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
III
Tanner Creek
Crude oil (300
bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/1/73
Original penalty $ 1,000; revised pen-
alty $750; ease being appealed
Lureku Pipe Line
"
III
Stillwoll Creek
Crude oil ( 30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCC;, 2/7/73
Original penalty $5,000; revised pen-
alty $2,500; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
HI
Little Creek
Crude oil (325 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/23/73
Original penally $1,000; revised pen-
alty $500; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
III
Cappo Run
Crude oil (50 bbL)
31 l (b)(6)
USCG, 2/23/73
Original penalty $3,500; revised pen-
alty $2,000; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
111
Indian Run
Crude oil (25 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 2/23/73
Original penalty $500; case being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
III
Indian ('reek
Crude oil (20 KM.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 2/23/73
Original penalty $300, ease being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
(11
Arnold Creek
Crude oil (2(1 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 2/21/73
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $300; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
III
Lake Lloyd
Crude oil (100 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG. 2/2 3/7 3
Original penally $300; case being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
HI
Piekonpaw Run
Crude oil (110 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCC;, 5/3/73
Original penalty $500; case being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
III
Piney Fork
Crude (.nl (25 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 5/29/73
Original penalty $500; case being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
III
Uig Indian Run
Crude oil (75 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/3/73
Original penally $500; revised pen-
ally $250; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
111
Cappo Run
Crude oil (50 bbl.)
31 1(b)(5)
U.S. Attorney,
4/24
U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute
Lureka Pipe Line
"
HI
South Lork Hughes
River
Crude oil (25-45
bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG. 2/2/73
Original penalty $500; ease being
appealed
Kureku Pipe Line
"
111
Little Rowles Run
Crude oil (25 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 2/6/7 3
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $300; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
m
McLlroy Run
Crude oil (115 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/3/73
Original penally $300; case being
appealed
Kureku Pipe Line
"
Hi
Nleathouse Fork
Crude oil (40 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 5/29/73
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty $300; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
"
HI
Bunnell Run
Crude oil <50 bbL)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/3/73
Original penalty $500; revised pen-
alty % 250; ease being appealed
Kureku Pipe Line
HI
Coxcarnp Fork
Crude oil (50 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/29/73
Original penalty $300; revised pen-
alty $100; case being appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
III
Sinimons Run
Crude oil {75 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/29/7 3
Original penalty $300; ease being
appealed
Lureka Pipe Line
III
Addis Run
Crude oil ^3(1 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/29/73
Original penally $300; ease being
appealed
Kureku Pipe Line
"
iir
Fink Creek
Crude oil (60 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/15/73
Informal hearing scheduled
Kureku Pipe Line
"
Hi
Spicewood Run
Crude oil i 100 bbl J
3 U (b)(6)
USCG, 1 1/15/ 7 3
"
Lureka Pipe Line
"
m
Indian Creek
Crude oil (25 bbl,)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 1 1/15/73
"
Lureka Pipe Line
"
HI
Grass Run
Crude oil (50 bbl.)
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 1 1/15/73
"
Lureka Pipe Line
"
II)
Little Spring Run
Crude oil (40 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 1 1/15/73
"
Kureku Pipe Line
"
HI
Yellow Creek
Crude oil (30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/15/73
"
Kureku Pipe Line
'•
HI
Buck Run
('rude oil (100 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/15/73
"
Eureka Pipe Line
"
HI
Long Run
Crude oil (60 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 1 if 15/73
" " "
Kureku Pipe Line
"
Hi
Link Creek
("rude oil (40 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, I 1/15/73
"
L, S. Services
Illinois
V
Little Sandy Creek
Spill
B-4
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 8/1/73
Fined 8/25/73
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
F.PA
region
Receiving waters
i
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
FPA action
Tcferru! to
and dale
Results nr status 12/31/73
Fannin Co.
Georgia
IV
Unnamed tributary
to Toceou River
Spill
311(b)(6)
J11(b)(5)
USCG 1/11/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Penalty of $500 5/1/73 (criminal
action)
Tarenthokl (Crispin
Co.)
Houston, Texas
VI
Mississippi River
Spill
31 1(b)(5)
(oklll l(b>4>
U.S. Attorney
1/31/72
U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute
8/29/73
Fear and Duncan
Illinois
V
Trihu lasy of North
Fork ot' Kaskaskia
R iver
Spill
3 11(b)(6)
USCG. 9/18/75
Fined 11/12/7 3
Ferguson's Garage
Missouri
VII
Goodwater (.'reek
Intermittent dis-
charge
311(b)(6)
31 1(b)(5)
USCG 9/14/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG dismissed case 12/7/73
Firestone l ire & Rub-
ber Co.
Iowa
VII
Walley Crock
#2 Outfall
311(b)(5)
USCG
U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute
10/24/73; IJSCG collected $500
1.1/30/73
Filch Oil Co,
New Hampshire
1
Spill
8/13/73
Penalty of $250 paid 9/14/73; ease
dosed
Meet Transport Co.
North Carolina
IV
Unnamed tributary
to Waluuga ('reek
Spill
311(b)(6)
H/ 30/7 3
Penalty of $251) paid 1/14/74
Fleet Transport Co.
Tennessee
IV
Highway #27 North
ot Wartburg, Tennes-
see
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/23/73
USCG healing, 6/4/73, found no con-
clusive evidence thai oil reached
river; no penalty
Fleet Transport Co.
North Carolina
IV
Tributary to Lower
Little River
Spill
311(b)(6)
6/K/73
Penally of $ 1,000 assessed 9/24/73;
$750 compromise accepted 10/15/73
Fleet Transport Co.
Georgia
IV
Gaitor Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
5/10/73
USCG has nut reported
Flying Diamond
Transport Corp.
Utah
VIU
Jordan River
Spitl
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/K/7 3
Pending
Ford Motor Co,
Missouri
VII
Mill Creek
Ruptured under-
ground line
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 3/23/73
U.S. Attorney
Final penalty by USCG $300
(>/14/73; (civil action)
Declined to prosecute 8/9/73 (crimi-
nal action)
Foresi City Fnter-
prises
Illinois
V
Cahoon Creek
Sludge
311(b)(5)
U.S. Attorney
9/24/73
Complaint filed 11/27/73
Foster Lumber Co.
Colorado
VIII
Fugle River
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
IJSCG, 12/20/7 3
Pending
Four Corners
Utah
VIII
McCrackeri Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/29/7 3
Pending
Fredriekson Motor
Corp.
North Carolina
IV
Gasher Creek,
Swannanoa River
Spill
311(b)(6)
8/23/73
Penalty of $100 11/16/73
G&GOilCo.
Virginia
HI
Backwater River
#2 Fuel oil
(3,885 gal.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/14/7 3
Of original assessment of $3,500,
$250 paid 7/24/73
General FoodsCorp.
New York
II
Genesee River
Spill
311(b)(6)
9/7/73
Referred to USCG; $2,000 penally
assessed
George A. Rheman
Co., Inc.
South Carolina
IV
West Fork French
Broad
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/15/73
4/27/73 USCG hearing accepts
$ 1,000 compromise offer, 5/23/73
S1,000 paid
Getty Pipe Co.
New Jersey
II
Woodhridge Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/27/73
Penalty of $1,200 asked
Gildo Adkins
Indiana
V
Hunley Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 4/12/73
('use closed insufficient evidence
Great Lakes Container
Corp.
Kansas
VII
Kansas River
Sewer discharge
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 7/17/73
U.S. Attorney
Coast Guard collected $300 9/28/73
(civil action);
Declined to prosecute 11/8/73
(criminal action)
Gull'Oil Co.
Kansas
VII
Sand Creek
Collapsed plastic
collection line
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/27/7 J
Pending
Gulf Oil Co.
