outlook Tennessee -Tombigbee waterway: a start Corps of Engineers’ construction project won congressional approval 24 years ago “That’s progress.” And with these words usually goes the connotation of some environmental sacrifice to or degradation of the quality of life. It may take the form of air pollution, water pollution, loss of land value, or any number of other environmental issues. Countering the “inevitability” of progress is a growing arsenal of arguments or delaying tactics used by environmentalists to thwart new construction projects. Now, with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190) on the books, one new way to counter any proposed project of a federal agency (such as the corps) is to examine carefully the environmental impact statement describing the project before any new construction begins. This is the so-called Section 102(c) statement; nearly 400 such statements have been filed by federal agencies with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) , One frequent target of the environmentalists is the Corps of Engineers. In the past, the activists have dredged up old arguments against the corps’ activities-to keep the public record open-much as the corps dredges harbor spoils to clear and to keep open the waterways of this nation. Now, environmentalists have access to the corps’ environmental impact statements. As of late, it would seem, however, that the corps has become a good neighbor. For example, one of its newest construction projects-the Ground-breaking As the official guest of Alabama Gov. and Mrs. Wallace, President Nixon symbolically opened the waterway in Mobile on May 25 in a ceremony attended by gubernatorial and congressional notables.
Tennessee-Tombigbee project-has not been found wanting from the environmental impact viewpoint. Complying with P.L. 91-190, the corps filed its 102(c) statement, a sizable document more than one-half inch thick, with CEQ on April 20. Although environmental questions were present, none was so serious as to impose a real doubt of the wisdom of proceeding with construction of the project, and CEQ did not object. Continuing studies will further develop answers to these questions and provide a basis for responsive project modifications. The project was officially launched by President Nixon in a symbolic groundbreaking ceremony in Mobile, Ala., on May 25.
New start Truly, the Tennessee-Tombigbee project is a dream come true. The project involves the construction of a continuous waterway, suitable for modern barge traffic, that would link mid-America-Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi-with the southern Gulf region and foreign markets. It’s a big project, will take nine years to complete, and will cost more than a third of a billion dollars. “Tenn-Tom” literally was the dream of pioneers to link the two rivers-the Tennessee and Tombigbee. As early
as 1808, Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin advised the Senate that a canal linking these rivers would provide potential improvement in the U.S. inland waterway. The corps made its first survey of the waterway in 1875, approved the project in 1938, but then World War I1 intervened. Although the waterway was authoized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946, it wasn’t until fiscal year 1971, when Congress appropriated the first $1 million that the construction was launched. Another $6 million is requested in fiscal year 1972. What construction of the waterway will do is to connect the north-flowing Tennessee River with the southflowing Tombigbee River. The economic impact of the waterway will be national in scope. It will provide a shorter and more direct route between the eastern Gulf coast and the Tennessee, Ohio, and upper Mississippi River valleys. The total cost for the entire waterway is estimated at $386 million, $40 million of which is the nonfederal share. The local assurance of $40 million will be used mainly to reroute highways and bridges. Alabama puts up $10 million and Mississippi, $30 million. In Mississippi, local assurance is guaranteed by the Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District:
In Alabama it’s guaranteed by the Tombigbee Valley Development Authority. Alabama already has passed its bonding authority for the project. In addition, there is a promotional agency, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Development Authority (TTWDA) which comprises the five governors of Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and Mississippi. The governors meet quarterly to consider the promotional aspects of the project. The compact forming TTWDA was approved by Congress in 1958 and to this date is the only compact that has been established solely for promotional purposes of a construction project. Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama is the incoming chairman of the authority. The 253-mile route will involve 10 locks and five dams in all-four locks and dams for the river section, five locks for the canal section, and one lock and dam for the final divide section. On June 9, the corps opened bids on the first section to be constructedthe Gainesville lock and channels. The contract award was imminent at press time; the work under this contract will cost more than $15 million. The bids were opened by the corps’ Mobile district office, which is headed by Vietnam veteran, Colonel Harry A. Griffith; the office is responsible for the river and canal sections. The divide section will be under the supervision of the Nashville district office. Impacts
Economic considerations were not the sole criterion used to assess the desirability of the project. Many other factors were considered, but no major significant adverse effect was found that could stop the project. People. Approximately 150 families in the river section and 80 families in the canal section will be affected. Although the information is not yet available, it is believed in some instances that land will be taken for the project which is the only source of income for these families. Land. The project requires the commitment of approximately 70,000 acres of land. Presently, the land is in forests or used for agriculture. Of this total amount, 24,000 acres would be fully committed to the Tombigbee project and the remainder committed to varying degrees. Fish. Fish will be affected, but only slightly. With one exception, the spe582 Environmental Science & Technology
M
i
s
s
i
s
s
i
Aberdeen lock & dam
cies of fish in the two rivers-the Tennessee and Tombigbee-are the same. The small-mouth bass is the only game fish present in the Pickwick pool at the end of the project in Tennessee that is not already present in the Tombigbee. Fishermen. One effect that the project will undoubtedly have on fishermen is to change their fishing habits from stream fishing to lake fishing. One of the unavoidable effects of the project is the loss of about 190 miles of free-flowing tributary streams. This loss is offset by the establishment of 40,000 acres of lake fishing area. Nevertheless, the fishermen, those who prefer stream fishing to lake fishing, will without question be affected. They simply remain unswayed by the positive arguments and still object vocally to the loss of their stream fishing. Benefits
Navigation is the big benefit. It is projected to bring in an annual revenue of $27 million, of the total $33 million annual benefits. It would double or triple the port activity of Mobile. The increased flow provided to the Tombigbee is another. The increased flow will permit year-round navigation, will supplement the waste assimilative capacity of the river, and have beneficial effects on fisheries. A third benefit is upgrading of the standard of living of a wide segment of the people within the southeastern U.S. The boost in morale is expected to be tremendous. Although the project is in an area of unquestionably scenic attractiveness, the recreational resources that will become available to the public far outweigh the unavoidable effects.
