Document ExYYRZDKVZwKwrR0YVMv2qO5V

---------------------------- --- ^jmmtmaedtmto^BFvestandntteriazEStnsesoQxcejjse'coiH jfltjj; iSi - <Z2hsflfyi0BlizBte'iiiniier.1iarwestiflndnther:{aee$t.DM ; atttfectivB liyidentifymgarfias.toie.Tiianagedforrmultiple v ^and.ty'ipecifying.harvest mutranits'tobe.unposed in jh jrea. If conflicts occur, resolutions should -minimize . ittae .-harvesting effect on other forest .uses. 'r.- .Consider .the nesting areas of -endangered '-wildlife apecieswhen-determmmg.harvBsLlevels and^chedulin^and ajrpTBvingtimher sales. (GAO alsojecommendej that Congress: ' Provide .Us fCongress'1 views to the Forest Service on ttbe need for Tellable timber .harvest levels so that con gressional oversight on forest management activities can be sure effective in improving management and use of forest aesources; ^Require the ftrrest Service, in determining harvest ilBvels, totasemanagement assumptions and options on the results of rpast accomplishments and research .studies, if passible, and to document such options in timber rmanageanent plans; and Provide -guidance to the Porest Service .indicating wrtsther timber growth from planned managementpractices 1 -future decades should be -used and to what extent, to justify increases in harvest levels and timber sales in the . current decade. Copies of the GAO. report, `Timber -Harvest Xevels For :Jtationai Forests--How Good Are They?," January 24,1978, EEG-78-J5, are available to the public at a cost of SI.00 per copy. Requests.should be forwarded to U.S. General Accoun ting Office,Cistribution Section, P.O. Box.1020, Washington, DC. .20013. fcl.C. gation COALITION SEEKS TO ENJOIN HIGHWAY FUNDS (UNTIL.AIR DUALITY IMPACTS ARE CONSIDERED jA coalition of environmental groups January 26 filed suit against the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB), seeking to enjoin DOT'S disbursement of funds for highway projects in the Washington. D.C.. metropolitan area until statutory air quality requirements are met iContinued .Action on Transportation and Environment, Inc. v. -Adams). The suit, filed in the (J.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges violations of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Department of Transportation Act.. Jt contends that the Federal-Aid Highway Act and its regulations allow DOT to grant federal funds for major highway planning and construction in an urban area only if Ihere is a regional transportation plan that considers alter natives to minimize harmful environmental effects. It says also that under the Act "the transportation plan ning process must be coordinated with air quality planning conducted under the Clean Air Act (and! the transportation plan itself must be consistent with applicable transportation elements of the Slate Implementation Plan (SIP)." Inconaitienciea With SIPa Allagad The coalition's suit alleges that TPB (a regional body rmxresentmg the District of Columbia. Maryland, Virginia, d local metropolitan area governmental failed to comply Jt substantive and procedural requirements of the Highway Act in preparing its plans for five years up to and including fiscal 1977. EIEUVTCOUMENT REPORTER TSlfcanit aiso ajteges diat tbeTIFH plan is inconsistent with e..three-metropolitan :area SIPs because: KKeyrtransportatioo.contristrategies contained in the uizsplementattoB.piansJiave not.been implemented; '.`niertransportaUoc.piaB will delay the attainment of -.`ther-primary National.-.Ambient. Air. Quality Standards :<NAAQS): TThe-transpartation plan is not compatible with the atytamment .of: the primary NAAQS for carbon monoxide and ^photochemical oxidants in the designated attainment year; VThe-transportation plan, is not compatible with the .-.maintenance of NAAQS .for carbon monoxide and : photochemical oxidants once standards are achieved; and, "The transportation plan does not provide for a relative : or absolute reduction in the number of vehicle miles travelled jin. the region." 