Missouri
VII
Coldwater Creek
Storage tank leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/6/73
USCG collected $300 penalty
12/31/73
Gulf Oil Co.
California
IX
Coyote Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/73
Penalty of $500 9/20/73
Gulf Pipeline Co.
Texas
VI
Trinity River
Spill
311(b)(5)
(old 1l(b)4)
U.S. Attorney,
5/9/72
Fined $500 3/5/7 3
H. F. Johnson
Idaho
X
North Fork of
Snake River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/7/73
Penally of $500 paid
H. F, Johnson
"
X
Cascade Creek
Spin
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/5/73
Penalty of $250 assessed
H.K.Marshall Oil Co.
North Carolina
IV
Crabtree Creek
Spill
B-5
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 11/5/73
U.S. Attorney
U.S. Coast Guard has not responded
(civil action).
Under consideration (criminal action)
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
H. K. Porter, Inc.
H. S. Bunting
Hanson Buick
Harbour Bros. Con-
struction
Lynchburg, Vir-
ginia
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Kansas
Harold Epps d/b/a/ Missouri
Hero-Hilco Enterprises
Hathaway & Patterson Massachusetts
Co.
Hazel Marie Johns
Home Oil & Gas Co.
HotchkissOilCo.
Kansas
North Carolina
Fredericksburg,
Virginia
Hougland Barge Lines Paducah, Ken-
tucky
1CI America Massachusetts
Indiana Farm Bureau Illinois
Indiana Farm Bureau "
International Paper
Co.
Iren S. Light, Inc.
Isenhour Brick
Massachusetts
Lebanon,Penn-
sylvania
North Carolina
Jones & Laughlin Steel Ohio
Jones Texaco Georgia
West Virginia
Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corp.
Kaw Pipeline Co.
Kaw Pipeline Co.
Koch Oil Co.
Koch Oil Co.
Kunkel Fuel Oil
Kansas
Kansas
Duncan, Okla-
homa
Pennsylvania
Lakehead Pipeline Co. Minnesota
Lsaeh Bros., Inc. Dallas, Texas
Leach Bras., Inc. "
Lebeouf Bros. Towing, Kentucky
Inc. A Mary R. Towing
Co., Inc.
Ledbetter Construction Georgia
Co.
Liberty Materials Co. Liberty, Texas
III Fishing Creek
III Susquehanna River
IV South Fork, Peach-
tree Creek
VII Wolf Creek
VII Lake Taneycomo
VII Chisholm Creek
IV Old Town Creek
HI Quantico Creek
IV Ohio River
I
V
V
I
V
VI
VI
IV
Muddy Cove
Coffee Creek
Coffee Creek
Androscoggin
III Darby Creek
Tamarac River
Garcitas Creek
Ohio River
VI Trinity River
22,000 gallons
#6 Fuel oil (6,000
gal.)
Spill
Road spray washed
off by rain
Road oil washed
off by rain
Intermittent oil
leaks
Broken oil sludge
dike
III Schuylkill River
IV Tributary to Town
Creek
V Cuyahoga River
IV Unnamed tributary
III Ohio River
VII Big Creek
VII Lost Creek
VI Little Beaver Creek
Oil leak
Spill
Spill
Spill
#2 Fuel oil {3,000
g»l)
Spill
Spill
Spill
Light roiling oil
(500 gal.)
Cracked gathering
line
Pipeline leak
SpUl
VI Heybern Reservoir Spill
#2 Fuel oil (2,200
gal.)
Spill
SpUl
Spill
Spill
IV South Fork Creek Spill
SpUl
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
Spill
#2 Fuel oU (500
gal.)
#2 Fuel oil (10,000 311(b)(6)
gal.)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
1
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/28/73
USCG, 2/6/73
Of original $5,000 penalty, $1,000
paid 5/16/73
Of original assessment of $4,000,
$250 paid
USCG, 10/30/73 U.S. Coast Guard has not responded
(civil action)
Under consideration (criminal action)
U.S. Attorney
10/30/73
USCG, 9/24/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG, 4/12/73
1/29/73
USCG, 6/15/73
U.S. Attorney
1/3/73
USCG, 6/20/73
USCG, 8/1/73
USCG, 11/6/73
USCG, 10/31/73
USCG, 10/30/73
USCG, 10/5/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 3/1/73
USCG, 1/7/74
U.S. Attorney
USCG, 7/10/73
5/10/73
USCG, 4/9/73
Preliminary assessment $3,000
11/13/73
Declined to prosecute 1/18/73
(criminal action)
Coast Guard referred case back to
U.S. Attorney 12/3/73 for collection
of penalty (civil action)
Fined $ 1,000-company appealed &
fine was reduced to $500. Case closed
U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute
10/26/73 (criminal action)
Penalty of $1,S00 3/28/73
Of original penalty of $2,500, $250
paid 10/17/73
$4,000 paid 9/7 Of original assess-
ment of $4,000. USCG referred to
U.S. Attorney for action pursuant to
311(b)(5)
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
Penalty waived 5/25/73. Original
assessment $2,500
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Under consideration (criminal action)
Penalty of $1,000 paid 8/31/73
$100 penalty 6/24/73
$200 paid 5/10/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 11/15/73 Pending
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/8/73 Preliminary assessment $300 11/12/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 12/18/73 Pending
311(b)(6) USCG, 12/18/73 Pending
311(b)(6) USCG, 11/15/73 Pending
USCG, 12/3/73
U.S. Attorney,
5/2/73
USCG, 5/3/73
11/29/73
5/15/73
Declined
Fined $1,000 1/1/74
Civil penalty U,S00 10/12/73
No fine 1/8/74
Lion Oil Co.
El Dorado,
Arkansas
VI Smackover Creek Spill
311(b)(5) U.S. Attorney,
(old 11(b)(4)) 5/9/72
311(b)(6)
$1,200 penalty 8/20/73
Pending
USCG, 7/12/73 Civil penalty $1,000 8/21/73
B-6
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision'
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
Lion Oil Co.
Eldorado, Arkansas
VI
Smackover Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/12/73
Civil penalty $500 8/21/73
Upton Tea Co.
Missouri
VII
Rock Creek
Fuel line leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/30/73
Pending
M. D. Zirkle Logging
Co.
California
IX
Paynes Creek Slough
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/16/73
Pending
MFA Oil Co.
Missouri
VII
Dry Fork Creek
Storage tank leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/8/73
Declined 10/9/73
MFAOilCo.
"
VII
Tributary to Lost
Creek
Tank rupture
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/6/73
Declined 10/9/73
M & M Tank Lines, Inc.
North Carolina
IV
Lankston Branch
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 3/19/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Under consideration (criminal
action)
M & M Tank Lines, Inc.
"
IV
Tuu's Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
1/3/73
Penalty of J375 7/18/73
McCulloch Oil Corp.
Utah
VIII
Duchesne River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/9/73
Notice of investigation 10/16/73
McDowell Asphalt Co.
Missouri
VII
McCord Creek
Parking lot runoff
311(b)(5)
311(b)i6)
U.S. Attorney
8/20/73; USCG.
8/21/73
Pending
McMurrey Pipeline
Tyler. Texas
VI
Kickapoo Creek
SpUl
311(b)(5)
U.S. Attorney,
12/27/73
Pending
Mackin Construction
Co.
Massachusetts
I
Mill River
Overfilled gal tank
1
U.S. Attorney,
3/2/73
No action
Malitonsky Cooperage
Pennsylvania
III
Allegheny River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 1/23/73
Original assessment 55,000
Manchester View Motel
Vermont
I
Tributary Batten Kill
River
Oil sludge leak
?
USCG, 11/14/73
Pending
Marane Oil Heat Co.
Massachusetts
I
Lake Quinsigamon
Oil leak
•>
USCG.il/21/73
Pending
Marathon Oil Co.