p
p
i
toek A
Other benefits will also be realized from construction of the waterway. At present, most of the existing ponds and small lakes in the vicinity of the project are under private ownership and, as such, are not available to the general public. On the other side of the scale, the 40,000 acres of surface water that will result from the construction will be accessible to all. These areas will include, for example, camping and picnic areas, bathing beaches, nature trails, boat launching ramps, and overlooks. Other benefits include annual returns of $3.3 million from recreation, $2.6 million for area development and improved economy for the area, and $182,000 for fish and wildlife benefit. Safeguards
As the construction proceeds, every environmental safeguard that is conceivable will be incorporated into the project. One foreseeable major problem will be the disposal of large quantities of excavated materials. Present corps plans call for the material to be wasted adjacent to the cuts, although studies are underway for disposal of this material in a manner that will enhance the environment. The waters of the two rivers that are to be joined have similar characteristics, so similar in fact that the mixing is not expected to create a recognizable change in the chemical constituents of the Tombigbee River. In general terms, the air resource along the projected route is considered to be of excellent quality, even though there are no verifying data. But it is important to note that the project is remote from the existing heavy industrial air pollution areas in both Alabama and Mississippi.
Disposal of construction debris will he another problem. Although open burning is prohibited in Mississippi, it can be conducted in certain instances with approval of the Mississippi Air and Water POIlutiOn Control Commission. Then again, the end of the project, near the Pickwick pool, is in an interstate air quality control region. Even though the state of Alabama does not have an open burning prohibition, it is in the process Of formulating such a policy. Views
Colonel Griffith, district engineer of the corps’ Mobile district office, which has responsibility for Tenn-Tom construction, refers to ihe construction as operating within a certain envelope of enhancement and risks. Uppermost line is the maximum enhancement effects and the lowermost line is the beginning of degradation. The 102 statement affirms that the corps is well within these limits now. From this point on, it will be one maximizing the benefits. Craig C. Mason, director of the research department of the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, says that to be against Tenn-Tom is like being against motherhood. Although the chamber’s environmental committee was only formed last year, its objective is to assist in bringing about management of the environment that will produce the greatest net benetit to the total community. A similar message was sounded by Dean McClindon of Louisiana State University, an environmental planner who serves on the corp’s advisory group on Tenn-Tom. A detailed case history of the politics involved in this waterway is now
available in a new book, “The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway,” by William H. Stewart, Jr. It was published this year by the Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, University, Ala. Stewart points out thai in the past, the Democrats traditionally have supported the project; the Republicans have not. But surely now it is a bipartisan effort. Another observation that Stewart makes is that some Southerners came to feel that Tennessee-Tombigbee would not make significant progress until the South lost its solidly Democratic character. Perhaps, one significance of the symbolic opening is another indication of the political clout and independence of the South.
