Environmental News


United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-1071
Washington DC 20460
Environmental News
A compilation of news releases, advisories to the press and other timely information
For further details, contact 202/382-4355.
EPA ESTABLISHES
FEES FOR
PESTICIDE
REGISTRATION
reg istrations.
The fees which pesticide applicants will be
required to pay range from $700 to $184,500. These
are fixed, one-time amounts based on the average cost
to EPA of performing certain defined types of pesticide-
registration activities. EPA expects to collect
approximately $14 million annually under the fee
structure or slightly less than one-quarter of all the
costs EPA expended in fiscal-year 1987 to conduct all
pesticide activities.
Currently, fees for establishing tolerances .or
permissible pesticide residue levels are the only
federal costs recovered from companies that apply
for registration of pesticide products. The tolerance
fees recover approximately $1 million to $2 million per
year.
EPA is issuing the new regulation under the
Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, commonly
referred to as the "User Charge Statute," and Public
Law 100-202, which appropriated funds for CPA for
fiscal-year 1988. The User Charge Statute authorizes
and encourages federal regulatory agencies to recover,
to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to
services provided to identifiable recipients. EPA's
fiscal-year-1988 appropriation contained a provision
authorizing the agency to assess and collect fees not
to exceed $25 million in fiscal-year 1988 to carry out
activities for which the fees and charges are made.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today
announced a final rule which establishes a fee
structure for reviewing and processing pesticide
R-86
(more)

-------
-2-
Before a pesticide can be distributed for sale in the United States it
must be registered (licensed) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act. Registration requires the manufacturer of the pesticide to
provide EPA with health and ecological data. On the basis of extensive
scientific review of these data, EPA determines whether a pesticide can
perform its intended function without causing "unreasonable adverse effects"
upon public health or the environment while taking into account the potential
benefits of the proposed use.
The fee schedule is as follows:

- New chemical registration
$184,500
- New biochemical or microbial registration
64,000
- New use pattern of a registered pesticide
33,800
- Old chemical registration review for new product
4,000
- Experimental-use permit to field test a pesticicide
4,500
- Registration amendment
700
To keep fees reasonably consistent with general costs,
EPA will
the fee schedule annually by the same percentage as the percent change in
the federal pay scale.
The fee payments must be made prior to or at the time of the application
for agency review. Pesticide-registration applicants who submit completed
applications prior to the effective date of the rule will not be required to
pay the fees. The fee regulation is effective 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register (expected within 10 days).
The new rule provides waiver provisions for small businesses, minor-
use pesticides that lack commercial feasibility for the applicant,
applications connected with the federally sponsored Inter-Regional Research
Project 4 (IR-4) when the agency determines a waiver would serve the public
interest, public-interest considerations and agency-initiated amendments.
According to EPA estimates, the additional $14 million projected to be
paid in fees annually would add about 2.7 percent to the expected industry
research and development costs (data from the National Agricultural Chemical
Association indicate its members spent $527 million in research and develop-
ment for pesticides in 1982). The fee of $184, 500 for a new chemical
registration represents about 0.7 percent of the estimated $25 million a
company would spend, on the average, in developing a pesticide.
There are other activities for which user fees will not be charged under
this regulation: reregistration activities (reviews of currently registered
uses of pesticides); state registration reviews that meet special local
needs; reviews of emergency-exemption requests; EPA's research and development
activities; the farm-safety program; the integrated pest-management program;
and the certification and training program.
R-86
I I »

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
¦SEPA Note to Correspondents
FRIDAY, JUNE 17, 1988
The Environmental Protection Agency reached
agreement today with the Department of Defense (DOD) on
key policy issues related to Superfund cleanups at DOD
facilities. The agreement comprises model language to
be inserted in all EPA/DOD federal-facility cleanup
agreements at DOD Superfund sites.
There are currently 29 DOD sites on the Superfund
National Priority List (NPL); The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 requires that all
federal facilities comply with the same cleanup rules
which apply to any non-governmental entity. Federal
sites also can be placed on the NPL.
Dr. J. Winston Porter, EPA Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
said, "This is a necessary tool for obtaining cleanups
of Superfund sites at DOD facilities. This agreement
represents a significant breakthrough in EPA/DOD
relations. By this model agreement, we expect to
expedite both negotiations at Defense sites as well as
cleanup actions. It is very important that states
also be key participants in negotiating site-specific
cleanup agreements."
The model language establishes the working
relationship between EPA and DOD during the cleanup
process and clearly spells out actions both agencies
must carry out. DOD and EPA will work with individual
states for similar language that should lead to site-
specific three-party agreements that satisfactorily
establish each group's role in federal facility
cleanups. EPA expects these agreements to improve
the federal facility cleanup program since they
provide a workable framework for how cleanups are
carried out by DOD and monitored by EPA and state
(more)
R-105

-------
-2-
regulatory agencies. The signing of these agreements should enhance public
confidence that the federal and state governments have a sound, enforceable
plan of action to remedy waste problems expeditiously.
A similar agreement was reached with the Department of Energy on May
27, 1988.
The model language provides for the following:
EPA ability to assess stipulated penalties in the event of DOD's
failure to comply with timetables or deadlines of the agreement.
DOD commitment to study fully the environmental problem at the
facility and perform any EPA-approved cleanup of the facility.
EPA commitment to review and comment on DOD's major plans and
studies at the facility.
A mechanism for resolution of disputes arising under the Agreement,
including technical disputes. The Administrator of EPA will resolve
any dispute arising under the Agreement which cannot otherwise
be resolved by DOD and EPA staff.
Agreements and commitments of the parties to be fully binding and
enforceable by states and citizens.
The language has been forwarded to the EPA regional offices for
incorporation into agreements presently under negotiation and into future
agreements.
For more information or a copy of the negotiated language, contact
Priscilla Flattery in the EPA Press Office at 202-382-4387.
R-105
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Division
202-382-5589

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington OC 20460
*>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988
Dave Ryan (202) 382-2981
NEW HOMES MUST
MEET LEAD LIMITS
FOR HUD, VA
MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE
Starting Sunday, June 19, federal and state
governments should start or complete several important
actions designed to carry out the lead ban imposed
nationwide by the June 1986 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
One action is to require that plumbing for drinking
water in new residential property must meet the lead-ban
limits to qualify for mortgage insurance or other
assistance from the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the Veterans Administration (VA).
EPA plans to work closely with HUD and VA in carrying
out this requirement for new residential property.
Also by June 19, all states must enforce the lead
ban through state laws or amended building codes; all
public water systems that are not "lead free" must notify
their customers of the health dangers of lead in drinking
water; and solder used in interstate commerce must
prominently display a warning label advising customers
about lead limits for new and repaired plumbing.
The 1986 Amendents to the Safe Drinking Water Act
prohibit the use of any pipe or pipe fitting that has
more than eight percent lead, and any solder of flux that
contains more than 0.2 percent lead. This ban applies to
new installations and repairs of public drinking
water supply systems and residences and other buildings
connected to such systems. ( Flux is a jelly-like
substance that makes applying solder easier.) Although
the lead ban applies to entire drinking water systems
from reservoirs to private residences, the mortgage
assistance requirement applies only to plumbing in
newly-constructed residential property. The latter
includes multi-family dwellings as well as single-family
homes.
R-102
(more)