Wyoming
VIII
Grass Creek
Spill
3U(bX6)
USCG, 3/22/73
Pending
Marathon Oil Co.
"
VIII
it
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/26/73
Pending
Marathon Oil Co.
"
VIII
"
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/29/73
Pending
Marathon Oil Co.
"
VIII
Dry Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/29/73
Penalty of $300 assessed 1/21/74
Marathon Oil Co.
Illinois
V
Bonpas Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/18/73
Penalty of MOO paid 12/18/73
Mar-Tee Landfill
Cape May, New
Jersey
II
Delaware Bay
Petroleum solvents
and coal tar distil-
lates discharged
311(b)(6)
8/20/73
Referred to USCG, asked for a
12,500 fine
Mar-Tee Contractors,
Inc., Thomas Brodesser
Jr. & Co.
Cape May, New
Jersey
II
Pennsylvania Ponds
Chemical and oil
leachate spill from
landfill lite; non-
no tiflcation
311(b)(5)
11/30/73
Sent to U.S. Attorney for criminal
action under § 311(b)(5)
Maverick Oil Co.
Michigan
V
Flint River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/21/73
Pending
Merrill Transport Co,
Vermont
I
Tributary to Doer-
field River
Spill
USCG, 8/17/73
USCG refused to assess a fine on
grounds that waters were not navi-
gable. Case closed.
Messer Oil Co.
Pennsylvania
III
Knapps Creek
Crude oil (50 bbl.)
311(b)(5)
U.S. Attorney,
9/26/73
Filed information with Court
Miami Oil Co.
Montana
VIII
Two Medicine Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/7/73
Pending
Mid-State Oil Co.
North Carolina
IV
Unnamed tributary
to Lake Norman
Spill
311(b)(6)
6/1/73
Penalty of 1500 9/27/73
Mid-State Oil Co.
Indiana
V
Vaughn Watershed
SpiU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/18/73
Fined 11/12/73
Milwaukee Railroad
Wisconsin
V
Menominee River
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG 8/13/73;
U.S. Attorney,
8/14/73
Pending
Pending
Mobil Oil
Wyoming
VIII
Pine Grove Creek
SpiU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/10/73
Penalty of $200 paid 1/2/74
Mobil Pipeline Co.
Kansas
VII
Whitewater River
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG. 6/6/73
Preliminary assessment $300 9/25/73
Mobil Pipeline Co.
"
VII
Walnut River
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/16/73
Declined 7/20/73
Mobil Pipeline Co.
"
VII
Spring Creek
Collection line leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/6/73
Pending
Mobil Pipeline Co.
H
VII
Walnut River
Portable pump dis-
charge
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/6/73
Pending
Mo-Ky
Missouri
VII
Bitterroot Creek
Intermittent dis-
charge
3U(b)(6>
311(b)(5)
USCG, 7/20/73
U.S. Attorney
Preliminary asaeument $1,000
9/26/73
Multihome Corp,
Pennsylvania
III
Stoney Creek
#2 Fuel oil
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/12/73
Original penalty $3,500 revised to
$1,000; pending
B-7
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
Multi-Wood Products
Co.
Missouri
vn
McCord Creek
Retention lagoon
overflow
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/6/73
Final assessment $500 11/20/73
National Transit Co.
Oil City, Pennsyl-
vania
hi
Charley Run
Crude oil (40 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCC, 8/31/73
Penalty of $500 paid 10/29/73
National Transit Co.
in
Bone Creek
Crude oil (50 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/31/73
Penalty of $300 paid 10/29/73
National Transit Co.
HI
Gardner's Run
Crude oil (30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/23/73
Penalty ol'$300 paid 8/1/73
National Transit Co.
in
"
Crude oil (1 20 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, S/23/73
Penalty of $300 paid 8/1/73
National Transit. Co.
HI
Lewis Run
Crude oil (1 30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/29/73
Assessment of $ 300 pending
National Transit Co.
hi
Fish Creek
Crude oil (44 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG
Original penalty of $300
National Transit C.'o.
in
Dolphin Run
Crude oil (30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG
Original penalty of $300
National Transit Co.
in
Turkey Run
Crude oil ( 200 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG
Original penalty of $500
National Transit Co.
in
Chartiers Creek
Crude oil (35 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG
Original penalty of $300
National Transit Co.
in
Robinson Run
Crude oil (226 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG
Original penalty of $400
National Transit Co.
in
Home Run
Crude oil (100 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/21/73
Of original penalty of $500, $ 100
paid 7/6/73
National Tratwif Co.
in
Buffalo Creek
('rude oil (20 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/21/73
Of original penalty of $500, $250
paid 7/6/73
National Transit Co.
in
South Creek
Crude oil (30 bbl.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/21/73
Of original penalty, of $500, $200
paid 7/6/73
Necessary & Necessary
Bristol, Virginia
in
Peak Creek
Used lubricating oil
(2,000 gal.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/4/73
Original penalty of $2,500 pending
New Departures Hyatt
Uiv.
Bristol, Connecti-
cut
i
North Creek
Spill
?
USCG, 9/11/73
Pending
New System Laundry,
Inc.
Massachusetts
i
A culvert
Spill
1
USCG, 11/23/73
Pending
New York Bituminous
West Nyack, New
York
ii
Hackensack River
Kerosene-asphalt
mixture spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/10/73
$4,000 fine asked; matter being
appealed
New York Bituminous
Products, Inc.
Blooming Grove,
New York
u
Tributary to
Moodna Creek
Asphalt mixtures
spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/10/73
Maximum penalty requested
Northcose Oil Services
Syracuse, New
York
ii
New York Barge
Canal
Spill
31 1(b)(6)
USCG, 8/20/73
Fine of $500 paid
Notre Dame Hospital
New Hampshire
i
Piscataguag River
Oil leak
USCG, 12/18/73
Pending
Nyamza, Inc.
Asliland, Massa-
chusetts
i
7
Spill
¦}
6/11/73
Pending
O'BoyleTank Lines
South Hill, Vir-
ginia
ill
Mat Creek
Gasoline and #2
fuel oiJ (1,707 gal )
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/10/73
Original penalty $2,500 revised to
$1,000; penalty waived
Otis Ainsworth
Mississippi
IV
Walesheba Creek
Ruptured line
311(b)(5)
3/15/72
Penalty of $3,000 6/21/73
Owensboro-Ashland
Co.
Kentucky
IV
Tributary to Panther
Creek
Pipeline leak
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCC, 1/23/73
U.S. Attorney
Penalty of $1,000 3/8/73 (civil
action)
Under consideration (criminal
action)
P.I.L. Trucking Co,
Kansas
VII
Lake Gardner
Storage tank leak
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 12/18/73
U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute
11/28/73 (criminal action)
Patrick Petroleum Co.,
et al
Alabama
IV
Alabama River
Spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 9/29/72
U.S. Attorney,
11/21/72
Declined (civil action)
2 guilty pleas, 1 Nolo Plea $2,500
total fines (criminal action)
Perry Demolition Co.
Utah
VIII
MillCreek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/25/73
Pending
Pctco Oil Co.
Coloratl o
VIII
Burlington Ditch,
South Platte River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/17/73
Penalty of $2,000 assessed 12/20/73
PetcoOilCo.
"
VIII
South Platte River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/26/73
Under investigation
Peleo Oil Co.
Wyoming
Vlll
Muddy Creek, Little
Snake River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/14/73
Penalty of $500 assessed 1/21/74
Phillips Oil Co.
Utah
VIII
Jordan River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/14/73
Pending
Phillips Petroleum Co.
Kansas
Vli
Swing Creek
Gathering line
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/6/73
Penalty of $500 paid 10/17/73
Pie Truck Lines
Utah
VIII
Duchesne River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/5/73
Pending
Pilot Oil Co.