7 The suit says that because of the inadequacies in the TPB rpIanlDOT's approval of it and subsequent disbursement of : funds for. its highway components was arbitrary and :capricious, and an abuse of discretion. KWEPA Claim Mad* TTbe coalition's suit also says, in a National Environmental 7-Policy Act claim, that TPB's transportation plan will "profoundly affect the public works, zoning, transportation. HanH use, and other plans of the Washington Metropolitan .-Area," and thaLDOT therefore was required to prepare an * environmental impact statement on the plan. - As judicial relief, the environmental groups' suit asks the -court to grant a declaratory judgment that the defendants' : past actions in preparing the Washington area transportation iplan violated the Federal-Aid Highway Act and the Clean Air -Act. {Stepping of Highway Funding Raquaatad TTbe suit also asks for a mandatory injunction to restrain IDOT from disbursing highway funds until it complies with :the statutes and additionally to require disapproval '`of any ;program of projects'previously approved on the basis of... .unlawful certification." Finally, the complaint asks for a declaratory judgment . stating that DOT is required to prepare an environmental .impactstatement on.TPB's long range transportation plan. *Water Pollution 65SPECIFIEO TOXIC'CHEMICALS LISTED; MORE TO COME SOON. AS EPA SEEKS COMMENTS The 65 toxic pollutants to serve as the basis for developing ^effluent limitations under the amended Federal Water Pollu tion Control Act were listed formally by the Environmental Protection Agency January 31 (43 FR 4108). .EPA said it plans to add to the list "in the near future." The pollutants are those specified in the 1976 Natural .Resources Defense Council v. Train consent decree (8 .ERC.2120) and subsequently adopted by the House and Senate in the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Current .Developments, December 16. 1977. p. 1289). The agency previously had listed nine of the 65 pollutants as toxics -- aidrin/dieldrin. benridine. cyanide, cadmium. ;DDT. endrin. mercury. PCBs. and toxaphene. EPA has adopted toxic pollutant effluent standards for six of them -- all except cyanide, cadmium and mercury. '.The.listing itself poses no direct economic costs. EPA :Sjid. but the list does "form a basis for the development of .effluent limitations for eatecories or classes of point sources -pursuant to .Section 30Hbil2)(A) and 304(b)(2) or Section UI07iuH2) of-the Act. ETWiwnmflrSieiN' '400 S?ri/78/SOO.SO RSV 0011338 Adding, Removing Toxic* la formally publishing the list of toxic pollutants under the - Water Act, EPA noted that the amended law-allows the agency to add to or remove pollutants depending on toxicity, tT'f. tSn co V i"-r- 'r. persistence, degradability, "usual or potential presence of the affected organisms in any waters.'' importance of the affected organisms, and nature and extent of the effect of the toxic on those organisms. EPA says it welcomes help in revising the list, and it says it has received no data so far indicating that any of the listed pollutants should be removed. Comments on additions or deletions to the list should be addressed to Kenneth M. Mackentbum, Director. Criteria and Standards Division (WH-585), 401 M St., SW, Washington, O.C. Telephone (202) vcv.; 755*0100). !-kt - Petitions to modify the list should include "sufficient in/ formation to support the proposed modification," EPA said. .? The list of toxic pollutants is: L Aeenaphtbene. 1. Acrolein. X. Acrylonitrile, .. TTST.' jf*-4. Aldrin/Dleldrln. 8, Antimony and compound*.' 'STtV 8. Anenlc and compounds. STA - rt. X ' .. . . >' - 7. Aibeitoz. X Benzene. I. Benzidine.' jo. Beryllium and compounds. . T&p'K/i .11. Cadmium and compound!. - Easrv -- IX Carbon tetrachloride. . "cnr.. kiz-t 7 '1 13, Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolltin). 14. Chlorinated benzenes (other ***'v dichlorobenzenes). IS. Chlorinated ethanes (Including 1.2- c% " , dlchloroethane. 1.1,1-trichloroeUiane. and bexachicreethane). 