i '• ikition
»• ihe ohio
i.mtntion
U.S. E
fivif
. , '•! 60604
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement of
recommendation for use.
Copies of the report may be obtained from:
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
414 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
-OR-
U.S. EPA, Region V, Room 1400
Office of State Programs
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
-905/9-75-003
a study of
prospective water pollution
control activities for the ohio
river valley water sanitation
commission (orsanco)
v. . ,,-.$ protection
jJtiVii'O-..:;1- -•-*••-"
Swee1j
Prepared by
Wendell Associates
1432 Laburnum Street
McLean, Virginia 22101
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois 60604
March 1975
epa-68 01-2631
-------
EOTECTIOff
-------
I
5
V
^r,
'O
tu
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
Mr. Wesley E. Gilbertson, Chairman
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
414 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dear Mr. Gilbertson:
It is our pleasure to transmit to you a report of the completed
"Study of Prospective Water Pollution Control Activities for the
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)", performed
by Wendell Associates.
In May 1974 I agreed on behalf of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency that a very definite need existed for an in depth
study of the roles which ORSANCO could perform in complementing the
member State's and the federal government's activities, in carrying
out the responsibilities contained in the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. To meet the challenging objective
of attaining Clean Water goals for the Ohio River Basin, the Commission
as a body agreed to the sponsorship and conduct of this study, as a
means of better defining the areas of opportunity for effectively
discharging these responsibilities in a cooperative spirit and an
efficient mode.
I believe that the contractor has essentially fulfilled the objectives
of the study. The task at hand is for a thoughtful appraisal of the
study recommendations by the Commission and its respective Committees,
and thence recommending a plan for implementation of the activities,
which ORSANCO can best accommodate. Some of these activities will be
complementary to the State - federal efforts, while others may be in
lieu of our joint efforts, as practicable. It is my sincere hope that
once a consensus is developed for a strategy and plan of implementation,
all parties to this Commission will make appropriate commitments.
Sincerely yours,
Mayo
Regional Administrate
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 This Study; Why and How
Table of Contents ........................
Preface ............................. _v
Summary and Recommendations, ..... , ........ .... ix
Premises ...... . .................. '
Methodology .......... , . . , .......... 3
CHAPTER 2 The Ohio Basin .................... 7
CHAPTER 3 Role and Program ...... . ............ 9
The ORSANCO Role ....................... 9
The Intergovernmental and Inter agency Network ....... 9
The ORSANCO Compact .................... U
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act .......... 13
Current and Possible Programs ................ !8
Monitoring ......................... 1^
Spills and Temporary Hazardous Conditions ......... 24
Stream Surveys. . , .............. • ..... 25
Data Processing, Evaluation and Dissemination ....... 27
Stream Modeling ...................... 2o
Planning ....... ,...., ...... . ...... 29
Water Quality Standards .................. 32
Enforcement ........ . ............... 35
Certification, Reports, and Compliance Monitoring ..... 37
River Management ...................... ^0
Interstate Investigations and Coordination ......... 42
Pollution from Nonpoint Sources ... ........... 4^
Mine Drainage .......... . ............ ^5
Ground Water Management .................. ^6
Power Plant Siting ..................... 46
Research .......................... ^7
Technical Assistance .................... 49
Training .......................... 50
Information Dissemination and Public Relations ....... 51
CHAPTER 4 Priorities ...................... 55
The Stream Data System ................... 56
Planning ........ . ........ • ........ 56
Coordination and Accountability .............. 57
Other Activities ...................... 59
111
-------
Page
CHAPTER 5 Resources for Program Accomplishment , . 6l
Utilization of Present Resources, ..... 6l
New Resources , 66
Obtaining the Resources . , 69
CHAPTER 6 Staff, Committees and Commission 71
Staff 71
Contracting , , . , ,.,...... 72
Use of Committees 72
Commissioners . , , . . , 73
Engineering Committee ....... 76
Source of Initiative. , 77
CHAPTER 7 The Interests of Participating Jurisdictions 79
General Values. . . . , 80
Specific Values ....,.., 8l
The ORSANCO Program Area 82
Values for EPA 86
IV
-------
PREFACE
This study was performed between May and December 197U. Several ad-
ditional months were then consumed in the process of comment, review and
revision.
The period was a particularly challenging and difficult one in which
to appraise and report on the condition of ORSANCO. It was not only that
the role of an interstate agency is unusual within our governmental struc-
ture. Even more unsettling was the fact that these months were attended
by more than the normal number of changes as well as by the further devel-
opment and initial steps toward implementation of major plans to alter the
size and perhaps the shape of the agency.