Wyoming
Vlll
Swectwatei Run
Spilt
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/14/73
Penalty of $300 10/9/73
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
RR
Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania
HI
Ohio River
Diesel (10,000 gal.)
B-8
311(b)(6)
USCG on scene
Penalty of $200 paid 10/19/73
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem/incident
Applicable
provision'
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
Platte Pipeline Co.
Wyoming
VIII
North Platte River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/12/73
Penalty of$100 paid 12/27/73
Platte Pipeline Co.
Missouri
VII
Cedar Creek
Broken line
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/31/73
13/20/73 preliminary assessment
$300
Pioctor-Silex, Inc.
North Carolina
IV
Lovill's Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
6/15/74
USCG has not reported
Producers Gathering
Co.
Bolivar, New York
II
Hallsport
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/6/73
After appeal, $400 fine asked by
USCG
Putnam Btos.Co.
Presque Isle, Maine
I
9
Spill
7
USCG, 6/73
Penalty of $2,000 assessed on
8/20/73. Case closed.
Quarles Robertson Oil
Co.
Arlington, Vir-
ginia
III
Four Mile Run
Gasoline (150 gal.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/3/73
Original penalty of $2,500 appealed
R & R Conoco
Missouri
VII
Big Blue River
Underground fuel
line leak
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 9/29/73
U.S. Attorney
Preliminary penalty $200 12/20/73
(civil action)
Ramsey Corp.
Missouri
VII
Wenzel Creek
Storage tank runoff
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 7/12/73
U.S. Attorney
Coast Guard collected $200 11/30/73
(civil action)
Declined to prosecute 7/16/73
(criminal action)
Raymond Winkler
UncasvUle, Con-
necticut
I
Fort Shantok Brook
Spill
?
USCG, 11/1/73
Pending
Rein, Schultz & Dahl
Wisconsin
V
Mississippi River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 8/13/73
Penalty of $200 paid 11/8/73
Rink & Range, Inc.
Westport, Con-
necticut
I
•>
Oil leak
7
USCG, 9/11/73
Pending
Robert D. Thorpe
Missouri
VII
Tarkio Creek
Broken pipe cap
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 3/1/73;
U.S. Attorney
3/8/73
USCG collected $ 1,000
Robinson Freight Line
Tennessee
IV
Ocoee River
Spill
311(b)(5)
2/12/73
Pending
Royster Transport Co.
North Carolina
IV
Dollar Branch
SpiU
311(b)(6)
3/20/73
8/8/73 $600 fine.
SICO Co.
Lancaster, Penn-
sylvania
III
Tyler Run
#2 Fuel oil
(6.000 gal.)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 4/9/73
Penalty of $3,000 Original referred
to U.S. Attorney for collection
SA.S Dust Control
Iowa
VII
Winnebago River
Frozen tank valve
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 3/16/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG collected $100 9/11/73 (civil
action)
Information filed 4/18/73; fined
$500 5/30/73; (criminal action)
Santa Fe RR
California
IX
Los Angeles River
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/7/73
Pending
Santos Fuel, Inc.
Bridgeport,
Connecticut
I
Wepawaug River
Oil discharge
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/27/73
Pending
ScarlockOil Co.
Tennessee
IV
Big Black River
Spill
311(b)(6)
3/13/73
6/28/73 $2,000 fine
Sheldon Oil Co.
California
IX
Shasta Lake
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/26/73
DecUned
Shell Oil Co.
Montana
VIII
Yellowstone River
SplU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/9/73
Pending
Shell Oil Co. (2)
VIII
Beaver and Peruiell
Creeks
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/27/73
Penalty paid of $ 1,000 for both
Shell Oil Co.
North Dakota
VIII
Gumbo Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 12/12/73
Notice of investigation 1/8/74
Shell Pipeline
Kilgore, Texas
VI
Moody Creek
Spill
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/17/73
Penalty of $2,500 11/19/73
Silco OU
Colorado
VIII
Black Squirrel
SpiU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 5/16/73
Penalty paid of $ 300 8/27/73
Skelly Oil Co.
Kansas
VII
Unnamed stream
tributary of
Chikaskia River
Pipeline leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/31/73
Pending
SkeUyOilCo.
Missouri
VII
Timberllne Lake
Filler cap not
secured
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
USCG, 7/17/73
U.S. Attorney
Preliminary penalty of $5,000
9/24/73 (civil action)
Skelly Oil Co.
Kansas
VII
Peace Creek
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG. 8/10/73
Penalty of $300 paid 12/12/73
SkeUyOilCo.
VII
Tributary to
Chikaskia River
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/31/73
Pending
Skelly OU Co.
M
VII
II
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 10/31/73
Pending
Skelly Oil Co.
"
VII
Chikaskia River
Corrosion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/5/73
Penalty of $100 paid 11/8/73
Sohio Petroleum Co.
Kansas
VII
Saline River
Broken flow line
311(b)(6)
USCG, 11/29/73
Pending
Sohio Petroleum Co.
tt
VII
Lost Creek
Broken hose
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/5/73
Penalty of $200 paid 10/9/73
Southern Pacific RR
California
IX
Sacramento River
SpiU
311(b)(6)
USCG, 9/26/73
Pending
Sperry-Vickers, Inc.
Missouri
VII
Short Creek
OU emulsion leak
311(b)(6)
USCG, 6/6/73
Declined 7/19/73
B-9
-------
TABLE B (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters Problem/incident
Applicable
provision*
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
Springfield School
Standard Oil Bulk
Station
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co.
Stanley J. Oakdale
Stroube Development
Co.
Sun Oil Co.
Taft Broadcasting
Springfield,
Vermont
Missouri
Georgia
California
California
Corsicana, Texas
Waterford, Con-
necticut
Missouri
Tarheel Grading Co. North Carolina
Templon Spinning Mills, North Carolina
Inc.
Tenneco
Tenneco Oil Co.
Terra Resources
Texaco/Cities Service
Pipeline Co.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc,
Texaco, Inc,
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Texas-New Mexico
Pipeline Co.
Thomas Oil Co.
Kern County
Thompson Oil Co.
Transmountain Pipe-
line Co.
Union Pacific RR
Union Pacific RR
Union Pacific RR
Uniioyai
U,S. Steel Corp.
U.S. Steel Corp,
Washington
Washington
Wyoming
Chicopee, Massa-
chusetts
Duquesne, Penn-
sylvania
1 Black River
VII Railroad Lake
IV Lake Allatoona
IV Woodell Creek
IX Byron-Bethany
Canal
IX Ballona Creek
IX Dog Creek
VI Rush Creek
I Fenger Brook
VII Indian Creek
Wyoming
Florida
Wyoming
Tulsa, Oklahoma
North Dakota
Pennsauken, New
Jersey
Rhode Island
West Cote Blanche
Bay, Louisiana
Aneth, Utah
California
Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania
IV
IV
VIII
IV
VIII
VI
VIII
VIII
III
VI
VIII San Juan River
IX Poso Creek
III Antietam Creek
X Silver Creek
VIII
I
Chicopee River
Fuel oil leak ?
Bulk tank overflow 311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 10/16/73 Pending
Unnamed creek to
Long Creek
Unnamed tributary
to Reed's Creek
Belle Fourche River
Unnamed creek 5
miles from Dunnel-
Ion, Florida
Castle Creek
Verdigris River
Garrison Reservoir
Lake Sakakewa
Schuylkill, New
Jersey
Three Mile River
Estuary Bay
Truck accident
Overturned truck
Spill
Spill
Spilt
Spill
Gas spill
Fuel tank leak
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
#6 Fuel oil (100
gal.)
