Document ZBwqLdz0JzXbeR9wayd65GEjd

46 ENVIRONMENT REPORTER Environmental Protection Agtncy Draft on Borougfis ot .Atlantic Highlands and Highlands wastewater treatment facilities. Monmouth County. N.J.; upoer Ocmulgee River Basin water quality management. Ga. federal Energy Regulatory Commission Draft on Traiibiazer pipeline system, construction and oDeration. Coio.. Neo.. and Wyo.: Swan Lake project .Vo. J9U, licenses. Tongass .National Forest. Alaska; Suiton River Project. Spada Lake, amendment of license. Wash. General Services Administration Draft on Queens federal building, consolidation, .V.Y. 0apartment of Housing and Urban Development Draft on Turtle Creek subdivision, home mortgage in surance. Houston County. Ga.; 1 Conquistador develop ment. home mortgage insurance. Trujillo AUo. P.R.; Copperiieid subdivision, home mortgage insurance. Harris County. Tex. Final on Settlers Bay Village. Wasiela home mortgage in surance. Alaska. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management draft on Humbug Spires wilderness designation. Silver Bow County. Mont.; Rocky Mountain liquid hydrocarbon pipeline, permit. Colorado, New Mexico. Texas, Utah, and Wyoming; Bear Trap Canyon wilderness designation. Madison County, Mont. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final on LaCrcsse boiling water reactor. license. Veron County. Wis. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration draft on 72nd Street. N'B-370 to L Street,'US 275 improvement. Douglas and Sarpy Counties. Neb. Final on ID-64. Ne2?erce to Kamiaft improvement. Lewis County. Idaho; 1-33 improvements, US-69 to OK-33. Delaware and Mayes Counties. Okla.; 1-5, Jantzen Beach-Delta Park Interchange upgrading, Multnomah Coun ty. Ore.; Waverly Bypass. TN-l improvement. Humphreys County. Tenn.; Railroad Highway demonstration project, Metairie. Jefferson County, La.; US 20. Long Pine Junction, east and west improvement. Brown County. Neb. General Policy APPROVAL OF HIGHWAY VIOLATES NEPA. CEO ADVISES TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT The Department of Transportation's conditional approval of the Connecticut portion of highway 1-34 between Hartford. Conn., and Providence. R.I.. was not legal under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmen tal Quality Chairman Gus Speth told DOT Secretary Neil Goldschmidt in an April 30 letter. Further. Speth said. [-34 as it is expected to be constructed wiil be environmentally harmful to the Sdtuate Reservoir and its watershed, which are the sole drinking water sources for the Providence metropolitan area, and the project tnerefore is `environmentally unacceptable." CEQ's position on the 1-34* project was rendered as the result of questions raised by the Environmental Protection Agency, which commented on the project in accordance with its statutory duties under NEPA and under Section 309 of the Gean Air Act. EP.A sought CEQ's views under the referral provisions of the council's NEPA regulations. Speth told Goldschmidt, in che April 30 letter and an ac companying legal memorandum, that the NEPA problem with respect to 1-34 stems from the segmentation of the con templated Hartford ;o Providence route. The conditional approval and commitment of design funds for the Connecticut portion of the route prior to completion of the environmental analysis of the remaining Rhode Island segment prejudices the selection of route and other alter natives for the latter and thereby violates NEPA, Speth said. The approval of the route location for the Connecticut por tion of che highway also has created a bias ;n favor of a par ticular route alternative in Rhode Island, which would traverse the Scituate Reservoir. Speth said. Construction of the highway across the Scituate Reservoir and its watershed would cause "serious and substantial threats to the water supply" because of construction, operations, accidents, and secondary' developments. Speth said. If a spill of toxic materials occurred. Speth said, the Scituate water supply would have to be limited or closed. The 1-34 route across the Scituate therefore is ``en vironmentally unacceptable." Speth said, and the selection of that alternative wouid violate Section I01(b)<2) and (31 of NEPA. Air Pollution EOF PROPOSES ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO REDUCE VINYL CHLORIOE EMISSIONS Saying that there have been an increasing number of emergency vinyl chloride emissions over the past two years, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) proposed economic incentives to reduce discharges. In a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Ad ministrator Douglas M. Costle April 18. EDF staff attorney Larry Corcoran outlined a plan which would levy fines in proportion to the magnitude and frequency of discharges. Acknowledging that some emergency discharges are un avoidable. EDF suggested a sliding fine schedule with penalties set large enough to create a financial incentive for improvement within industry. However, these fines would not be a discharge tax; EDF said it wants EPA to emphasize that no discharges are environmentally acceptable. With this proposal EDF requested stricter enforcement of regulations requiring prevention of vinyl chloride emergen cy releases. An EDF review of industry compliance sub missions indicates that compliance with national emissions standards is poor in respect to prevemitive measures, Cor coran said. Many plants have experienced a substantial in crease in the number of emergency discharges in 1978 and an even greater number in 1979. he continued, stating that a review of selected industry reports implied discharges are the result of chronic problems that industry fails to address. The National Standards for Vinyl Chloride prohibit all relief discharges into the atmosphere except for an emergency release. EDF said its review indicates many plants have not been concerned with reducing discharges, which has lead to an ever-increasing number that may be reduced only by economic incentives. To date, EPA has made no reply to Corcoran's letter. Federal Aid CONTRACTOR SOUGHT 8Y EPA TO STUOY EFFICIENCY OF INDUSTRIAL FLARES The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a con tractor to perform an evaluation of industrial flare efficien cy with regard to the destruction ot waste gases. 5-5-50 Snvifanmnr H*porimr COT3*32t 1' SO/SOO SO t o o t s /, 0 2 BFG06562