This study was conceived as part of the developmental work. Conse-
quently, ORSANCO was being examined while it was already undergoing more
changes than during many years past. Since the study was purposely com-
missioned as an independent appraisal, intended to provide an outside
view of the organization and its role, it is natural to expect that some
and perhaps many of the findings and recommendations in this report will
encounter agreement in some quarters and disagreement in others. Never-
theless, the Commission and its Executive Director have already undertaken
to implement a number of the suggestions made in both the first draft of
this report and in this final version. This is gratifying to the contrac-
tor, but it may be a source of some confusion to the reader. It may lead
to some concern as to whether the tense and perspective are always cor-
rect. Accordingly, the contractor asks that readers remember from the van-
tage point of late 197^» and that even then there had already been a cer-
tain amount of interaction among the Commission members, Commission staff
and the contractor.
Despite these considerations, the contractor hopes and believes that
the report will be useful for at least several years to come. The role
and programs recommended will take at least that long to implement in sub-
stantial measure.
During the study period, the contractor enjoyed the cooperation of
many persons and agencies. In the absence of this help, the report would
have been much different and very likely could not have been produced at
all. There is always a danger that in acknowledging assistance injustice
will be done through inadvertent omission. Consequently, we wish to be-
gin by a general expression of thanks to the many individuals who gave gen-
erously of their time in answering our questions and sharing their views
with us. In particular, all members of the ORSANCO staff and many in Re-
gion 5 of U.S. EPA made significant contribution.
v
-------
The following should be acknowledged:
Illinois
Dr. Richard H. Briceland, Director, Illinois EPA (Coiran'r)
Richard S. Nelle, Chief Engineer, Illinois EPA (Eng. Comm.)
Michael P. Mauzy, Environmental Programs Manager, Illinois EPA
Indiana
Dr. William T. Paynter, State Health Commissioner, Indiana State Board of
Health (Comrn'r)
Ralph C. Pickard, Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health, Indiana
State Board of Health (Comm'r)
Oral Hert, Technical SecretarysIndiana Stream Pollution Control Board
(Member of Engineering Committee)
Kentuc ky
Arnold L. Mitchell, Commissioner, Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources,
Kentucky (ORSANCO Vice Chairman)
Herman D. Regan, Jr., Commissioner, Bureau of Environmental Quality, De-
partment for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Kentucky (Eng. Comm.)
New York
Joseph R. Shaw, President, Associated Industries of New York State (Comm'r)
Eugene Seebald, Director, Pure Waters, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (Member of Engineering Committee)
Don Stevens, Chief of Standards and Compliance, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Ohio
Christine Carlson, Ohio Environmental Director, League of Women Voters (Comm'r)
Dr. Ira L. Whitman, Director, Ohio EPA (Comm'r)
Pennsylvania
Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary, Department of Environmental Resources, Penn-
sylvania (Coimn'r)
Wesley E. Gilbertson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Environmental Resources,
Pennsylvania (ORSANCO Chairman)
Walter A. Lyon, Director, Water Pollution Control, Department of Environmen-
tal Resources, Pennsylvania (Eng. Comm.)
Richard Bordman, Director, Water Quality Data and Laboratories Division,
Department of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania (Eng. Comm. alt.)
William Eischbaum, Director, Legal Division, Department of Environmental
Resources, Pennsylvania
-------
Virginia
Eugene Jensen, Executive Secretary, State Water Control Board, Virginia
A. H. Paessler, Deputy Executive Secretary, Water Quality, State Water
Control Board, Virginia (Eng. Comm. )
West Virginia
Dr. M. H. Dyer, State Health Commissioner, West Virginia (Comm'r)
Edgar N. Henry, Director, West Virginia Water Development Authority (Comm'r)
U.S. EPA
Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator, Region V (Comm'r and member of Eng.
Comm.)
James Marth, Project Officer, Region V
Curtis Ross, Director, Indiana District Office, Region V
Harlan Hirt, Chief, Planning Branch, Region V
Kent Fuller, Chief, Water Quality Management Section, Planning Branch, Region \
Dale Bryson, Deputy Director of Enforcement Division, Region V
Charles R. Ownbey, Ohio River Basin Coordinator, Region V
John Hagen, Chief, Monitoring and Data Support Branch, Region IV
John T. Marlar, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Region IV
John M. Harvaneck, III, Kentucky Section, Office of Water Programs, Region IV
Greer Tidwell, Nashville, Air and Water Programs Division, Planning Branch,
Region IV
Henry Longest, Philadelphia, Air and Water Programs Division, Planning Branch,
Region III
Darwin F. Alt, Dale Wismer, Robert F. McGhee, Water Planning Division, Region
III
Dan Sweeney, Dwight Hlustick, Enforcement Division, Region III
Daniel Fitzgerald, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Region III
Larry A. Parker, Surveillance & Analysis, Wheeling Office, Region III
Charles Durfor, NYC, Air and Water Programs Division, Planning Branch, Region :
U.S. Corps of Engineers
John T. Mitchell, Jr., Chief, Reservoir Control Center, Ohio River Division
(Eng. Comm.)