Gas spill
Spill
Spill
- «r
Spill
Spill
X Spokane River Spill
VIII Big Laramie River Spill
spiii
Paraflex spill
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
313(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(e)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
USCG, 7/20/73
U.S. Attorney
11/29/73
11/29/73
USCG, 6/25/73
U.S. Attorney,
9/19/73
USCG, 9/13/73
U.S. Attorney,
10/14/73
USCG, 9/12/73 Pending
Penalty of $300 paid 10/12/73 (civil
action)
No penalty 2/9/73
No penalty 2/9/73
Penalty of $1,000
Pending
Declined
Pending
USCG, 9/29/73
U.S. Attorney
USCG, 4/13/73
U.S. Attorney
311(b)(6) 5/31/73
Coast Guard collected $300 12/5/73
(civil action)
Declined to prosecute (criminal
action)
6/23/73 $250 fine (civil action)
$500 fine less amount paid
USCG = $250 (criminal action)
Penalty of $100 9/10/73
311(b)(6)
USCG, 2/3/73 Case dismissed 11/20/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/3/73
311(b)(5) U.S. Attorney
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
(old 11(b)(5))
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
(old 11(b)(4))
311(b)(6)
(old lI(b>(S»
USCG, 4/10/73
USCG 11/21/72
USCG, 10/19/73
USCG, 10/26/73
USCG, 4/17/73
12/18/73
U.S. Attorney,
12/29/72
USCG has not reported (civil action)
Nolo-1/10/74 $1,000 fine (criminal
action)
Case dismissed 5/2/73
Declined 1/4/73
Pending
Pending
Of original penalty of $ 1,000, $300
paid 6/29/73
Pending
Pending
USCG, 4/2/73 Declined
311(b)(6) USCG, 11/14/73 Pending
#2 Fuel oU (2,100 311(b)(6)
gal.)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(6)
311(b)(5)
III Thomson Run Exchange oil (50 311(b)(6)
gal.)
Ill Monongahela River #6 Fuel oil (40,000 311(b)(6)
gal.)
USCG, 5/3/73 Penalty of $500 paid 9/11/73
USCG, 4/27/73 Penalty of $200
USCG, 5/10/73 Penalty of $2,500 paid
USCG, 6/20/73 Penalty of $5,000 assessed 11/7/73
U.S. Attorney, Pending
7/20/73
10/24/72 Company fined $3,000 on4/25/73.
(Also case under Refuse Act); case
closed
USCG, 12/3/73 Original penalty of $300 in litigation
USCG, 6/1/73 Penalty of $750 paid U/13/73
B-10
-------
TABLE B (Concluded)
Name of discharger
Location Receiving waters Problem/incident
region
Applicable
provision*
EPA action-
referral to
and date
Results or status 12/31/73
V. Smith Lumber Co. Missouri
Valvoline Oil Co.
Freedom, Penn-
sylvania
Mississippi
Vest Towing Co.
Volunteer Asphalt Co. Tennessee
Volunteer Oil Co. Tennessee
Waumbec Mills
Waxier Towing Co.
West Point Pepperal,
Inc.
Western Airlines
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Williams Bros. Pipeline
Co.
Wolfs Head Oil Re-
fining Co.
Wyandotte Industries
Yellowstone Pipeline
Manchester, New
Hampshire
Mississippi
Alabama
California
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas
Oil City, Penn-
sylvania
Waterville, Maine
Idaho
VII Beeler's Creek
III Ohio River
IV
IV
IV
Field runoff
Oil
Mississippi River
Tennessee River
Spill
Spill
Tributary to Chueky Spill
Creek
IV
IV
IX
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
vu
III
I
X
Merrimack River
Mississippi River
Langdale Lake
Los Angeles storm
drain
Weeping Water
Creek
Otter Creek
Squaw Creek
Otter Creek
Unnamed creek
Thunder Creek
Neosho River
Allegheny River
Kennebec River
Prichard Creek
Spill
Spill
Spill
Spill
Open valve
Corrosion leak
Pipeline break
Corrosion leak
Pipeline break
Pipeline break
Corrosion leak
Naphtha (125 bbl.)
Spill
Spill
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/20/73 Coast Guard collected $400 11/15/73
(civil action)
311(b)(5) U.S. Attorney Declined to prosecute (criminal
action)
311(b)(5) USCG, 5/18/73 Referred to U.S. Attorney, $4,000
paid 2/4/73. Expert witness supplied
by EPA
311(b)(6) 2/23/73 Pending
311(b)(6) 9/22/72 Penalty of $1,000 paid 1/29/73
311(b)(6) 5/2/73 Fine of$500 paid 6/8/73 (civil
action)
311(b)(5) 5/2/73 Declined to prosecute 5/31/73
(criminal action)
? ? Company pleaded guilty and fined
$600-1/15/73; Case closed
311(b)(6) 3/22/73 USCG has not reported
311(b)(6) 8/30/73 USCG has not reported
311(b)(6). USCG, 9/27/73 Pending
311(b)(6) USCG, 5/30/73 Penalty of $ 1,000 paid 11/12/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 7/30/73 USCG closed case 11/21/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 9/24/73 Pending
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/31/73 Penalty of $100 paid 12/17/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 4/26/73 Final assessment $500 6/5/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 7/17/73 Penalty of $250 paid U/12/73
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/31/73 Preliminary assessment $300
12/17/73
311(b)(3) USCG, 5/21/73 Of original penalty of $5,000,
$2,000 paid
? ? Company fined $2,250 on 1/17/73;
case closed.
311(b)(6) USCG, 8/6/73 Penalty of $1,000 paid
*311(b)(5)—failure to notify of discharge-criminal penalty
(b)(6)—discharge of oil or hazardous substances in harmful quantities—civil penalty
(d) -marine disaster; U.S. costs recoverable
(e) -imminent and substantial threat, onshore or offshore facility-court relief
(0 -vessel, onshore and offshore removal costs liability U.S. costs recoverable
(g) -third party removal costs liability U.S. costs recoverable
(j)(2)-EPA regulations violation-civil penalty
(j)(2)-DOT (Coast Guard) regulations violation-civil penalty
B-ll
-------
Appendix C
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PENDING OR COMPLETED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1973
INITIATED UNDER PREVIOUS LEGISLATION AND SAVED UNDER PL 92-500
TABLE C
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INITIATED UNDER ACT AS FORMERLY IN EFFECT
Name of di.
-------
TABLE C (Concluded)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
EPA action under
old sec. 10/date
EPA action in
1973/date
Results or status 12/31/73
State Stove & Manu-
facturing Co.
Henderson,
Nevada
IX
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and total
dissolved solids
180-day notice
12/23/71; informal
hearing 1/25/72
Permit issued
8/26/73
Final compliance to be
achieved 6/1/74
Stauffer Chemical Co.
Henderson,
Nevada
IX
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and total
dissolved solids
180-day notice
12/23/71; informal
hearing 1/25/72
Permit issued
8/26/73
Final compliance to be
achieved 12/31/74
Tahoe-Douglas District
Washoe County,
Nevada
IX
Lake Tahoe
Municipal wastes
180-day notice
11/9/71; informal
hearing 1/6/72;
suit filed 9/12/72
Injunction granted
5/16/73 prohibiting
issuance of building
permits, pending
completion of aewers
Injunction amended
11/9/73; sewers under
construction
Titanium Metal Corp.
of America
Henderson,
Nevada
(X
Las Vegas Wash
Nutrients and total
dissolved solids
180-day notice
12/31/71; informal
hearing 1/25/72
Permit issued 8/1/73
Final compliance to be
achieved 1/1/77
W.R.Grace Co.