line data for Mobile Bay; the cost of the project is $475,000. Another effort to obtain environmental base line data is planned by the corps. The corps’ Waterway Experiment Station (Vicksburg, Miss.) has proposed the building of a hydraulic model of Mobile Bay. The estimated $335,000 model would be 375 feet long, (half the length of the battleship Alabama) and 150 feet wide (somewhat wider than a football field). The hydraulic model would prove extremely useful not only in correlating essential bay projects hut also with preservation and protection of the environment. The real crunch time for the Tenn-
More data
Although no major significant adverse impact has been recorded in the 102 statement, a more finely tuned base line of environmental data is precisely the subject of future studies. At this very time, for example, the Tombigbee River contributes a heavy natural silt load to the Mobile Bay estuarine areas primarily from tributary streams. These highly turbid waters are due to natural soil conditions and .poor land management practices, which are widespread in the pathway of the construction. Under a joint (50-5,0), three-year project, the South Alabama Regional Planning Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will perform a three-year study assessing base line environmental data for Mobile Bay. The study will provide an environmental profile of the bay. Remote monitoring will be performed with five sophisticated units which will include measurement of biological oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, salinity, wave height, and core samples for heavy metals analyses. The fact is that not only does nearly two-thirds of Alabama’s waters drain through Mobile Bay but so also do some waters of Mississippi and Georgia. The big pollutants are silt and raw sewage. E. W. Castellani, executive director of the planning commission, tells ES&T that the Marine Sciences and Environmental Studies Consortium, a nonprofit corporation representing all four-year colleges and universities in Alabama, will he setting up the five remote monitors mentioned above. In time, these data will yield the base
Col. Harry Griffith Tom project will not come till perhaps 1974. Then, the environmental base line information will become available. In the meantime, construction of the first section will not inundate any waters; it will be dry so that there will not be any environmental damage from the start. Obviously, additional federal appropriations for the construction will be the subject of annual congressional bearings that will prove interesting to follow. Certainly, the $6 million requested for fiscal year 1972 i s a long way from the federal share of $346 million for the project. It is rumored, however, that next year’s request will he $36 million. Nevertheless, the symbolic opening of the waterway on the Alabama State Docks, which is directed by General Reuben E. Wheelis, illustrates a forward bipartisan imagination and vision for an economic rebirth of the southeastern U S . Whether the project can bring the commercial and industrial development to the southern area that is anticipated must await the test of time. SSM Volume 5, Number 7, July 1971 583
Beryllium-hazardous air pollutant A little known but valuable metal is now under strict surveillance for toxicity
Question: what light, strong, stiff metal has a high melting point and valuable nuclear uses, but yet is among the most toxic and hazardous of the nonradioactive substances used in industry? The answer: beryllium. Beryllium was officially placed on the EPA list of hazardous air pollutants in March and therefore will be under close scrutiny as far as standards and controls are concerned. In fact, the Atomic Energy Commission set up exposure limits in 1949, following outbreaks of berylliosis (respiratory ailments linked with beryllium j in persons exposed to the materials. The limits are 2 pg/m3 air averaged over an eight-hr work period, 25 pg/ m3 air for a short-term exposure, and 0.01 pg/m3 air averaged over 30 days for people living in a neighborhood around beryllium plants or facilities using beryllium. These threshold levels of dangerous exposure are still in effect today. “We placed beryllium on the EPA list of hazardous pollutants because of its potential for creating serious disease. We do not imply by this that there is a serious problem at the present time in the US. But as more and more uses for beryllium are discovered, there will be more potential sources for beryllium release into the atmosphere,” explains Delbert Barth, director of the Air Pollution Control Office’s Bureau of Air Pollution Sciences. “Beryllium is so inherently dangerous, particularly when breathed into the lungs, that it needs to be watched more carefully than other materials.” Effects
Health problems among workers engaged in producing and manufacturing beryllium and its products during the late 1930’s and 1940’s resulted in case studies and research which definitely established the toxic nature of beryllium in most of its physical and chemical forms. “The principal route whereby beryllium enters people appears to be inhalation and ab584 Environmental Science & Technology
sorption through the lungs,” continues Barth; it is not taken up significantly by the digestive tract. Also, skin may be damaged by beryllium salts producing dermatitis (skin infection). Chronic beryllium disease has a long latent period (similar to asbestos, see ES&T, September 1970, page 727, “Asbestos: friend or foe?” j , making it difficult to calculate retrospectively the “when and how much” of ,prior exposure. Furthermore, the body has no mechanism to rid itself of beryllium once deposited. It remains indefinitely. Beryllium respiratory effects can be chronic or acute. “Acute beryllium disease inflames the respiratory tract from nose to lungs causing bronchitis, tracheitis, and chemical pneumonitis (a form of pneumonia),” warns Charles R. Sharp, epidemiology associate, Community Research Branch, EPA, and may be divided into two types-fulminating and insidious. The more common insidious type appears after recurring exposure to relatively high concentrations (usually soluble compounds). The result is pneumonitis with coughing, breathing difficulty,
chest pains, weakness, fatigue, loss of appetite, and weight loss. Most people, if removed from the beryllium source, will recover after a six to eight-week period, although the result is sometimes fatal. The fulminating (rapidly appearing) illness is evident after a brief and more intense exposure to beryllium. It appears more rapidly than, but has symptoms similar to, the insidious type. Acute chemical pneumonitis can occur after inhalation of virtually all beryllium compounds particularly the metal, oxide, sulfate, fluoride, hydroxide, and chloride forms. Response seems dependent upon the duration and type of exposure. Deaths have resulted from exposure to large soluble salt concentrations in beryllium processing plants. “In general,” Sharp continues, “the chronic beryllium disease follows more prolonged exposure to lower beryllium concentrations; however, chronic beryllium disease has a latent period which may range from a few months to 30 years.” Affected persons may still be working in the beryllium industry when attacked by chronic be-
U.S. beryllium consumption increases 500% in 20 years TOTAL E!