ORSANCO
Leo Weaver, Executive Director
William Klein, John Donnelly, David Dunsmore, Robert Boes, Staff
Leonard Weakley, Counsel
Ohio River Basin Commission
Fred E. Morr, Chairman
C. A. Hays, Executive Director
VII
-------
Even though these persons and many others were of assistance to the con-
tractor, none of them have any responsibility for the final product. As al-
ready indicated, the contract under which this report has been prepared called
for the contractor to work independently and to supply his own analyses and
recommendations, whether or not they found agreement in the Commission, U.S.
EPA, the state agencies or elsewhere. Accordingly, Wendell Associates alone
bears responsibility for what appears in these pages. We have tried to set
forth in some detail the facts and rationales on the basis of which we have
come to our conclusions and which lead us to make each of our recommendations.
In this way, we believe that those who have responsibility for ORSANCO's fu-
ture will be enabled to draw from this report whatever they find useful and
judge its proposals in the light of their own views and objectives.
Vlll
-------
Summary and Recommendations
The purposes of this study have been to:
1. Examine the role of ORSANCO;
2. Analyze present programs of the interstate agency; and
3. Recommend possible programs for ORBANCO.
Items 2 and 3 have been accomplished together (largely in Chapter 3)
because most of the possible program opportunities for ORSAWCO are best
understood by discussing them in conjunction with present or past activi-
ties.
Background.
ORSAIICO came into operation in 19^8. Its justification was, and is,
the interjurisdictional character of the Ohio River system which drains
parts of eight states. The drainages of the Tennessee and Cumberland
rivers are not included within the Compact, nor is a small amount of
drainage in the state of Maryland.
The Ohio River's main stem is a boundary stream throughout almost its
entire length. The Allegheny and Monongahela which unite at Pittsburgh
to form the main river are both interstate rivers, as are many of the other
important tributaries. Tributaries as well as the main stem receive heavy
loadings of municipal and industrial waste effluents,
Accordingly, effective and equitable water quality management in the
Basin can be accomplished only by close cooperation among the states. This
is true both laterally within the segments of the main stem and for the
Basin as a whole in terms of its upstrearn-downstream relationships. Some
important pollutants have effects for hundreds of miles downstream from
their points of discharge.
Management of stream flow, which is practiced in the Ohio Basin
principally for purposes of navigation and flood control, also has inter-
state effects on water quality which spread throughout large interstate
stretches of the river system and eventually affect the entire Basin.
The programs of water storage and releases are also of intergovernmental
concern because they are carried on by the Federal Government and must
be taken into account by the states in the conduct of their water quality
programs.
A further interjurisdictional aspect is presented by the regional
structure of the federal agencies, especially EPA which follows the
general pattern and is organized into ten regions. The Ohio Basin lies
in four of them. Since each of these regions has a degree of autonomy
IX
-------
in making decisions of great importance to water quality management
activities, the Ohio has a need for interstate-federal coordination and
not merely for cooperation among the states.
The Compact and ORSAMCO Programs.
A reading of the ORSAHCO Compact does not give a properly focused
impression of the role which the interstate agency has played, of its current
programs, or of the needs and opportunities which lie ahead. The docu-
ment emphasizes Commission powers to make and enforce effluent standards
against individual municipal and industrial waste dischargers. ORSANCO
has engaged in such activities relatively little. This has "been true
partly because of the desires of the member states. But even more, it
has resulted from the increased abilities of the states to undertake
enforcement actions and to the rise of the regulatory role of the Federal
EPA.
Using Article VIII of the Compact as a legal basis, ORSAWCO has
engaged in a number of ncnregulatory activities which are of great value
such as stream monitoring, some analyses, some degree of interstate
coordination, exchange of views and information, occasional research,
and production of materials useful in public information programs. But
ORBANCO has directed most of its efforts to data collection and manage-
ment. It has provided a forum in which state water pollution control
officials, and to some extent personnel of the United States Government
can consider common problems relating to water quality. Through an
elaborate structure of advisory committees, ORSANCO also has involved
elements of the private sector in its pollution control activities.
On the whole, such nonregulatory activities provide the greatest
opportunities for ORSAWCO to serve the member states and the Federal
Government. The Compact as now written provides ample authority.
The circumstances which caused ORSANCO to spend less than its income
for some time in the recent past had to do with internal problems being
experienced by the agency. The situation was most emphatically not a
result of any lack of responsibilities needing to be carried out or mer-
iting a higher level of performance.
Coordination-the Key to Future Programs.