-------
-2-
In a Sept. 16, 1986, letter to all state governors, EPA Administrator
Lee Thomas said the system-wide lead ban was effective immediately and told
them of the mortgage-assistance provision, as well as the other important lead
requirements that would go into effect June 19, 1988.
One of these requirements is that by June 19 all states must enforce
the lead ban through state laws or amended plumbing or building codes, or
other appropriate means. So far, 35 states and the District of Columbia have
done this ( see attached list ).
Another requirement in the 1986 Amendments is that water supply
systems that are not "lead free" must notify their customers of the health
dangers of lead by June 19. Water systems must do this even if they are not
violating the federal standard for lead in drinking water. This customer notice
is required not only of "community" systems (those serving 25 or more people
or having 15 or more connections ), but also of "non-community, non-transient"
systems (those regularly serving at least 25 of the same persons over six
months per year). Examples of non-community, non-transient systems are schools,
factories and nursing homes which have their own water supplies. The rules
give both types of systems the option of notifying customers by mail, hand
delivery, newspaper advertising or posting (signs).
Regardless of the method used to notify customers, notification must be
completed by June 19, 1988. If a state fails to enforce either the system-wide
lead-in-plumbing limits or the customer-notice requirement, EPA may withhold up
to five percent of that state's federal grant for administering the public
water supply program.
Also beginning June 19, solder used in interstate commerce and having a
lead content exceeding the 0.2 percent limit must prominently display a warning
label saying that its use in any private or public drinking-water system is
prohibited. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has told EPA it will
help states enforce this requirement.
In a related development later this summer, EPA will propose a tightening
of its current federally enforceable drinking water lead standard. That
standard presently is 50 parts per billion.
R-102
# * *

-------
attachment
The following states (as of June 1, 1988) have either enacted a law or
changed their building codes to comply with the plumbing-lead-limit
requirements of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act:
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Delaware
West Virginia
Tennessee
Minnesota
Kansas
Montana
Ari zona
Iowa
Alaska
New Mexico
Maine
New York
Maryland
Kentucky
Illinois
Wisconsin
Nebraska
North Dakota
California
Washington
Arkansas
Virginia
New Hampshire
New Jersey
District of Columbia
North Carolina
Indiana
Oklahoma
Colorado
South Dakota
Oregon
Massachusetts
Hawai i
Texas

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office ot
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA	Note to Correspondents
THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1988
Attached is a list of the approximately 600
community water-well systems from which water samples
will be taken as part of EPA's survey for pesticides
in drinking-water wells. This is part of the two-year
survey of private and community wells throughout the
United States announced by the agency in April.
The community well systems were selected as part of
a national random sample and not on the basis of any
known problem. State agencies with primary responsi-
bility for water supply will assist EPA in collecting th<
samples and pertinent data. Collection of samples from
community wells will begin in July. (Collection of watei
samples from private wells, approximately 750, began in
April).
The well samples will be analyzed for more than 100
commonly used pesticides, plus a number of pesticide
metabolites as well as nitrites and nitrates. The survey
will determine the frequency of pesticide contamination
in drinking-water wells nationally and examine the
potential relationships among contamination, patterns of
pesticide use and groundwater vulnerability. The survey
is not designed to characterize contamination at the
local, county or state level.
A list of the pesticides included in the survey and
a list of the counties in which the private wells are
located can be obtained by calling A1 Heier in the EPA
press office at 202-382-4374.
R-101
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Services Division
202-382-5589

-------
o.s. fbwim wim notBoncB teaCT
unouL HtarxcxiM buihi
Uit of Ci —«i I Ij IhUr To Ba 111
aijuum*
ENTERPRISE
DALEVTLLZ
KENNEDY
SWEETWATER
KALSKAG
TANANA
A»Tg»A
SILLS
FT DEFIANCE
SIERRA VISTA
MESA
i'tMPK
LH ORO VALLEY
MAYER
TUCSOH
MESA
Community Watar ST.f Tina P.rlod*/ L9
-------
a.s. BmmwuAL pbotecticb tamer
uncuL hbiicujb sntra

List of Comity tfctar Syataaa lo ik !
laavlwl

Location
Cotanuiiitv Watar Syatam
Tima Pario^
l,9c;atian
Cotnnunity Watar Svstam
Tune Pftcir
rtrgm* (cart.)

~biama «xbt.
)

LAKE PLACID
TROPICAL HARBOR ESTATES
II

GREENWOOD
INDIANA CITIES WATER CORP.
II
BONITA SPRINGS
BONITA SPRINGS MATER SYSTEM
I

ETNA GREEN
ETNA GREEN WATER DEPT.
II
SONITA SPRINGS
JOKES MOBILE VILLAGE
II

EL WOOD
ELWOOD WATER WORKS
I
HOMESTEAD
EVERGLADES HAT'L PARK-FLAMINGO
II

BREMEN
BREMEN WATER DEPI.
I
FLORIDA CITY
FKAA LIME SOFTENING PLAJNT
II

ROME CITY
THE WAY COLLEGE
II
TAMPA
B ILLS BOROUGH COUNTY - WIMAUMA
III [
3)
LA OTTO
SUNSET VIEW TRAILER COURT
III
DADE CITY
DADE CITY WATER DEPT.
III

CXEAKWATER
WEST COAST REG. CYPRESS CREEK.
II

Mil

DAVENPORT
FLORIDA CAMP INN
III

VTNTCW
BENTON COUNTY CARE FACILITY
II
LAXE WALES
ROLLING HILLS EAST
I

DALLAS CENTER
DALLAS CENTER WATER SUPPLY
II
FROSTPROOF
WHISPERING PINES
II

RICEVILLE
RICCTILLE WATER SUPPLY
II
WINTER HAVEN
GARDEN GROVE WATER CO.
I

LADORA
LADCRA WATER SUPPLY
I
SARASOTA
CIRCLEWOODS OF VENICE
I

HOCK RAPIDS
LYON-SIOUX RWS-BIG SIOUX
II

DOCN
DOON WATER SUPPLY DEPT.
T
gesgxA

W. DES MOINES
WEST DES MOINES WATER WCRKS
III
BAXLEY
CITY OF BAXLEY
I

DAVENPORT
EVERGREEN MOBILE BCME PARK-EAST WELL
II
QUITMAN
CITY OF QUITMAN
II

ROCK VALLEY
ROCK VALLEY WATER SUPPLY
I
STATESBORO
FOREST SILLS SUBDIVISION
II

MAXWELL
MAXWELL WATER DEPT.
III
KINGSLAND
SOUTEERN PINES MOBILE BCME PARK
I

MILTON
MILTON WATER SUPPLY
II
CLIMAX
CITY OF CLIMAX
II

WASHINGTON
LAKE TRIO
I
&AGAN
CITY OF HAGAN
I

GAINESVILLE
TIMBERIDGE ESTS. SUBDIVISION
II

BIBB

ALBANY
KINCHAFOONEE CREEK M.B. ESTATE
III

WAKEFIELD
CITY OF WAKEFIELD
III
SAVANNAH
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY WATER SYSTEM
II

MDNTEZtHA
CITY OF MCNTEZUMA
I
HINESVILLZ
COUNTRY LANE MOBILE HCME PARE
III

KINGMAN
KINGMAN CO RURAL WATER DIST. 01
I
MAHIRA
KELLY PINES MOBILE HOME PARK
I

MEADE
CITY OF MEADE WATER DEPT.
I
DABIELSVILLE
CITY OF DANIELSVILLE
III

AGRA
CITY OF AGRA
III
FORSYTH
JOHNSONS TRAILER PARK
II

RILEY
CITY OF RILEY
II
WATKINSVILLE
OCONEE UTILITY AUTH.
I

HEPHZIBAH
CITY OF HEPHZIBAH
II

mtiuuii

SYLVAN IA
PO-ROBIN (©BILE HCKE PARK
I

BEVERLY
QUEENDALE COMJNITY
I
GRIFFIN
BRIGHTM30R NUKSINO BCME
III

MAYFIELD
CUBA WATER WORKS
II
KINGS BAY
KINGS BAY SUB SUPPORT BASE
I

LOOI3IA1A

H1HUI

PRINCETON
VILLAGE WATER SYSTEM
I
KALA1JPAPA
KALAUPAPA SETTLUffiNT
I

BOSSIER CITY
PLANTATION ACRES MOBILE HCME PARK
II
HONOLULU
BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
III 1
: 31
SULFUR
CITY OF SULFUR WATER
I