MATED (IN TONS)
1968
Arsenic (AS20s) Barium (barite) Berylliu m (beryl) Cadmium Chromium (chromite) Copper Lead Manganese (ores, 35% or more M n ) Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Vanadium Zinc
____
.
1
Does not include exports.
Source:
~
,
24,000 894,309 1438 3909 875,033 1,214,000 1,133,895 1,538,398 1758 93,558 419 3611 N.A. =1,200,000
25,000 1,590,000 8719 6664 1,316,000 1,576,000 1,328,, 790 2,228,412 2866 159,306 762 4983 5495 1,728,400
CEQ Toxic Substances Report
Percent increase i948-196i
=4 78 507 70 50 30 17 45 63 70 82 38
... 44
rylliosis, or they may have left the industry 20 years previously. “It’s a difficult disease to follow,” summarizes Sharp. Furthermore, this chronic disease, with early symptoms somewhat similar to the acute form, progresses until the victim wastes away. Many other diseases are associated with berylliosis too; for example, heart trouble caused by damaged lungs putting strain on the heart. Sources
What are the sources of beryllium, this black-hatted member of the metals family? Where do exposures occur? Beryllium is widely distributed in nature but exists in relatively small quantities-less than 0.006% of the Earth’s crust-in about 30 minerals. “These diseases have been traced to most forms of beryllium, except the ore beryl itself,” continues Sharp. Principal airborne exposure occurs in mining, extracting, and refining beryllium from beryl ore. Dusts occur in cutting, grinding, and crushing operations. Fumes (primarily the oxide) result from condensation vapors formed during melting, pouring, or welding processes. Beryl is commonly a by-product from mining other minerals, such as mica, feldspar, etc., although more sources are sought as usage increases. No known cases of berylliosis have been produced by beryl dust inhalation; as a result, mining is not considered a major contributor to beryllium air pollution. On the other hand,
the minerals bertrandite and phenakite are considered possible beryllium sources and may constitute a future health hazard. Beryllium has several significant industrial uses with the initial processing period creating air pollution problems. Aside from unintentional worker exposure, additional hazards include possible neighborhood contamination arising from plants emitting beryllium. Although berylliosis earned its fame as an industrial disease, “neighborhood” cases were discovered. These people happened to live in the plant’s vicinity and were exposed to beryllium in the ambient air. Or a family was exposed to a worker’s dusty clothing. In 1952, a Beryllium Case Registry was set up in the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. On record are some 812 beryllium disease cases with 60 of these being neighborhood cases. As for beryllium products, a large amount of beryllium is used as a hardening agent in alloys, the most common of which is beryllium copper. This 2-4% beryllium alloy is formed by reducing beryllium oxide with carbon in the presence of copper. Beryllium oxide dusts and fumes can be emitted in the alloying process and during the reduction process to refine scrap alloy. Finely powdered metallic beryllium is used as an additive in rocket fuels for increased performance. In addition to its light weight, beryllium releases a large amount of energy when combined with oxygen (high
Be concentrations in a beryllium-copper alloy plant (twoh r averages) -~ ~ _ _ _
.-
_
CONCENTRATION, rg/ma Location
Hours
.
Median
.-~~
-
~
.
.._ -
_
- - .~
Range
Average _
~~_
- -
O x i d e area
92
72.5
149.4
0.4-1050.0
Arc f u r n a c e area
92
50.0
87.6
22.1-502.0
M i x i n g area
92
14.4
21.6
0.03-452.0
C r o p p i n g area
92
33.6
52.8
14.0-399.0
C a s t i n g area
86
14.6
39.8
0.2-535 .O
Fischer f u r n a c e area
91
28.8
40.8
0.2-340.0
Oliver s a w area
90
21.1
25.6
635
28.4
60.3
All areas ~
Source:
-
_
~
~
~
U . S . Air Force Systems C o m m a n d Report
-
,