Qwensboro,
Kentucky
IV
Ohio River
Paper and chemical
wastes
180-day notice
8/1/72
Permit issued con-
sistent with 180-day
notice schedule
Whiting, City of
Indiana
V
Lake Michigan
Municipal wastes
Court action re-
quested 9/1/72;
case filed 9/11/72
Consent decree signed
9/6/73 calls for City
to cease discharge to
Lake Michigan by
5/1/75
Yazoo City
Mississippi
VI
Yazoo River
Municipal wastes
180-day notice
7/27/72
Permit issuance
schedule for 5/74
C-2
-------
Appendix D
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PENDING OR COMPLETED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1973
UNDER REFUSE ACT
TABLE D-1
CIVIL ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA UNDER REFUSE ACT
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
Alabama By-Products
Tarrant,
Alabama
IV
Five-Mile Creek
Coke waste
4/71
Extensive work on a
Consent Decree during
1st quarter
Consent Decree never signed;
EPA processing a permit along
lines of proposed Consent
Decree
Beacham, Sam
Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina
IV
Currituck Sound
Dredge and fill
8/7/72
Drafted covenants run-
ning with the land to
protect a 100-foot
buffer around the
development
Pending. Possibility of settle-
ment without filing
Central Railroad of New
Jersey
Califon,
New Jersey
II
South Branch of
Raritan River
Coconut oil spill
9/14/73
Referred to U.S. Attorney for
civil injunction to repair con-
ditions. Matter to be joined in
a court order in a suit currently
under way against railroad
Cook Paint A Varnish Co.
Missouri
VII
Missouri River
Phenols, oil, and
grease; paint wastes
12/17/71
Consent Decree
entered 8/73
Cowan & Shain.C. F.
Jameson A Gore, Inc.
Haverhill,
Massachusetts
Merrimack River
Tanning wastes
12/3/71
Case dismissed because
companies filed
NPDES permit appli-
cations
Case closed
Fulford, Owen
Harkers Island,
North Carolina
IV
Core Sound
Dredge and fill
8/7/72
Preliminary injunction
issued 9/5/72
Justice Department attempt-
ing to settle with defendant
Hamakua Sugar Mill Co.
(owned by Theo. H. Davis
A Co.)
Island of Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Stipulation of dismissal
prepared; company in-
dicates it will sign
Mill closed 7/72
Hamel Tanning Co.
Haverhill,
Massachusetts
I
Merrimack River
Tanning wastes
7
Complaint filed 12/3/71;
a stipulation of dismissal
with affidavit of Louis
Hamel was filed and dis-
missed on 11/5/73
Case closed
Haverlock, Nick
Wyoming
VIII
North Platte River
Solid waste
3/29/73
Consent Decreo
Case closed
Hinkel, Alvin
North Dakota
VIII
Missouri River
Illegal landfill
10/18/73
Referred to U.S.
Attorney
Defendant applied for sec. 10
permit from Corps of Engineers;
prosecution in abeyance
Holland, W. Langston, et
at
Tampa,
Florida
IV
Papys Bayou
Dredge and fill
12/5/73
Temporary Restraining
Order 12/21/73
Awaiting hearing on preliminary
injunction
Honokaa Sugar Co.
(owned by Theo H. Davis
A Co.)
Island of Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
prepared; company in-
dicates it will sign
Compliance within effluent
limits to be achieved by
7/1/76
Houston Lt. A Pwr. Co.
Houston,
Texas
VI
Trinity Bay
Thermal pollution
•72
-
On-going monitoring
Hoyt A Worthen Tanning
Co.
Haverhill,
Massachusetts
I
Merrimack River
Tanning wastes
?
Complaint filed 12/3/71.
12/3/71. Consent De-
cree signed 10/5/73
Case closed
Jefferson County Land-
fill
Missouri
VII
Meremac River
Leachate from Land-
fill
5/73
U.S. Attorney declined
to prosecute 7/73
K AW Oil
Wyoming
VIJI
North Platte River
Oil
7/6/72
Consent Decree
Caae closed
Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical
Baton Rouge A
Gramercy,
Louisiana
VI
Mississippi River
"Red mud"
*72
—
Pending; compliance in
progress
Kennebec Log Driving
Co.
Window,
Maine
I
Kennebec River
Log driving
3/19/71
Government's Motion
for Summary Judg-
ment was argued
1/5/73; Court denied
the motion
Under review to determine if
EPA should recommend
appeal
Key West, City of
Key West,
Florida
IV
Gulf of Mexico
Solid waste
7/3/73
U.S. Attorney filed
Motion for Summary
Judgment
Awaiting decision on motion
D-1
-------
TABLE D-1 (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
KoppersCo., Inc.
Birmingham,
Alabama
IV
Tributary of
Opossum Creek
Coke waste
4/71
Unsuccessful negotia-
tion on proposed
stipulation for dis-
missal
Permit being prepared
Laupahoehoe Sugar Co.
(owned by Theo. H.
Davis & Co.)
Island of Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
prepared; company
indicates it will sign
Compliance within effluent
limits to be achieved by 7/1/76
McWane Cast Iron Pipe
Co.
Birmingham,
Alabama
IV
Tributary to
Village Creek
Iron waste
4/71
Extensive negotiation
on Consent Decree
Consent Decree unsigned;
permit being processed
Maiden Lumber Co.
Wyoming
VIII
Big Horn River
Solid waste
3/19/73
Consent Decree
Closed
Marias Valley
Montana
VIII
Marias River
Dumping solid waste
1/12/74
Complaint filed
Pending
Manna Kea Sugar Co.,
North Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.)
Mauna Kea Sugar Co.,
South Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.)
Microt'ab InG.
Papaikou,
Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
signed 10/9/73
Compliance within effluent
limits to be achieved by
7/1/76
Wainaku,
Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
signed 10/9/73
Compliance within effluent
limits to be achieved by
7/1/74
Amesbury,
Massachusetts
I
Merrimack River
Waste water
?
Consent Decree signed
7/2S/72
Case closed
Mid-City Industrial Park
Kansas
VII
Kansas River
Chromium
4/14/72
Consent Decree entered
3/73
Nashville Bridge Co.
Bessemer,
Alabama
IV
Tributary to
Village Creek
Iron waste
4/71
Unsuccessful attempt to
have company sign
stipulation for dismissal
Company has a closed system
and does not require a permit;
case essentially moot
Northern Oil Co.
Burlington,
Vermont
[
Lake Champlam
Oil discharge
7
-
Case settled by Consent
Decree
Ozark-Mahoning
Colorado
VIII
North Platte River
Discharge of wastes
10/10/72
Consent Decree
Case closed
Paauhau Sugar Co. (owned
by C. Brewer and Co.)
Island of Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Stipulation of dismissal
signed 1/3/74
Mill closed 11/72
Peabody Coal Co.
Indiana
V
North Coal Creek
to Wabash River
Discharge of coal fines
and yellow boy
10/12/72
Preparation for trial
Tentative settlement; draft
agreement being prepared for
publication by Justice Depart-
ment
Pembroke, City of
Eastport, City of
Maine
I
Improper maintenance
of municipal dump
8/29/73
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute on 8/30/73 since
steps have been taken to in-
stitute a central dump; case
closed
Pepeekeo Sugar Co.
North Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.)
Hakalau,
Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
signed 10/9/73
Compliance to be achieved by
6/30/74
Pepeekeo Sugar Co.
South Plant (owned by
Hilo Coast Processing
Co.)
Pepeekeo,
Hawaii
IX
Pacific Ocean
Cane trash, bagasse,
sediment
9/3/71
Permit issued 9/21/73;
stipulation of dismissal
signed 10/9/73
Compliance to be achieved by
7/1/76
Phillips Boatyard &
Lawrence Owens
Wanchess,
North Carolina
IV
Croatan Sound
Dredge and fill, refuse
8/7/72
Consent Order of Dis-
missal providing for
$200 compensatory
damage and permanent
injunction filed
12/29/72
Case closed
Pikes Dump
Lynn,
Massachusetts
I
Saugus River
Deposit of refuse in
river
3/7/73
-
Case in discovery stage
Unknown dischargers
of polychlorinated
biphenyls
Los Angeles,
California
IX
Los Angeles
County sanitary
sewer system,
tributary Santa
Monica Bay
Polychlorinated
biphenyls
3/6/72
Grand Jury disbanded;
insufficient evidence to
produce indictment
Case closed
Rohm & Haas
Deer Park,
Texas
VI
Houston Ship
Channel
Ammonia, oxygen-
demanding materials
1972
Appeal to 5th Circuit
Court
Pending
D-2
-------
TABLE D-1 (Concluded)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
Smith, George
Wyoming
VIII
Big Horn River
Solid waste
3/19/72
Consent Decree
Case closed
Standard Veneer &
Timber Co.