MONTEREY
MONTEREY RURAL WATER SUPPLY
II
mtgo

MANSFIELD
EAST-DESOTO WATER SYSTEM
II
HAYDEN LAKE
HONEYSUCKLE HILL WATER SYSTIM
I

BEHTLEY
SOUTH GRANT WATER ASSN.
III
MERIDIAN
EVERGREEN MOBILE PARK
I

LAFAYETTE
QUEEN'S ROW MOBILE HCME PARK
I
EhtffiTT
Emm WATER SYST1H
II

JENA
TOWN OF JENA
I
EAGLE
CHAPARRAL WATER ASSN.
I

CLLA
SUMMERVILLE WATER SYSTEM
I
AME8. FALLS
RIVER VIEW VILLA
III

BATON ROUGE
LOUISIANA WATER CO.
I

WEST MONROE
GREATER OUACHITA HATER CO.
III
ILLINOIS

NEW ROADS
M & S WATER WORKS
I
KANSAS
VILLAGE OF KANSAS
II

NEW ROADS
POINT COUPEE WATER DIST. NO. 1
III
EDGEVCOO
EDGEWOOD (8ERNICE CLAGG)
II

PALMETTO
VILLAGE OF PALMETTO
I
SOMEN
BOWEN (RONALD MXSMAN)
II

SL IDEI.I.
LOUISIANA WATER SERVICE INC.
III
GENESEO
GENESEO WATER PLANT
II

ANACOCO
ANACOCO WATER SYSTEM INC.
II
VICTORIA
VICTORIA WATER DEPT.
I

LIBERTYVILLE
FCRIST LAXE
I

HUB

CRYSTAL LAKE
CRYSTAL LAKE (JOSEPH MISURELLI)
I

LISBON FALLS
COUNTRY ACRES TRAILER PARK
II
HEBRON
HEBRON (WILLIAM LIGHTBODY)
II

LEBANON
EVERGREEN MOBILE 9CME PARK
II
CROSSVILLE
VILLAGE OF CROSSVILLE
I

BENSON
BENSON C/O ERNEST GERDES
II

GLEN BURNIE
MEADE VILLAGE - AA COUNTY DEPT. PUB.
WORKS I
MDIA1A

PR. FREDERIC
CALVERT COUNTY NURSING CENTER
III
MDNROE
MONROE WATER DEPT.
II

RISING SUN
CALVERT MANOR NURSING HCME
II
AURORA
AURORA UTILITIES
I

EMGTSBURG
MT. ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
I
CONNERSVILLE
WELLS MOBILE BCME PARK
II

BELTSVILLE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
I
PRINCETON
PRINCETON WATER DEPT.
II

CENTSEVLL
CENTREVILLE TOWN COMUSSIONERS
II
INDIANAPOLIS
LAKE OF THE LANTERNS (OBILE SOME PARK III

OCEAN CITY
OCEAN CITY
I
MADISON
MADISON STATE BOSFIIAL
I

OCEAN CITY
FOUR SEASONS VILLAGE (TRAILER PARK)
HI
^ Tima Parioda iridlcata »*>«n aanpllns will ba aehadulad: I. Aujuat-Dacanbar 1966. IX. Janu»ry-Juna 1969. III. JuLy-0«c«lat)
-------
0.3. UVilkJMUTAL HDIBCTiaE MXXCI
¦oTTfmi ygatxciig snem
List of O—nilj llittjc Tyt— To Be "I^il»il
V>?,«U
-------
0.8. HIIIHMl'llll MDtBCTICE AQMCT
KATTtml, HBTICUK SUHVET
List of ri—¦ 111 j Ihtu Syitoi To B* l^il «il
Location
ComnunitT Water SYltem Tina Period*'
Location
Cocmiunitv Watar Svataa
Tiaa Parte
REM lOX (COR
.)

agio (can.)

GOSHEN
SCOTCHTOWN PARI
III
MT GILEAD
NCRTHGATE MOBILE HOME PARK
II
CAMPBELL HALL
RURAL RIDGE WATER DIST.
I
RAVENNA
UVENNA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT
I
MIDDLETON
WHITLOCK FABfB
II
MASSILLON
ROSE LAKE NURSING HCME
II
FULTON
FULTON CITY
I
PENINSULA
MOBILE MANOR MOBILE HCMES
II
PERRYSBURG
JOHN ADAM DEVELOIWENTAL CENTER
II
WAYNE
WAYNE WATER DEPT.
II
HOLLAND
HOLLAND WATER DIST.
I

LIVINGSTON
ADVENTIST NURSING HCME
III

DANS VI LLE
DANSVILLE TRAILER CENTER
II
MIDWEST CITY
CITY OF MIDWEST
I
NORWICH
PURE SPRINGS TRAILER SALES
II
QKEENE
N. BLAINE WATER
II
WAYLAND
HIDDEN INN TRAILER COURT
II
COVINGTON
TOWN OF COVINGTON
I
SOMERS
HERITAGE HILLS HATER WORKS CORP.
II
LA£CMA
LAfiCMA
I
BURKE
BURKE VILLAGE
I
CLEVELAND
BALLERINA EDGEWATER MOBILE HOME PARK
I

WOODWARD
WOODWARD

MXIH CABCUM

BLACK MT.
C CLIFF MEYER INC.
II
1 «IU ¦
xsaocss

SHER. FORD
MID SOUTH WATER SYSTEM
II
BORING
PIONEER MOBILE 9CME PARK
ii
LOWELL
FONTAIN VILLAGE
III
GRANTS PASS
SKY CHEST HEIGHTS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN. I
GASTONIA
STARRLAND CCmffllTY SUPPLY
I
MARCQLA
MARCOLA WATER DIST.
i
STATES VI LLE
FAIKVIEW MOBILE HCME PARK
II
BEAVERTON
WOLF CREEK HIGHWAY WATER DIST.
in
FRANKLIN
THE PINES R.V. PARK
II
SALEM
KEIZER WATER DIST.-CEDAR PARK
ii
ME BAKE
THOMAS STRIQO HAWFIELDS TREATMENT PL.
I
GRANTS PASS
BLUE MOCN TRAILER PARK
ii
BURLINGTON
ROBBEN MOBILE HOME COURT
II
OREGON CITY
HIGHLAND VIEW MOBILE HOME PARK
i
MT AIRY
FURRY WATER CO.
III