Each of the eight ORSANCO states and the Federal Government have
water pollution control agencies. There is no need for another pollution
control agency with programs to accomplish the same tasks which EPA and
the member states are now performing effectively. ORSANCO functions should
emphasize the coordination of activities basinwide to achieve greater
effectiveness in water quality management for the Basin as a whole.
ORSAWCO can make essential contributions to its member states and the
Federal Government by engaging in those activities on a cooperative
basis which it is impracticable, inconvenient, or inefficient for the
individual jurisdictions and their separate agencies to perform for the
Basin as a whole or for its major interstate segments. The interstate
x
-------
agency can assist the state and federal agencies to conduct such of
their programs as impinge on the Ohio Basin in compatit>le fashion.
ORSANCO can make an extremely valuable contribution by working with the
states to achieve equity among them in the costly pollution control
measures that must be undertaken.
ORSANCO has no power to compel the states, the federal EPA, the
Corps of Engineers, and other federal agencies to coordinate their
activities or to undertake cooperative programs on the Ohio. Its
success must come from its possession of comprehensive, useful data
on the river system and the basin, from its analytical abilities,
from the common services which it renders, from its possession of
sufficient expertise so that its recommendations will carry great weight,
and, most importantly, from the exercise of leadership in recognizing
and helping with problems that can only be solved effectively and
equitably on a cooperative basis.
ORSANCO should take the lead in formulating cooperative water
quality management plans and programs for the Ohio Basin. It should
be an operational participant in them to the extent necessary to insure
that interstate problems are effectively and equitably solved, and it
should encourage, facilitate and coordinate participation by agencies
of the Federal Government, the member states, local governments, and
private interests.
The data management program should be strengthened along the lines
suggested below; a comprehensive data base is essential to an effective
water quality management program.
Each of the program items discussed in Chapter 3 is appropriate
for performance by ORSANCO and would provide significant benefits for
the states, EPA, other federal agencies, and the people of the Ohio
Basin. However, some are more essential than others. This must be
taken into account because there is a need to devote available resources
to the best uses.
The few pages of this summary and the necessarily brief amplifica-
tions of the recommendations made below cannot substitute, either in
detail or in exposition of rationale, for the fuller treatment given
in the body of the report. Accordingly, readers should consult Chapter 3
for explanations of the several program recommendations, Chapter 5
for discussions of financial and other resources involved, and the
other chapters in accordance with their titles.
Recommendations
1. No effort should be made to amend the compact at this time.
No increase in the regulatory powers of the Commission
seems appropriate or necessary at this time. Nor are
XI
-------
any programs recommended that would make ORSANCO
a builder and operator of treatment plants or
other major public works. Accordingly, the
compact as it stands is sufficient to support
activities of the kinds which ORSANCO needs to
be engaged in and which will need its full at-
tention for some time to come. It is a further
consideration that the development of compact
amendments and securing their enactment by the
member states would involve a significant in-
vestment of time and resources which might have
to be diverted from other necessary Commission
activities. If it should be determined later
that ORSANCO should become concerned in a major
way with matters not directly connected with
water quality or which involve additional regula-
tory activities or public works, it would be
appropriate to then consider compact amendment
or revision, or other legislation sufficient for
the intended purpose.
Intergovernmental Relationships,
2. The states and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
should actively promote and use ORSANCO for the conduct of interstate
and federal-state relations in water quality management.
While ORSANCO has a responsibility and there is
a need to strengthen its capabilities to per-
form effectively as an intergovernmental coor-
dinator, its effectiveness will depend in large
measure on the willingness and consciously im-
plemented desire of its member states and EPA
to use the interstate agency in this way. Of
course, the individual states and EPA should
continue to deal directly with each other on
matters of peculiar concern to each state,
especially where the focus is entirely intra-
state rather than on the Ohio Basin. However,
the states (particularly their water pollution
control agencies) and EPA have it in their
power to encourage and strengthen ORSANCO by
making it clear that they rely on the inter-
state agency in tangible and specific ways as
their intergovernmental arm for the Ohio Basin.
Conversely, their failure to do so will seri-
ously weaken ORSANCO.
3. ORSANCO should serve and function for the entire Basin and not
merely for the main stem.
xii
-------
In the past, ORSANCO has concentrated its
activities on the main stem of the Ohio River.
Some have contended that this was a desirable
limitation; others have regarded it as expe-
dient in view of the interstate agency's
limited resources. While it is -understandable
that ORSANCO must "be involved on the main stem,
the rationale for the interstate agency is
the interrelated character of the entire Basin.
Eight states are compact members, including
two which are not on the main stem. Accord-
ingly, ORSANCO should certainly be active on
interstate tributaries and headwaters streams
as well as on the main river. It also should
become active for the entire river system and
should function truly basinwide as soon as its
resources permit.