California
IX
Smith River
Spill
1/8/73
U.S. Attorney for-
warded case to Cali-
fornia Attorney
General's office
2/23/73, who filed
complaint 5/15/73
Unknown
Star Valley Cheese
Wyoming
VIII
Salt Creek
Discharge of plant
wastes
10/10/72
Referred to U.S.
Attorney
Consent Decree
Sullivan's Island
South Carolina
IV
Intracoastal
waterway
Trash, solid waste
6/14/72
Case discussed with
U.S. Attorney attempt-
ing to get Justice
Department authoriza-
tion to file
Justice Department consider-
ing authorizing filing of
complaint
U.S. Pipe A. Foundry
Birmingham,
Alabama
IV
Five-Mile Creek
Steel waste
4/71
Consent Decree signed
1/5/73
Permit consistent with
Consent Decree being
prepared
U.S. Steel Corp.,
Waukegan Works
Illinois
V
Lake Michigan
Heavy metals, iron,
suspended solids,
phenol
10/3/72
Filed 10/6/72; negotia-
tions continuing
Negotiations continuing
Whittaker Corp., City
of Memphis
Memphis,
Tennessee
IV
Mississippi Rivet
Textile waste
6/19/72
Consent Decree signed
3/9/73;approved
3/14/73
Permit consistent with Con-
sent Decree being prepared
Wire Rope Corp. of
America
Missouri
VII
Missouri River
Heavy metals, acidity
2/2/72
Consent Decree entered
8/73
-------
TABLE D-2
CRIMINAL ACTIONS INITIATED BY EPA UNDER REFUSE ACT
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
A. Laugeni & Sons, Inc.
American Oil Co.
American Petrofina Co.
Amoco Chemical Co.
Ann Arbor Railroad Co.
Ashland OilCo,
Ashland Petroleum Co.
Atlantic Wire Co.
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Byerlyte Department of
Koppers Corp,
Central Nebraska Pack-
ing Co.
Chemical Applications,
Inc.; North Shore Petro
Co.
Chemical Leaman Tank
Lines, Inc.
Chrysler Corp.
Cities Service
Coastal States Gas
Prod. Co.
Colgate-Palmolive
Collier Development
Corp.
West Haven,
Connecticut
Illinois
Natchez,
Mississippi
Illinois
Michigan
Indiana
Tonawanda,
New York
Branford,
Connecticut
Lackawanna,
New York
Ohio
Nebraska
Beverly and
Salem,
Massachusetts
Tonawanda,
New York
Missouri
Ft. Meade,
Florida
Houston,
Texas
Kansas
Naples,
Florida
Thames River
Paint spill
Continental Cheese, Inc. Nebraska
Coquina Investors, Inc.;
Jones & Braido Construc-
tion Co.; McCormack &.
Scofield Marine
Crystal Refining Co.
Del Oil & Gas Corp.
Duval Sulphur
F.S. Services, Inc.
Forest City Enterprises
Frisco Railroad
Getzfried, Francis
Naples,
Florida
Michigan
Natchez,
Mississippi
Galveston,
Texas
Illinois
Ohio
Missouri
Wyoming
V Mississippi River Oil spill
IV Mississippi River Oil and salt spill
IV
Illinois River
Betsie Bay
Honey Creek to
Ohio River
Rush Creek to
Wabash River
Niagara River
Branford River
Lackawanna Canal
and Smokes Creek
V Ohio River
VII North Platte River
I Salem Harbor
II
VII
IV
VI
Sawyer Creek
Peace River
Colorado River
VI! Kansas River
Tributary to
Cocohatchee
River
VII Crooked Creek
IV Doctors Bay
Fish Creek
Methaxylene spill
Sodium carbonate
Oil spill
Oil spill
Sulfuric acid spill
Acid leak
Refuse Act violation;
discharge of benzol
and a ferrous chloride
waste spill
Xylene spill
Non-filer
Oil spiU
Acetonitrile spill
Paint waste
Phosphate wastes
Oil spill
Various types solids
Garbage
Non-filer
Dredge and fill
Oil spill
IV
Mississippi River Salt water
VI Galveston Harbor Oil spill
V
V
VI!
Little Sandy Creek Gasoline spill
Cahoon Creek Sludge
Meramec River
VIII Greybull River
Hopper car over-
turned
Solid waste
1/31/73
1/24/73
6/2/72
12/6/73
8/7/73
2/27/73
2/27/73
7/30/73
7/30/73
5/22/73
6/12/73
12/72
7/30/73
12/31/71
3/30/73
7/3/73
7/26/72
10/9/73
8/27/73
4/3/73
6/6/72
2/2/72
5/14/73
9/24/73
6/11/73
12/27/73
Defendants arraigned
1/17/73; no contest
plea 11/28/73
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
Information filed
10/25/73
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
Complaint filed 3/29/73;com-
pany fined $500 4/16/73; case
closed
Fined $1,000 7/2/73
U.S. Attorney will file case if
EPA finds evidence of another
discharge
Pending
Pending
Fined $500 6/22/73
Fined $500 6/2/73
Referred to U.S. Attorney
Fined $500; case closed
Referred to U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 7/30/73
Pending
Fifce suspended because of
amount of money defendants
spent on cleanup; case closed
Referred to U.S. Attorney, who
declined to prosecute
Defendant pleaded guilty; case
closed
Fined $500 6/18/73
Pending trial
Case closed
Pending
Under consideration by U.S.
Attorney
Case retracted from U.S.
Attorney and sent to USCG
1/21/74
U.S. Attorney will file case if
EPA finds evidence of another
discharge
Fined $500 2/2/73
Pending
Complaint filed 11/27/73
U.S. Attorney declined to
prosecute 6/19/73
Negotiations pending
D-4
-------
TABLE D-2 (Continued)
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
Great Lakes Steel Co.
Michigan
V
Detroit River
Oil spill
5/11/73
Indicted 11/21/73
Gulf Oil Co.
Texas
VI
Houston Ship
Channel
Oil spill
12/28/71
Filed against Warren Petroleum;
fined $500 2/14/73
Hampden Color and
Chemical Co.
Springfield,
Massachusetts
I
Farmington River
Sodium hydroxide
spill
12/l4/7jJ
Pending
Hinkel, Alvin
North Dakota
VIII
Missouri River
Illegal landfill
10/18/73
Defendant applied for a see. 10
permit from Corps of Engineers;
prosecution in abeyance
Ingram Barge Co.
Illinois
V
Chicago Sanitary
& Ship Canal
Gasoline spill
3/22/73
Pending
Inland Steel Co.
Indiana
V
Lake Michigan
Suspended solids
12/4/73
Pending
lnterlake Inc.
Ohio
V
Maumee River
Lamp black spill;
suspended solids
8/7/73
Complaint filed 8/24/73
lnterlake Steel Co.
Ohio
V
Maumee River
Coal tai spill
5/24/73
U.S. Atty. declined to prosecute
7/24/73
J.C. Keeter Realty Co.
Atlantic Beach,
North Carolina
IV
Bogue Sound
Dredge and fill
8/72
U.S. Attorney deter-
mined that defendant
had obtained Corps
of Engineers* permit
and decided not to
proceed
Case closed
Kerr-Magee
Cushing,
Oklahoma
VI
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/3/72
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
10/11/73
Kings Point West, Inc.