FAYETTEVILLE
LOCH LCMOND SUBDIVISION
II
PEHILVAEU

CHAPEL BILL
LAKEVIEW MOBILE HCME PARK
I
NORRISTCMN
VALLEY VIEW MOBILE HOME PARKS
ii
AULANDER
TOWN OF AULANDER
I
WEST CHESTER
CARRIAGE CREST WATER SYSTEM
ii
LELAND
LELAN3 MOBILE HCME ESTATES
I
WYSOX
JACKSON MOBILE PARK
i
CHERRY POIITI
CHERRY POINT (CAS
II
HAZLETON
HOLLY LYNN MOBILE HCME COURT
hi
NEW BERN
RIVER BEND PLANTATION
III
HAZLETON
HAZLETON CITY AUTB
ii
MANTEO
DARE COUNTY WATER SYSTEM
II
E. STROUDSBUR
TWIN FALLS MOBILE HCME PARK
ii
WALLACE
TOWN OF WALLACE
II
E. STROUDSBUR
CRANBERRY HILL CORP.
i
WARSAW
TOWN OF WARSAW
I
HAHLEY
TANGLEWOOD LAKE INC.
i
ROCKY MOUNT
BAKER MOBILE HCME PARK
II
WYCM. HILL
GLEN ALSACE WATER CO.
i
KINSTON
LONE PINE WATER CO.
II
ALUM BANK
W ST CLAIR- PLEASANTVILLE WATER
ii
MURFREESBORO
MANEY'S NECK MOBILE HCME PARK
III
CENTRE HALL
BLACK HAWK VILLAGE
hi
POLLOCKSVILLE
POLLOCKSVILLE WATER SYSTEM
II
BEAVER
BEAVER BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTB.
i
XINSTON
CITY OF KINSTON
II
BLAIRSVILLE
SHERWOOD TERRACE DEVELOIWENT
hi
KURE BEACH
KURE BEACH WATER SYSTEM
I
WASHINGTON
FRANKLIN MANOR UTILITIES
i
CAMP LEJEUNE
USMC NEW RIVER AIR STA. WATER SYSTEM
III
MEAD VI LLE
RISHERS MOBILE HOME PARK
i
CAMP LEJEUNE
ush: bolccmb blvd. water systdi
II
ERIE
PEACEFUL ACRES TRAILERS
hi
JACKSONVILLE
PINEY GREEN ESTATES MOBILE BOMS PARK
I
WARREN
WILDERNESS MOBILE HCME PARK
in
ARAPAHOE
TOWN OF MINNESOTT BEACH
I
EAST BERLIN
LAKE MEADE MUNICIPAL AUTH.
i
ELIZABETH CITY
PASQUOTANK OOUNTY WATER SYSTEM
I
GREEMCASTLE
STATE LINE MOBILE HCME PARK
ii
WILLARD
LEE ACRES WATER CO. IMC.
II
REAMSTOWN
EAST COCALICO TWP WATER AUTH.
ii
AYDEN
PINEWOOD TAP
II
TERRE HILL
TERRE HILL BOROUGH WATER DEPT.
ii
WILSON
NEW HOPE WATER ASSN.
III

HBODK IfJAlP

raca miau

MIDDLETOWN
BIRCHVIEW BY THE SACO INC.
in
BERLIN
CITY OF BERLIN
III
WEST WARWICK
KENT COUNTY WATER AUTH.
ii
MI NOT
HINOT CITY MATES DEPT.
I
POSTER
NANCY ANN CONVALESCENT HOME
i
RAY
CITY OF RAY
II

3QDIH CMCUli

OHIO

BEECH ISLAND
BEECH ISLAND
ii
LANCASTER
SOUTHEASTERN OCUtECTICHAL CENTER
II
MT PLEASANT
MI PLEASANT
hi
GROVE CITY
OAK BILLS MOBILE HCME PARK
II
ISLE OF PALMS
ISLE OF PALMS BEACH & RACQUET CLUB
ii
WESTER VI LLE
OHIO UTILITEES-HUBER RIDGE
II
WALTERBORO
WALTERBCRO
i
SWANTON
COUNTRY COURT MOBILE PARK
I
DILLON
CITY OF DILLOR
ii
MIDDLE?IELD
MIDDLEFIELD MOBILE BOHE PARK
I
CHARLESTON
CLOVERLEAF MOBILE HCME PARX
ii
FAIRBORN
FAIRBCRN SANDHILL WATER TREATMENT
III
HAMPTON
HAMPTON
ii
BYESVILLE
BYESVILLE WATER DEPT.
II
CASSATT
CASSATT WATER CO. *3
ii
BELL FOUNTAIN
HOLIDAY SHORES MOBILE PARK
I
CASS ATT
CASSATT WATER CO.
i
WHITEHOUSE
WHITEBDUSE MUHCIPAL WATER SYSTEM
I
W. COLUMBIA
FALCON RANCHES
in
LONDON
STITES MOBILE BCME PARK
III
W. COLUMBIA
RED OAK MOBILE HOME PARK
ii
BOAREMAN
SHADYHROOK TRAILER COURT
II
COLUMBIA
LAKEWOOD MOBILE BCME PARK
hi
4/7 TitM Periods indicate when »«npling will be teheduled: I. Auguat-Daceober 1988. II. January-June 1489. III. July-Decenib,r
1967. Unleaa otherwise indicated in brackets, only on* watar ayatan will ba aanpled

Indian Land.
-------
0.3. llWUOiimL HiJIBLllCB 4G0CY
wunmu. pgSTiCLUE sikvkt
List of fr—ailty ttatar Systaaa To B* T^ilid
Location
ComnunltT Watar Sr»t«
Tim* P«rlod*/' Location
Commmltv Watar Syatam
Iisai_EaiiodS/
ggpTB cuauM (am.)
SUMTER BURGESS GLEN
SMYRNA
CLOVER
30UTH DA1PTA
FORT TBOMPSON
BANCROFT
JEFFERSON
PLANKINTON
RAPID CITY
VALLEY SfR.
CREST WATER CO. INC.
CHUCKS MOBILE BCME PARK
CROW CREEK WATER SYSTEM &
BANCROFT
HOFFMAN TRAILER COURT
PLANKINTON
WHISPERING PINES CAMPCSOUND
VALLEY SPRINGS
III
I
III
FOtWAL
ROYAL PINE VILLA
I
II
I
III
II
I
t 3]
"WW

WATERTOWN
WATERTOWN WATER SYSTEM
I

TRENTON
GIBSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL WATER DIST.
#3 I