Support Functions.
i|. ORSANCO and the cooperating Federal and state agencies should
design and implement a comprehensive stream data collection and manage-
ment system covering the significant tributaries as well as the main
stem, which encompasses and integrates data from the robot monitors,
manual sampling, and periodic intensive stream surveys. ORSANCO should
take the lead in designing the stream data collection and management
system and participate in its execution. The system must be carefully
designed to provide the data needed (l) to meet the monitoring require-
ments imposed by statutes and regulations, (2) for identification and
evaluation of sources and causes of pollution, (3) for planning including
the formulation, calibration, verification and periodic re-verification
of comprehensive stream models, (U) as the basis for the formulation of
NPDES permit conditions, (5) for continuing checks on stream conditions
related to water quality standards, and (6) for the obtaining and pre-
sentation of certain types of evidence not including effluent analysis
from individual point sources, which will be useful in enforcement.
The system should be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary,
perhaps at two year intervals.
The approved Water Quality Monitoring Strategy
is a good start. It should be implemented and
expanded as rapidly as available resources will
permit. The manual sampling part of the total
program must provide for frequent checks on the
accuracy and maintenance of the robot monitors
as well as evaluation of the representativeness
of the data gathered by them. Manual sampling
is necessary for measurement of the significant
chemical and biological parameters not measured
by the robot monitors such as heavy metals, other
Xlll
-------
toxicants and organic pollutants, and data at
critical points between the robot monitor loca-
tions.
The ORSANCO stream data program should be carried
on through a mix of direct staff performance on
the part of the interstate agency and performance
by the state water pollution control agencies,
other appropriate state agencies, the Federal EPA,
and other appropriate federal agencies. A signifi-
cant measure of direct performance by ORSANCO
staff is desirable because ORSANCO has data
gathering and analysis capability. Moreover,
there are many tasks which can be done more effi-
ciently by a central basin agency than by the
necessarily segmented activities of the individual
states. Nevertheless, properly coordinated coopera-
tive performance by the several state and federal
agencies and ORSANCO is the most practicable way
to proceed. ORSANCO should take the lead in de-
vising the basinwide program and should coordinate
it. To function as an effective coordinator,
ORSANCO must be heavily enough involved in actual
performance to have a current, expert understanding
and knowledge of all aspects of the program.
5. The stream data should be evaluated promptly. A reporting
system should be instituted by which quality conditions and trends in-
dicating need for corrective action are immediately called to the attention
of the relevant state and federal agencies having regulatory or operational
responsibilities. The report should be accompanied by a request from
ORSANCO that the situation be investigated and any needed corrective
actions taken, with a report back to ORSANCO.
The data processing system for the data received
from the robot monitors could be programmed to
report automatically significant variations from
the stream quality standards.
6. ORSAWCO should maintain a comprehensive data bank of water quality
and related data for the Ohio River Basin but the interstate agency and
EPA should work toward a distribution of responsibilities in this field.
When Storet is fully implemented and operational, ORSANCO should keep
complete stream data for a minimum of one year, and perhaps for two years,
while Storet should be the permanent file. Nevertheless, ORSANCO should
consider keeping data on parameters which Storet does not accept.
A comprehensive, properly organized data bank
from which information can be readily retrieved
in usable forms for the various purposes to be
xiv
-------
served is necessary to almost all water quality
management and related activities. However, the
storage of data is expensive and "becomes an in-
creasing burden as time goes on and records multiply.
Accordingly, ORSANCO should maintain the current
information that it and others require for opera-
tional and other immediate purposes. Since EPA
has undertaken Storet, its function should not he
duplicated. For permanent storage, the data should
he condensed as much as possible, using available
techniques, without significantly reducing its long-
range utility.
Planning Program.
7. ORSANCO should develop a planning capability to engage actively
in water quality planning for the Ohio Basin. The interstate agency may
undertake some planning projects of its own but, at least for the immediate
future, it should concentrate on participating in cooperative planning
activities with the state agencies, EPA, the Ohio River Basin Commission,
the Corps of Engineers, other federal agencies as appropriate, and to
some extent with areawide waste treatment management planning agencies,
and other local agencies. ORSANCO should assume the lead agency role in
water quality planning for the main stem of the Ohio and for major inter-
state tributaries.
Planning is or should be carried on for a variety
of purposes and by a variety of federal, state, local
and intergovernmental agencies. ORSANCO needs to
develop a planning context within which to formulate
and execute its own programs and to undertake self
analysis of them. It is also in a unique position
to assist the states with several of the planning
responsibilities which they perform by reason of
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. These include execution of continuous plan-
ning process activities contemplated by Section
303 (e), contributions to areawide waste treatment
management planning under Section 208 and river
basin planning under Section 209- It is essential
that ORSANCO participate actively with the Corps
of Engineers and the Ohio River Basin Commission
in providing the necessary water quality input in
planning for the further development, regulation,
control and utilization of the waters of the Basin.