Sun City Center,
Florida
IV
Little Manatee
River -Cypiess
Creek
Silt
7/3/73
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
based on action by
local authorities
Case closed
Lakehead Pipeline Co.
Wisconsin
V
Fouche Creek
Crude oil
5/4/73
Pending
Lefler Concrete Block Co.
Charlotte,
North Carolina
IV
Stewart Creek to
Catawba River
Arsenic
5/24/72
Not guilty verdict; case closed
Lester Hill
Indiana
V
White River
Junk dumping
8/7/73
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 8/10/73
Lihue Plantation Co.,
Ltd.; Hawaii Board of
Harbor Commissioners
Island of Kauai
IX
Nawiliwili Harbor
Molasses spill
11/15/71
Case filed 11/26/71;
$200 fine imposed
against company
Case closed
MKT Railroad
Cashing,
Oklahoma
VI
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/18/72
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
10-11-73
M/T Bow Gran
Michigan
V
Saginaw River
Vinyl toluene
8/7/73
Pending
Merrill Transport Co.;
Scott Paper Co.
Westbrook,
Maine
I
Presumpscot
River
1
*
U.S. Attorney filed
one count against
each defendant
3/15/73
Both cases closed: Scott, nolo
contendre, fine of $500;
Merrill Transport case dismissed
Mid Continent Pipeline
Co.
Cushing,
Oklahoma
VI
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/18/72
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
10/11/73
Midland Coop Refinery
Cushing,
Oklahoma
VI
Cimarron River
Oil spill
2/18/72
U.S. Attorney de-
clined to prosecute
10/11/73
Midland Enterprises
Illinois
V
Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal
Toluene
10/15/73
Pending
National By-Products,
Inc.
Nebraska
VII
Mississippi River
Process waste
2/13/73
Fined $2,100 4/16/73
Patrick Petroleum Com-
pany et al.
Choctaw Bluff,
Alabama
IV
Alabama River
Crude oil; use of
chemical dispers-
ant
11/21/71
Fined $1,500 on plea
of nolo contendre
Case closed
Permian Corp.
Houston,
Texas
VI
Bayou Dim
Oil spill
4/13/73
Pending
Petco Oil Co.
S. Royalton,
Vermont
I
White River
Oil discharge
?
Pending
Proctor & Gamble
Ohio
V
MiU Creek
Wastewater spills
(3)
8/7/73
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 11/2/73
Richard W. Elsie
Indiana
V
Black River
Oil and brine spill
D-5
7/16/73
Penalty of $500 paid 10/22/73
-------
TABLE D-2 (Concluded)
Name of discharge!
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
Roberts Commercial
Galvanizing Co.
Robinson Freight Line,
Inc.
S.S. Gleneagles
Seaway Industrial Park
Development Co., Inc.
Standard Oil Co. of
Ohio
Fultondale, IV
Alabama
Sun Oil Co.
Terpstra Fuels, Inc.
Texaco Oil Co.
Texas-New Mexico
Pipeline Co,
Titanium Metals Corp.
U,S. Steel Corp.
Union Oil Co.
Uniroyal
WerlinCorp.
White Fuel Co.
Knoxville,
Tennessee
Ohio
Tonawanda,
New York
Ohio
Michigan
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Aneth, Utah
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Chicopee,
Massachusetts
IV
V
II
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VIII
V
V
V
Tributary of Five-
Mile Creek and
tributary of
Locust Fork of
Black Warrior
River
Ocoee River
Cuyahoga River
Niagara River
Otter Creek
Ohio
Boston, I
Massachusetts
Rouge River
Duschee Creek
Lake Michigan
San Juan River
Ohio River
Grand Calumet
River
Chicago Sanitary
& Ship Canal
Chicopee River
Ohio River
Boston Harbor
High concentrations
of pollutants
Sulfuric acid
Coal dumping
Discharge of a green
chemical substance
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
OH spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Oil spill
Lube oil
Oil spill
Oil spill
Paraflex spill
12/29/72
2/12/73
5/11/73
8/30/73
3/22/73
3/22/73
3/22/73
4/30/73
5/3/73
5/3/73
3/9/73
5/4/73
S/24/73
4/11/73
1/24/73
1/26/73
2/27/73
10/24/72
Molasses spil! 5/18/7 3
Oil discharges ?
Company pleaded
guilty 4/25/73
Company closed down; case
closed
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 9/5/73
Referred to U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 5/25/73
Indicted 11/21/73
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 1/8/74
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 6/13/73
Pending
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 4/13/73
Pending
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 3/6/73
Company fined $2,000 under
Refuse Act and $3,000 under
section 311 of FWPCAct; case
closed
U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
cute 8/16/73
Company pleaded guilty to
criminal charges; fined $1,000;
case closed
D-6
-------
TABLE D-3
CIVIL ACTIONS INITIATED BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER REFUSE ACT WITH EPA ASSISTANCE
Name of discharge;
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
Problem
Date of
referral to
U.S. Attorney
Action in 1973
(if previously referred)
Results or status 12/31/73
Harshaw Chemical Co. Ohio
Republic S teel Corp. Ohio
U.S. Steel Corp., Gary Indiana
Works
U.S. Steel Corp,, Ohio
Cleveland Works
U.S. Steel Corp., Lorain Ohio
Works
Ward Paper Co. Wisconsin
Wauaau Paper Mills Wisconsin
V
V
V
V
V
V
Black Rivei via city Mercury, other heavy
of Elyria sewers metals
Cuyahoga River
Grand Calumet
River
Cuyahoga River
Black River
Wisconsin River
Cyanide, sulfates
Phenols, cyanide
Phenols, suspended
solids
Phenols, suspended
solids
Pulp, paper mill
wastes
Wisconsin River Pulp, paper mill
wastes
2/72
4/27/71
2/19/71
4/28/71
4/28/71
4/14/71
4/14/71
Agreement negotiated
Negotiations continu-
ing
Negotiations continu-
ing
Agreement negotiated;
consent decree entered
in court 12^18/73
Negotiations continu-
ing
NPDES permit to pub-
lic notice 12/10/73
NPDES permit to pub-
lic notice 12/10/73
Negotiated agreement published
in Federal R egister 1/17/74
Negotations continuing
Negotiations continuing
Monitoring compliance with con-
sent decree
Negotiations continuing
Public hearing held 1/16/74;
U.S. Attorney will ask for dis-
missal of case after permit is
issued
Public hearing held 1/16/74;
U.S. Attorney will ask for dis-
missal of case after permit is
issued
Name of discharger Location Receiving waters Problem Date suit filed (if Results «status 12/31/73
Bethlehem Steel Corp. Bethlehem, HI Lehigh River Heavy heating oil 1/22/73 U.S. Attorney declined to prose-
Pennsylvania cute
Matitovsky Cooperage Pittsburgh, III Allegheny River Oil 12772 EPA assisted Justice To be dismissed because of car-
Pennsylvania Department rective measures taken by
defendant
D-7
-------
Appendix E
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PENDING OR COMPLETED DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1973
UNDER MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT OF 1972 {OCEAN
DUMPING)
TABLE E
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS UNDER MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT
Name of discharger
Location
EPA
region
Receiving waters
(water body and
general water area)
Alleged violation
Enforcement
action date
Results or status 12/31/73
General Marine Transport
Corp.
Bayonne,
New Jersey
11
Atlantic Ocean
(sludge dump
grounds 73 40'W
40 20'N)
Failure to comply
with interim special
permit condition
Transportation for
dumping after ex-
piration of interim
special permit
11/21/73
Request for hearing 12/20/73
Sun Oil Company
Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania
111
Atlantic Ocean
101(a)
60-day notice,
12/11/73
Hearing scheduled 2/13/74
E-l
------- |