TEXAS

PALESTINE
TUCKER WATER SERVICE COM"!.
I

BEEVILLE
CHASE FIELD NAVAL AIR STATIC*
II

SAN ANTONIO
SAN ANTONIO CITY WATER BOARD
II
[ 31
NEW CANEY
APACHE HILLS
II

LOCKHART
LOCKHART
II

SAN ANTONIO
OAK VILLAGE HCRTH
II

GAINESVILLE
WOODBINE WATER SERVICE COW.
II

CRANE
CRANE
II
I 3]
IjmsVZLLE
CEDAR CREEK MOBILE SK PARK
I

EULESS
HANBY ACRES
II

FT BLISS
FT. BLISS MAIN BASE AREA
II

HOUSTON
HOUSTON
III
t 91
HOUSTON
HCO FVED NO. 32 CHAMPIONS
II

HOUSTON
CNP UTILITY DIST.
I

HOUSTON
RENE'S WATER SYSTD1
I

KINGWOOD
GREENWOOD LAKE SUBDIVISION
I

ALIEF
WEST SCO MUD NO. 1
III

WASKCM
CITY OP WASKCM
II

GRAND PRAIRIE
LAKEWOOD HATER INC.
I

KEENE
CITY OP KEEN!
III

AZLE
TBI COUNTY UTILITIES
III

LIBERTY
LIBERTY
II

TABOKA
TAHOKA PUBLIC WATER SYSTD4
II

HEWITT
HEWITT WATER 00.
I

LINDEN
CHANDLER WATER SYSTEM
I

YANCEY
YANCEY WATER SUPPLY CCRP.
III

SPRING
PAYNE UTILITIES
I

NACOGDOCHES
swift water service ccm
I

CHANGE
CYPRESS BAYOU ESTATES
III

WEATHERFCRD
ECHO VALLEY ADDITION
I

AZLE
RENO CITY BALI.
II

LAZBUDDIE
LAZBUDDIE INDEPENDENT
III

LIVINGSTON
OAK TERRACE ESTATES WATER SYSTB4
II

CANYON
CANYON MUNICIPAL HATER SYSTBi
II

GLEN ROSE
SCRUGGS MOBILE EDC PARK
I

LIVINGSTON
WHITE TAIL RIDGE LAKES ESTATES
II

BOYD
BOYD
II

WINNSBCRO
city cr wnmsBcno
III

SUB

SANTAQUIN
GENOLA WATER SYSTDl

ST GEORGE
ST GSCR0E CITt
I

PARK CITY
HIGH VALLEY WATER CO.
I

COLCHESTER
ARROWHEAD UTILITIES INC.
II
SOUTH BARRE
MT. VIEW ACRES WATER SYSTIW
II
SO ROYALTON
SO. ROYAL TON FIRE OIST. #1
III

FANCY GAP
CASCADE MT.RESORT PROPERTY OWNERS
II
NEWPORT
G W LINK TRAILER PARK
III
COEBURN
BRADLEY TRAILER COURT
II
NAT. BRIDGE
HERMAN FURRCM
II
RICHMOND
GLOUCESTER BANKS
II
HANOVER a BSE
LEREVE MANOR-HIGH POINT FARMS
II
RICHMOND
INDIAN CREEK ESTATES
I
RICHMOND
BELL ACRES
II
COL. BEACH
TOWN OP COLONIAL BEACH
II
BEDFORD
ISLE OF PINES SUBDIVISION
II
UNION
HIGHLAND LAKE SUBDIVISION
I
DANVILLE
MOHAWK TRAILER PARK
III t 2]
HAMPDEN-SYDNEY HAMPDEN-SYDNEY COLLEGE
II
CULPEPPER
RANDLE RIDGE/BYRON MYERS
III
unanwaf

GREENACRES
CONSOLIDATED IRRIG. DIST. #19 SYSTEM
II
GRAPEVIEW
DETROIT WATER SERVICE ASSN.
I
FIFE
FIFE DEPT. PUB. WORKS
II
FIRCREST
TOWN OF FIRCREST
II
OAK HARBOR
FLOWERS WATER CO.
II
GRANITE FALLS
GRANITE FALLS WATER DEPT.
II
QLYMPIA
HOLIDAY RANCHETTES
III
KENNEWICK
CITY OP KENNEWICX
I
FRliELAND
W & B HATER WCRKS #1
III
MESA
MESA HATER DEPT.
I
TAXDMA
MOBILE MANOR TRAILER PARK
I
LAKEWOCO
SEVEN LAKES WATER ASSN.
I
BELLEVUE
TRAILS END
II
SEDRO WDOLLEY
VALLEY VIEW ESTATES WATER ASSN.
I
VANCOUVER
CITY OF VANCOUVER
II
rei ymmnA
KS^CHEM
MCMBCHEN MUNICIPAL HATER WORKS
II
KEYSER
PACA-EAST WELL SOURCE
I
Lrrorr—m.
HEWARD
LOUIS TAYLOR SUPT.^