Low flow augmentation may be necessary to maintain
proper stream quality in some segments even after
a high degree of waste treatment is provided.
In some instances, it may be more cost effective
than achieving high levels of source control,
particularly as regards nonpoint sources of
pollutant s.
xv
-------
8. Comprehensive stream modeling and analyses using the models
for the main stem, major interstate tributaries, and ultimately the
Basin as a whole should be carried on "by ORSANCO. The interstate agency
should expand and refine the work which it has already begun in this
area.
If constructed and validated on an adequate and
accurate data base, stream models can be an
effective and convenient tool for planning and
management, ORSAWCO is in the best position to
undertake modeling because it has and should
continue to have the best data base of any
agency operating in the Ohio Basin and because
it has the interjurisdictional scope and out-
look required to construct and utilize models of
the interjurisdictional river system, with nec-
essary regard for the interrelationships among
the several segments of the Basin.
9. ORSMCO should work with the states and EPA in investigating and
evaluating nonpoint or diffuse sources of pollutants, and in devising
means for control of such sources. The technical, legal, financial, and
institutional aspects should be included.
In highly urbanized-industrialized areas such as
have developed in the Ohio River Basin, nonpoint
sources of pollutants, urban runoff (for example),
may have major impacts on stream quality, particu-
larly during critical flow periods. Very few
data concerning such sources and the pollutants
derived therefrom are available for the Basin.
Further, drainage from agricultural lands supplies
a variety of pollutants which have so far gone
almost entirely without control or compensatory
measures.
Stream Standards.
10. ORSAUCO should work with the states in developing consistent
stream standards for the main stem and tributaries having significant
impacts on the main stem; and in periodic review of the standards. Its
interest should be primarily in achieving interstate compatibility and
equity.
Each state formulates stream standards for its
own purposes and also for submission to EPA.
However, the emphasis of each state is neces-
sarily on its particular waters both in and out
of the Ohio Basin. Since the Ohio is a bound-
ary river, and because there are many other
xvi
-------
relationships as among the several state segments
of the river system, the interstate agency should
provide the overall view and the comparative
analyses needed for coordination, consistency
and equity, ORSAWCO's stream models will "be
found useful,
11. ORSANCO should work with the states to achieve equitable alloca-
tions of allowable waste loadings on water quality limited stream segments
of interstate significance.
In the absence of such interstate coordination
and cooperation it may be impossible to prevent
dischargers in one state from using up all or
a disproportionate share of the waste loading
capacity of an interstate stream. This subject
also has a federal-state aspect. In issuing
individual permits under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, both U.S. EPA and the
state agencies must have a means of relating
permit issuance to overall stream conditions
and capabilities.
Report s.
12. ORSANCO should prepare the annual information on water quality in
the Ohio River Basin required by Section 305 (b) (l) (A), (B) and (C) of
Public Law 92-500, for incorporation in the state annual reports,
The evaluations called for by Section 305 ("b)
(l) (B) and (C) should be done by the inter-
state agency for the interstate waters, not
by the individual states.
Enforcement Program.
13. ORSANCO should be the mechanism for interstate accountability.
In the past, ORSANCO has sought to provide
this accountability in part through "status
reports" submitted by each state on construc-
tion of treatment facilities and abatement
of pollution from specific sources. Such
reports can be useful, if made and reviewed
regularly with the individual states and
with the other states concerned. However,
accountability should be viewed more broadly.
In the course of its coordinating activities
in each of the several program areas, the
comparison of the programs and achievements
xvn
-------
of each state as they relate to the quality
of the -waters of the Ohio Basin should be an
integral element,
ih, ORSANCO should adopt effluent limitations and requirements which
are consistent with those of the member states.
These should be considered standby in char-
acter. In order to engage in direct abatement
proceedings of its own, it is necessary for
ORSANCO to have such limitations and require-
ments. Legally the Commission can enforce
only its own regulations. Consequently, to
preserve the possibility of direct ORSANCO
enforcement action in those cases where it
may become appropriate, the Commission needs
to have effluent limitations and requirements.
However, they should not differ from those
of the member states because it is not en-
visaged that ORSANCO should play a primary
enforcement role.
15. The enforcement activities of ORSANCO should be of a backup and
assistance character.
The changes which have taken place over the
past quarter century have resulted in direct
enforcement activities against individual
polluters by ORSANCO becoming less likely
as a primary means of securing abatement.