1*. Chloroalkyl ethers (chioiomethyl, chloroelhyl, and mixed ethers). 17. Chlorinated naphthalene. IS. Chlorinated phenols (other than these listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresois). IS. Chloroform. 20. 2-chlorophencL 21. Chromium and compounds, 22. Copper and compounds. 23. Cyanides 34. DDT and metabolites.1 35. Dlchiorcbenzeaea (1,2-, 1.3-, and 1.4dlehlorobenzencs). 3S. Clchlrrobenzldlne. 27. Dichlcroethylenes (1,1-, and 1.2-dich- loroethylcne). 28.2.4-dlclilorophenol. / 29. Dlehlcrcprop&ne and dlchloropropene. , 30. 2.4-dLmethylphenoL II. Dtnlirotoluene. IX Dlphenylhydrazlne. S3. Endoaulfui and metabolites. 34. E^drln and metabolites.1 35. Ethylbenzene. 38. Fluoranthene. 37. Haloethcra (other than those listed elsewhere; Includes chlorophenyiphenyl ethers. bromophenylphenyl ether, bistdlehlorolsopropyl) ether, bis-(ehloroeth- oxy) methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers). 38. Kalomeihanes (other than those listed elsewhere; Includes methylene enlorlde meihylctUorldc, ow-thyibromide. bromo- forra. dlchlorabromomcthane, Irtehlorofluoromelhane. dlchlerod m u romct l.ane i. 39. Heptachlor and metabolites. 40. Hcxnchicrobuiadlrne. 41. Hexnchlorocyciohexane (all Isomers). 42. Hrsvhlorivyclop-niadlcne. 43. Isophoronc. 44. Lead and compounds. 45. Mercury and compounds. 48. Nepntnaiene. -47. Nickel and compounds 4X Nitrobenzene. 4*. Nilropheools (Including X4-dlnltrophencL dlnltrocresoll. BO. NUroamlnea. 31. Fenuehlorophenol 51 Phenol. 8X Pbthalate ester*. 54. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBsh* 55. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (Including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dJbenzanth racenes. and lndenopyrenes). 68. Selenium and compounds. 67. Silver and compounds. 58. 3J.7.8 - tetraehlorodlbenzo - p - dioxin (TCDD). 59. Tetrachloroethylene. 80. Thallium and compounds. 8L, Toluene. 8X Toxaphene.' 8X Trichloroethylene. 84. Vinyl chloride. 55. Zinc and compounds. 'Effluent standard promulgated (40 CPR Part 139). The term "compounds" shall Include or ganic and Inorganic compounds. 1506 Sewage Treatment SEWAGE AGENCY OFFICIALS WANT MORE EPA RESEARCH FUNDS MIAMI BEACH -- (By an Environment Reporter staff correspondent) -- Members of the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies meeting here February 1 called for increases in the Environmental Protection Agen cy's budget for research and development, especially for programs exploring new wastewater treatment technologies. The local sewage agency officials met to discuss the ramifications of a recent Federal District Court order re quiring Milwaukee. Wts. to significantly upgrade its sewage treatment facilities. The city was ordered to install expen sive, advanced wastewater treatment, and a massive system for controlling and treating combined sewer overflows. Combined sewers carry both direct discharge sewage from households and commercial establishments, and runoff from city streets. Combined sewer systems sometimes become overloaded, resulting in discharges of untreated sewage. Data Called Inadequate Metropolitan sewage agency officials said during the con ference that the court may have issued the proper order in the Milwaukee case, but they contended that the decision was based on inadequate data. William Kat2, director of planning for Milwaukee's sewage district, said the court was provided with technical modelling data on the effects of the city's overflow dis charges. But he said the models, in many cases, were un documented by data gathered through sampling. "The judge had no hard data." Katz said, "but experts probably wouldn't have done better" in issuing an opinion. "Hc is greatly in ignorance and so arc we," Katz said. Rifeh Program Overtaxed The AMSA members' demands for increased research and development funding were fueled by disclosures from an EPA official, who said the agency's program is overtaxed because of years of budget cuts. Copyright f 1978 by The Bureov of Notional Affairs, Inc. 0013-9211/78. 500 SO I RSV 0011339