MADISON
MENDOTA MENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE
I
MOUMT HOREB
RICHARD SHAH
I
CLYMAN
CLYMAN UTILITIES
III
DICKEYVILLE
DALE NEIS
I
WATERTOWN
HICKORY HILL MOBILE BCME PARK
III
JANESVILLE
JANESVILLE H3BILE TERRACE
I
30CDMAN
ANTHONY LAURICH
II
OCONTO
OCONTO UTILITY COM).
II
VIOLA
KIRBY L HAMILTON
I
EDGAR
ED LEWAN-OPERATOR
II
MERRILL
WESTON MANNCR MOBILE HOME PARK
II
WMB
POWELL
NORTH END HATER USERS
II
For oora information contact tha EPA Hot Una at 1-600-432-4791.
Tin* Parloda Indicate whan snplins will ba acbadulad: I. Aufuat-Dacaobar 1966. II. J«x»u«ry-Jun» 1989.
1969. Unlaaa otharwl*a indlcatad In brackata, only ana watar «y»t«n will ba aaoplad.
^ Indian land.
III. July-Dacacbar
5
-------
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
v>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1988
A1 Heier ( 2 02)3 82-43 74
EPA PERMITS SMALL- The U.S. Environmenta1 Protection Agency today
SCALE FIELD TEST
OF GENE-ENGINEERED granted an experimental-use permit to Crop Genetics
PESTICIDE FOR
CONTROL OF THE International (CGI) of Hanover, Md. , to conduct two
EUROPEAN CORN BORER
small-scale field tests of a genetically engineered
microbial pesticide. The purpose of the tests is to
ascertain the effectiveness of the microorganism,
Clavibacter xyli cynodontis (Cxc) engineered to contain
a Bacillus thuringinensis gene (Cxc/Bt), for controlling
the European corn borer and to obtain further knowledge
of the behavior of this product in the environment.
The agency determined that Cxc/Bt will have limited
persistence in the environment and is not likely to be
harmful to humans or other non-target organisms. In
addition, a subcommittee of EPA's Biotechnology Science
Advisory Committee (scientific experts from outside the
agency) reviewed the data and concluded that the tests
pose "no significant risk to human health or the
environment."
The parent strain Cxc is a bacterium that lives in
plants native to the area where the tests are taking
place. It was isolated from Bermuda grass in Westover,
Md. CGI has transferred the Bt delta endotoxin gene
into the Cxc chromosome. Bt is a ubiquitous bacterium
in nature which has been registered by EPA as a pesti-
cide and widely used for more than 20 years. The delta
endotoxin is toxic to the caterpillar family when
i ngested.
R-88
(more)
-------
-2-
EPA's conclusion is supported by studies on infectivity and pathogeni-
c ity submitted by CGI as part of its application that show there are
not likely to be human-health risks associated with the tests. EPA's
conclusion is also supported by extensive knowledge of the Bt delta endo-
toxin and data showing that Cxc does not grow at human-body temperature.
EPA has also concluded that the potential to affect non-target
organisms is not of concern for this small-scale field test for the
following reasons:
° The parental strains of Cxc already occur naturally in Maryland.
In addition, CGI has shewn that Cxc/Bt has a relatively low order
of toxicity to susceptible insects.
° The toxin gene will be naturally eliminated from the parental Cxc
strain, which will then outgrow the engineered strain so that, for
the limited quantity used in this small-scale field test, the Cxc/Bt
will not persist in the environment.
° The exposure of Cxc/Bt to non-target species will be minimal since
stringent containment, monitoring and contingency procedures will
be followed.
CGI plans to test Cxc/Bt this spring by injecting corn plants with
Cxc/Bt approximately two to three weeks after the plants have emerged.
The Cxc/Bt inserted in the corn plant will produce toxins harmful to the
corn borers within the plant. The test will be conducted at two Maryland
locations. One site (6,300 plants on 1.37 acres) is the CGI research farm
in Ingleside, Queen Anne County; the other is on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville (3,500 plants on
0.789 acre) located in Prince George's County. Both sites are surrounded
by a barren zone (25 feet at Beltsville and 35 feet at Ingleside) with corn
and Bermuda grass trap plants growing in the outer five feet. In order to
contain runoff water, a dike will be erected outside the barren zone; a
chain-link fence will be erected outside the dike; a fallow area 30-feet
wide surrounds the barren zone and includes indigenous weeds. The corn
plants will be studied through the summer and fall.
The experimental-use permit requires CGI to monitor the trap plants
periodically to detect any colonization by Cxc/Bt. If the altered microbe
is found in the trap plants, CGI must conduct sampling of the native weeds
at least every two weeks. If Cxc/Bt is found in the native weeds of the
fallow zone, the experiment must be terminated.
The experiment is planned to continue until this fall barring early
termination; however, CGI may elect to monitor the site for an additional
year. At the end of the experiment, the plant products will be incinerated,
any remaining material plowed under and the test site fumigated with methyl
bromide.
R-88
(more)
-------
-3-
Before any genetically altered microbial pesticide can used for small-
scale field testing, EPA must be notified in order for it to pre-screen the
proposed use. In some instances, an experimental-use permit will be required
or may be requested by the applicant. These provisions are fully described
in the Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Register notice
(Vol. 51, No. 123, June 26, 1986), "Coordinated Framework for Regulation of
Biotechnology; Announcement of Policy and Notice for Public Comment." In
addition, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture must also approve all experiments which may have
plant pest or adverse animal-health effects. APHIS is expected to announce
its decision this week regarding an application for a permit to field test
Cxc/Bt.
Copies of EPA's final position on CGI's application for an experimental-
use permit to test Cxc/Bt are available upon request.
R-88
# # #
-------
Environment*! Protection Public Afl»ir» (AW7)
Agency Washington DC 20460
©EPA Note to Correspondents
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1988
The Environmental Protection Agency has reached
agreement with the Department of Energy (DOE) on key
policy issues related to Superfund cleanups at DOE
facilities. The agreement comprises model language to
be inserted in all EPA/DOE federal-facility cleanup
agreements at DOE superfund sites.
Dr. J. Winston Porter, EPA Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
said, "This is a very important tool for obtaining
cleanups of Superfund sites at DOE facilities. We are
delighted with this enforceable agreement language and
appreciate the cooperative spirit of DOE in reaching
these conclusions. It is very important that states
also be key participants in negotiating site-specific
cleanup agreements."
The model language provides for the following:
EPA ability to assess stipulated penalties in the
event of DOE's failure to comply with timetables or
deadlines of the agreement.
DOE commitment to study fully the environmental
problem at the facility and perform any EPA-approved
cleanup of the facility.
EPA commitment to review and comment on DOE's major
plans and studies at the facility.
A mechanism for resolution of disputes arising under
the Agreement, including technical disputes. The
Administrator of EPA will resolve any dispute
arising under the Agreement which cannot otherwise
be resolved by DOE and EPA staff.
R-93
(more)
-------
-2-
Agreements and commitments of the parties to be fully binding and
enforceable by states and citizens.
The language has been forwarded to the EPA regional offices for
i ncorporation into agreements presently under negotiation and into future
agreements.
For more information or a copy of the negotiated language, contact
Priscilla Flattery in the EPA Press Office at 202-382-438 7.
R- 93
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Division
202-382-558 9
-------
*>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Natural Gas Pipeline
Task Force Report
FOR RELEASE: MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1988
EPA ANNOUNCES The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
RECORD CLEANUP
SETTLEMENT WITH Department of Justice and the Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline
TEXAS EASTERN
GAS PIPELINE CO. Co. today announced they have signed a consent decree
that provides for a full evaluation and cleanup of PCB
contamination in disposal pits and surface soil at 89
sites along the company's 10,000 miles of interstate
pipeline. Texas Eastern will pay a record $15-rnillion
civil penalty, and the final cleanup costs to the
company, which Texas Eastern estimates at $400 million,
will set a record for an EPA-negotiated settlement.
The consent decree, which was lodged today in U.S.
district court in Houston, also requires the company to
reimburse EPA up to $1.5 million for costs incurred by
the agency in the case before this agreement and for
future costs that the agency will incur in its direction
of the company's upcoming site testing and cleanup. In
addition, the company will pay up to $18 million for a
third-party contractor, to be approved by EPA, to oversee
the characterization and remedial activities at the sites.
The result of a year of negotiations between EPA
and the company, the consent decree ensures the cleanup
of those sites at pipeline compressor stations where the
company had drained PCB-contaminated liquids into pits.
It also calls for off-site testing of soils and ground-
water monitoring. The company must complete all speci-
fied characterization and cleanup activities, except
for long-term groundwater monitoring, within 10 years.
Thomas L. Adams, Jr., EPA Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, said, "This
is a major settlement that guarantees expeditious,
R-97
(more)
-------
-2-
enforceable cleanup of environmental contamination along the Texas Eastern
pipeline. The $15-million civil penalty imposed on the company, which is