The states and EPA should carry the main
enforcement burdens. However, ORSANCO
can materially assist by making its data
available for enforcement purposes and,
upon request, providing expert testimony
in abatement proceedings brought by the
states and EPA. ORSANCO might also estab-
lish a regular forum for enforcement per-
sonnel through which cases of interest to
more than one jurisdiction could be dis-
cussed and enforcement techniques examined.
The possibility of ORSANCO participating
in abatement litigation should not be
ruled out, but it should be considered
only in unusual cases where one or more
states find that suit by the interstate
agency offers special advantages.
xvi 11
-------
Technical Assistance.
16. ORSANCO should provide technical assistance to governmental
agencies as its staff resources allow.
It would not be feasible for ORSANCO to assemble
a staff of technical experts whose primary duty
is to be on call. Even if the demand for such
services could be specifically identified and
predicted as to quantity in advance—a highly
unlikely prospect—a technical assistance pro-
gram constructed on such a basis would be un-
justifiably costly. On the other hand, the
furnishing of technical assistance as an
adjunct or spinoff from its major programs
is feasible. It would appear that ORSANCO
is likely to continue to have and to improve
staff capabilities in the specialties associated
with stream data programs. The nature of its
expertise in these and other fields will de-
pend on the emphases that ORSANCO gives to
its substantive programs.
Public Information.
17. ORSANCO should carry on a variety of continuing information
activities in order to disseminate its data in use-effective ways;
to make its services and accomplishments known to the states, the Federal
Government, and the general public; and to improve understanding of
the water quality and related problems of the Ohio Basin,
For the present and near future, these tasks
must be pursued on a modest scale, largely
with existing personnel and resources. They
are important, but there is an even greater
need to develop and strengthen the substantive
programs so that the techniques of public
information will have a significant basis
for communicating with ORSANCO's several
publics.
ORSANCO publications and communications
should be action oriented. They should be
designed specifically for the audiences
intended to use them. It is less impor-
tant to make them general reference works.
There is a need for ORSANCO to be in contin-
uous communication with the state governments
and with relevant federal agencies. This
xix
-------
must be done mainly by the Executive Director
and to some extent by other senior staff mem-
bers. In addition, the use of ORSANCO com-
missioners should be developed. ORSANCO
members, including the citizen commissioners,
could become active representatives in two-
way communication with a wide variety of
groups, and in some instances with the
state governments, and perhaps in limited
instances, even with the Federal Government.
Staffing.
18. ORSANCO should rely principally on its own staff for the conduct
of its core program activities. Committees and contractors are important
supplements but should not be employed in instances where the Commission
has enough regular need to justify staff positions, except in those
unusual circumstances where expertise which it is impossible or uneconomic
to afford in-house is desired. The staff should be expanded as rapidly
as possible, with the necessary breadth of disciplines and expertise,
adequately to handle all of the activities recommended above.
The ORSANCO staff has been extremely small in
the past. While it is not necessarily advan-
tageous to develop a very large staff for the
interstate agency, and while personnel and
resources of the state water pollution con-
trol agencies, EPA, the Corps of Engineers
and others often can and should be used in
cooperative undertakings, an effective or-
ganization requires a staff large enough
to assume responsibility for the major pro-
gram elements and to produce or closely
supervise production of the Commission's
key outputs. Only a staff which is itself
enough engaged in substantive performance
can develop and maintain the expertise
which will make the interstate agency of
a high order of usefulness to the states
and the federal agencies.
Conclusion.
The program recommendations presented here are the ones which should
have priority. Undoubtedly, some of the other suggestions made in Chapter 3
could be implemented in part without substantial additional expense or
staffing; some are already being accomplished in a limited way. However,
ORSANCO should concentrate most of its resources on these priority pro-
gram items before undertaking any major efforts in other areas.
xx
-------
There can be a considerable temptation to spread an agency's programs
too thin. If this is done, the result can be to perform below a level
sufficient to make an activity useful. The data and planning programs
are of first importance because they provide the substantive basis for
any other activities which it the interstate agency might undertake.
xxi
-------
CHAPTER 1
This Study: Why and How
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) has been
in operation for a full quarter century. When the compact creating it
was negotiated, most of the party states did not yet have or had only
recently enacted comprehensive water pollution control laws. Needless
to say, there have been many and profound changes in these statutes and
in the agencies which administer them in the intervening decades.
In the 19^Os, the Federal Government was only a marginal participant
in water pollution control. The advent of the Public Health Service —
later the Federal Water Quality Control Administration in the Department
of the Interior — and now the Environmental Protection Agency, as a
significant regulator of water quality was subsequent to the establish-
ment of ORSANCO.