the largest EPA has ever collected in a single case, should serve as a
significant deterrent to other companies and raise their awareness of the
environmental consequences of their activities."
Today's agreement requires cleanup of soil to 10 or 25 parts per
million (ppm) PCBs, dependent on the distance of a site area from residential
or commercial property, and to five ppm PCBs in site drainage ditches.
Texas Eastern also must, install collector tanks to capture any future
releases of liquids from compressor gas vents and pipeline-cleaning equipment.
This requirement, EPA said, is the first of its kind for the natural-gas-
pipeline industry.
In addition, Texas Eastern will complete a PCB audit at specified
facilities, correct non-compliance with federal PCB regulations and establish
procedures and training to ensure future compliance with the regulations.
As part of the investigation of PCB dumping by Texas Eastern, EPA and
several states tested soils, sediments and water at compressor stations
along che company's pipeline, which runs through 14 states. Although these
tests found PCB and hazardous-waste contamination at some sites, none of
the sites was found to present an immediate public-health threat. Access
to all sites is restricted. Most of the sites are in remote locations, and
the PCB levels found were generally low. (A map of the pipeline is attached
and tables summarizing EPA sampling data, which the agency released in
November, are available from the EPA Press Office.)
Today's consent decree will be published immediately in the Federal
Register and will be open to public comment for 60 days.
For more information, contact the EPA Press Office at 202-382-4355.
R-97 # # #
Note: This is the last Natural Gas Pipeline Task Force Report that
EPA will issue. Reporters can direct future inquiries to the
EPA Press Office.
-------
United States Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
v>EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1988
Christian Rice (202) 382-3324
In releasing the initial results of a major research
effort to survey streams in the mid-Atlantic and
southeastern United States for acid rain damage, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today said that
2.7 percent (5,429 kilometers) of the combined length
of the the 500 streams surveyed were acidic, with the
large majority of that acidity most likely due to acid
rain.
"EPA's stream survey is a fully documented, statis-
tically designed survey showing a broader geographical
extent of environmental effects from acid rain than we
previously realized," said Courtney Riordan, director
of the agency's Office of Environmental Processes and
Effects Research.
EPA FINDS GREATER
ACID RAIN EFFECTS
THAN REALIZED IN
EASTERN STREAMS
SURVEY
The agency found that 4.4 percent (4,851 km) of the
combined length of streams surveyed in the mid-Atlantic
were acidic and that almost half (47.6 percent)(52,327
km) had a low capacity to neutralize acid rain (equal
to or less than 200 micro-equivalents per liter) and
thus might; become acidic in the future.
Only 0.6 percent (578 km) of the combined length of
streams in the southeastern portion of the survey were
acidic, but 49.3 percent (44,799 km) had a low capacity
to neutralize acidity.
The subreg'ion showing the highest percentage of
acidified streams was Florida, with 12 percent (461 km),
but vegetation decay is estimated to be the major source
of acidity in 87 percent of the acidic stream length
there.
(more)
R-100
-------
-2-
The survey examined small to mid-size streams, with widths between one
and six meters and depths less than one-half meter. Streams of this size
were large enough to be important for fish habitat, yet still small enough
to be susceptible to the effects of acid rain. Samples were collected in
the spring when the conditions that potentially limit aquatic organisms are
most extreme.
"The survey is a 'snapshot in time,'" Riordan said. "We will not be
able to determine trends—that is, whether the situation is better or worse
over time—until further sampling is done. The baseline is now established,
though, and future sampling will indicate the direction and rate of improve-
ment or decline."
The stream survey is part of EPA's larger National Surface water Survey
which is examining lakes and streams in the United States to determine the
percentage, extent, location and chemical characteristics of lakes and
streams that are presently acidic or have a low acid-neutralizing capacity.
In August 1985, EPA released the results of its survey of 1,620 lakes
representing over 18,000 lakes in the eastern United States which showed
that nine percent of the lakes in the northeast subregion were acidified
(having a pH equal to or less than 5.5) and that 60 percent of the lakes
in that subregion had a low acid-neutralizing capacity.
The 1987 results of a study of over 700 lakes representing over 10,000
lakes in the western United States showed that no lakes were currently
acidic (with the exception of one lake associated with a hot spring), but
that 16.8 percent of the lakes had a very low acid-neutralizing capacity
(equal to or less than 50 micro-equivalents per liter).
Unlike lakes, which can be counted and sampled as discreet entities,
streams form a network in which small streams are tributaries to large
streams. The stream survey sampled stream reaches, which are defined as
segments of the stream network. These segments, or reaches, were identified
as mapped blue-line segments between two tributary confluences. In all,
the physical and chemical characteristics of an estimated 57,000 stream
reaches with a combined length of approximately 200,000 km were extrapolated
from a probability sample of approximately 450 stream reaches in the stream
population of interest. An additional 54 reaches were visited in the
field, but were eliminated because of such characteristics as acid mine
drainage or tidal effects.
The survey data cannot in themselves be used to prove a causal relation-
ship (e.g., the effect of acid rain on stream chemistry). However, the
evidence supports hypotheses that atmospheric deposition is a probable
source of the acidity, when elements such as acid mine drainage and the
natural decay of vegetation are excluded. Sulfate concentrations were found
to be closely related to sulfate deposition rates. This correlation was
also observed in lake populations in the earlier surveys.
R-100
(more)
-------
-3-
Of the estimated 5,429 km of acidic streams, 4,455 km were classified
into a hiqh-inter est subpopulation of acidic reaches where the major source
of acidity is most likely to be acid rain. Of this high-interest subpopula-
tion, just over half of the streams were located in upland forested drainages
in the interior mid-Atlantic region (comprising the Poconos/Catskills sub-
region in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the Valley and Ridge
subregion in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia, and the
Northern Appalachians subregion in Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia),
and most of the remainder are in lowland drainages of the mid-Atlantic
coastal plain subregion, primarily in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. However,
most of the streams in the Pine Barrens are also influenced by organic
acidity, and many are likely to have been acidic since at least the early
190 0s-
An estimated 46 percent (11,505 reaches) of the upstream ends of stream
reaches in the interior mid-Atlantic region were located in forested uplands.
Of these forested upland reaches, an estimated 11 percent (1,271) were acidic
at their upstream ends, and the major source of their acidity is most likely
acid rain- An estimated 34 percent (3,857) of the upstream ends of these
forested upland stream reaches had a very low acid-neutralizing capacity and
the major source of their acidity is most likely to be acid rain.
Copies of the stream survey are available through EPA's Center for
Enviromental Research Information, 26 west St. Clair Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 45268.
R-L00
# # #
-------
Umtod Slates Office of
Environmental Protection Public Affairs (A-107)
Agency Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988
Martha Casey (202) 382-4378
CHRYSLER SETTLES The Chrysler Corp. has informed the U.S. Environ-
RECALL ORDER
mental Protection Agency that it has decided not to
pursue further legal action against a 1986 vehicle-
emissions recall.
EPA ordered the auto manufacturer to recall 93,000
1981 Dodge and Plymouth vehicles for excessive nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions. The affected models are the
Dodge Omni and 024 and the Plymouth Horizon and TC3 with
1.7-liter engines and manual transmissions. The average
NOx emissions from the vehicles tested at the agency's
laboratory in Springfield, Va., were 1.4 grams pei mile
(gpm). The 1981 standard is 1.0 gpm. EPA believes the
cause for the excessive emissions is the deterioration
of the catalytic converter.
The recall provisions of the Clean Air Act allow
automakers 45 days to submit a remedial plan or to
request an administrative hearing. Chrysler chose to
contest the recall order, stating at the time that the
tests were not administered using proper EPA procedures.
The resultant litigation ended, however, when Chrysler
withdrew its request for a hearing and agreed to recall
and repair the vehicles.
Chrysler will begin notifying owners in August. In
addition, the manufacturer will monitor responses and
take measures to ensure that the number of vehicles
repaired is similar to that which would have occurred had
the vehicles been recalled at the time of the original
order. The repair involves the modification of the
vacuum line to the electronic spark-control computer.
Since 1972, when the agency began recalling vehicles
for emissions repairs, only 34 required orders. Of these,
six have been challenged in administrative proceedings.
None of the challenges has resulted in decisions against
EPA.
R-98
(more)
-------
-2-
Today's action is the second recent instance of an auto manufacturer
withdrawing its challenge of a recall order. In May, EPA announced that
General Motors had withdrawn its legal challenge to a 1985 recall order.
The GM vehicles will now be recalled and repaired in September.
R- 98
I * *
-------
U<"itsG ilo.tj -
Environmental Protection Public Affairs IA-107I
Agency Washington DC 20460
&EPA Note to Correspondents
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1988
A joint motion was filed Friday afternoon, June 3,
1988, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia requesting the court's approval to modify
the rulemaking schedule for benzene under the Clean Ait-
Act .
The new schedule, if approved, would change the date
for proposal from June 5, 1988 to July 20, 1988.
A copy of the motion is attached. Ouestions on this
action may be directed to Christian Rice in the EPA
Press Office at 202-382-3324.
Dave Cohen, Director
Press Division
202-382-5589
R-95
-------
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
et al..
Petitioners,
v.
LEE M. THOMAS, e£ al-,
Respondents.
No. 84-1387 and
Consolidated cases
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTIOK FOR MODIFICATION OF REMAND
1. By order dated December 8, 1987, this court established
a rulemaking schedule for Respondents to follow in completing the
voluntary remand requested in a motion for voluntary remand to
the Agency, dated November 9, 1987. That schedule was
established on the motion of petitioner Natural Resources Defense
Council ("NRDC"), and requires respondents to propose action
within 180 days, or by June 5, 1988.
2. In view of the imminence of that date, NRDC and
respondents have conferred on the need for additional time to
complete a notice of proposed rulemaking. As a result,
respondents and NRDC jointly request that the court modify its
previous order by adding 45 days to the 180 day period
previously ordered for proposal. Accordingly, the date for
proposal would be July 20, 1988.
3. NRDC and respondents also agree that the requested
modification of the schedule for proposal will likely
necessitate a modification of the time for final action.
However, they are presently unable to identify a specific time
-------
- 2 -
period, but anticipate that they can submit a motion to the Court
after proposal seeking a modification of the schedule for final
action.
4. The undersigned counsel for respondents has been
authorized by counsel for petitioner NRDC to state that it joins
in this motion. Furthermore, the undersigned counsel has been
authorized by counsel for Chemical Manufacturers Association and
American Petroleum Institute to state that those intervenors do
not object to this motion.
WHEREFORE, NRDC and respondents jointly request that
the Court's order of December 8, 1987 be modified to extend until
July 20, 1988 the date for issuance of a proposed rule in this
matter.
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES S. CARTER, Esquire
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dated: June 3, 1988
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER J. MARZULLA
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
10th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 633-2219
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
&EPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1988
Christian Rice (202) 382-3324
Martha Casey (202) 382-4378
EPA CALLS FOR
NEW CLEAN-AIR
PLANS FOR AREAS
NOT MEETING OZONE
OR CARBON-MONOXIDE
STANDARDS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today sent
letters to the governors of 44 states and the mayor of
the District of Columbia notifying them that their air-
pollution-control programs for achieving the ozone and
carbon-monoxide standards have been found substantially
inadequate and requiring that revisions to these
programs be made. The inadequacy of the programs was
based upon failure to attain these standards by Dec. 3 1,
1987, the date specified in the Clean Air Pet. The
letters were signed by EPA's Regional Administrators for
the included states.
EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas today said, "As
Congress debates various changes to the Clean Air Act,
there are actions EPA must take to ensure progress
toward our goal of cleaner air for all American cities.
New planning efforts for meeting the ozone or carbon-
monoxide standards must begin without delay."
In addition to the call for new clean-air plans,
or State Implementation Plans (SIPs), the agency is
today proposing officially to designate those areas
failing to meet the Dec. 31, 1987, deadline for ozone
or carbon monoxide as non-attainment areas as directed
by the Mitchel1-Conte Amendment to the Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1987.
In the same Federal Register announcement, EPA
describes three possible interpretations of the
R-90
(more)
-------
-2-
Mitchel 1-Conte Amendment passed by Congress last year which called upon EPA
to designate as non-attainment all areas that failed to achieve the ozone
and/or carbon-monoxide standards by Dec. 3 1, 1987. The Mitchel1-Conte
Amendment also deferred the implementation by EPA of any sanctions
through August 1988 to provide Congress time to debate Clean Air Act
Amendments.
Thomas also noted that while EPA is asking the states to take a fresh
look at the non-attainment problem, amendments to the Clean Air Act are
needed to address the broader aspects of the problem. In November 1 987,
EPA proposed a policy for addressing ozone and carbon-monoxide non-attain-
ment. A large volume of comments have been received and are being assessed.
However, Thomas noted that he felt it would be prudent to await Pet amend-
ments before finalizing the policy. If it becomes obvious Congress will
not act this year, EPA believes it will be necessary for the agency to
proceed with completing the policy.
With regard to revision of the clean-air plans, EPA believes that,
even before the issuance of a final policy, the states should initiate
certain fundamental activities necessary to continue to make progress in
attaining the ozone or carbon-monoxide standards. The states will be
required to correct discrepancies between EPA's guidance and the earlier
approved SIPs; to satisfy any unimplemented commitments in the SIP to adopt
control measures; and to begin updating the base-year emissions inventory
for the defined planning area. EPA will notify states that receive SIP
calls of any additional planning requirements upon finalization of the
redesignation proposal or the post-87 policy generally.
Today's notice identifies as non-attainment each metropolitan statis-
tical area (MSA) or consolidated MSA (CMSA) which has recently measured a
violation of the ozone or carbon-monoxide standards.
The agency is using the most recently available air-quality data as
the basis for SIP calls and the the proposed non-attainment designations.
For ozone, EPA generally uses data from 1985-87; for carbon monoxide, data
from 1986-87. The lists of areas which failed to meet the Dec. 3 1, 1 987,
deadline for ozone or carbon monoxide were released by the agency earlier
this month.
In addition to soliciting public comment on the proposed non-attain-
ment designations, EPA is looking for comments on three plausible
interpretations and the regulatory consequences of the Mi tc hell-Conte
Amendment. The Mitchel 1-Conte Amendment, enacted by Congress last December,
prohibited sanctions from taking effect until Aug. 31, 1988. The Amendment
also obliges EPA to take steps to designate areas as non-attainment "within
the meaning of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act." However, the
Mi tchel 1-Conte Amendment does not specify the regulatory consequences, if
any, which attach to such new or re-confirmed non-attainment designations.
R-90
(more)
-------
-3-
The agency has identified three plausible, alternative interpretations
of the Amendment as to the regulatory consequences of such designations.
Where Congress has not directly or unambiguously spoken to the precise
question at issue, EPA has the responsibility and discretion to establish
and implement its cwn interpretation of the statute, so long as it is
consistent with the language, structure, purpose and legislative history
of the statute.
The first interpretation is that EPA should make determinations of
non-attainment without attaching any regulatory consequences, i.e.,
without obliging any non-attainment area to satisfy the planning require-
ments of the Clean Air Act and without subjecting it to sanctions for
planning or implementation failures. This interpretation means that
designations of non-attainment under the Mitchel 1-Conte Amendment would
have regulatory consequences only insofar as Congress amended the Act to
establish new obligations.
Another plausible interpretation is that the Mi tchell-Conte Amendment
authorizes EPA to review existing non-attainment designations and redesignate
existing attainment areas as non-attainment even in the absence of a request
from the state pursuant to Section 107(e) of the Clean Air Act and to attach
regulatory consequences to those designations. Such designations would
have the same regulatory consequences as would attach to a non-attainment
designation newly requested by a state and published by EPA pursuant to
Section 107(d) of the Act. These consequences include strict planning
requirements and sanctions (such as construction bans and restrictions on
federal funding of highway or sewage-treatment construction or air-quality
planning) if a state fails to develop a plan as required by EPA or fails to
implement a plan upon the agency's approval.
A third interpretation is that EPA would redesignate existing attainment
areas as non-attainment but not take any action, pursuant to the Amendment,
to establish new designations to correct continuing non-attainment in areas
with unconditionally approved SIPs.
Today's proposals will appear in the Federal Register within the next
several days. There will be a 60-<3ay public-comment period.
R-90
* « *
-------