Throughout this period, the ORSANCO Compact has not changed. Of
course, the Commission itself is not as it was in the late 19^0s and
1950s, but there is reason to ask whether and how far ORSANCO has re-
thought its mission as the law, administration and concepts of water
quality management have grown and the balance of responsibilities has
altered over the years.
Both the Commission and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
have felt a need to examine ORSANCO in order to assess its place in the
present structure of water quality management and in the governmental
pattern of the foreseeable future. They determined that this should
be done with the help of an independent appraisal. Consequently, Wendell
Associates was engaged under contract to the Federal Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The cost has been borne partly by U.S. EPA and partly
by ORSANCO. A Project Review Committee consisting of James Marth for
the Environmental Protection Agency, William Klein for ORSANCO, Walter
Lyon of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and Ira
Whitman, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency*, has
monitored the work. However, the conduct of the study, together with
its conclusions and recommendations, are entirely the responsibility
of the contractor.
Premises.
The staff members engaged in this project have had long experience
with intergovernmental relations, water resources planning, development
and management, environmental administration, federal and state govern-
ment, and with a wide variety of interstate agencies. We are therefore
disposed to believe in the utility of interstate agencies. Nevertheless,
* Dr. Whitman left office before the completion of this work.
-1-
-------
we are keenly aware of their interstitial character. The principal actors
in any of the fields where interstate agencies exist are the state govern-
ments and the Federal Government. Consequently, the justification for
any interstate mechanism or organization in a particular location or
milieu depends on the services, if any, that it can perform for the govern-
ments which are called upon to support it. The viability of ORSANCO
should be measured "by determining whether it can provide needed services
to the eight member states and the Federal Government and on the utility
of those services.
It is possible for the state water pollution control agencies and
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to share their subject matter
tasks with an interstate agency. Each could have similar or even
identical functions. The justification for all of them being in the
field together might be that none of them alone has the resources to do
the entire job. But this would not be an appealing rationale. Unnecessary
duplication is almost certainly the consequence of such an approach.
Accordingly, an underlying premise of this study is that ORSANCO is not
justified in existing if it is to function as a water pollution control
agency substantially like U.S. EPA or a water quality agency of one of
the member states. Its role should be based on its peculiar status as
an interjurisdictional mechanism.
In attempting to identify and develop objective and functions for
ORSANCO, emphasis should be placed on those activities which cannot
be performed properly or at all by the individual states acting separately
or by the Federal Government. With respect to particular functions, it
should also be asked whether, even though literally possible of perfor-
mance by separate action of the participating governments, there are
any significant conveniences or efficiencies to be gained from perfor-
mance by an interstate agency.
One should also keep in mind that we are not considering interstate
agencies in general. Undoubtedly, many of the programs which ORSAWCO
could undertake are those which any interstate water quality agency
could reasonably perform in the geographic area where it operates. But
it is necessary to ask what should ORSANCO do in the Ohio River Basin.
To some degree, the part which any agency can play is affected by
its own ingenuity and the internal drive which it musters. In ORSANCO's
case, the surrounding environment is also of basic importance. The
responsibilities of the member states and how they choose to carry them
out will either create or limit opportunities. Further, the nature of
the overall quality control machinery is increasingly determined by
the actions of Congress and the performance of U.S. EPA in administering
the federal law. In ORSANCO's early years, the entire water quality
management structure was comparatively simple and modest. Consequently,
the interstate agency had a potentially wider ambit within which to
decide where its contribution would be made. This does not imply that
the opportunities were greater than now, but they were more diverse.
-2-
-------
In considering the programs ORSANCO might pursue and their relation-
ship to the interests and endeavors of the state and federal governments,
ve have assumed that the major directions enunciated in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 will remain as there out-
lined for some time to come. Changes in that statute are possible —
perhaps even likely — but it would "be speculative to proceed on the
assumption that we can now identify radically new approaches to water
quality management with sufficient certainty to base serious recommenda-
tions for ORSANCO program development and substantial investment of
resources on them.
Accordingly, we assume that the trend toward lodging the power to
make an increasing number of the basic policy decisions in the Federal
Government will not be dramatically reversed. On the other hand, it
seems likely that the role of the states as implementors will continue.
In a field that is as complex organizationally and substantively as
water quality management, even the implementation of a basic set of
policies cannot be described as a series of robot functions in which
such choices as remain are drained of policymaking significance.
Methodology.
Work on this study began in May 197^. A draft of this final report
was completed in December 197^- After review and comment the report
has been put into final form. It is now up to ORSAUCO, the member states
and EPA to pursue whatever lines of action they think best. This report
sets forth the judgments of the contractor and the analyses on which they
are based.
At the outset of this study, such raw data as could be helpful was
already in existence. It had to be assembled, arranged in usable form
and marshaled in ways that would yield sound program advice for ORSANCO.
Part of the task has been to analyze the relevant legal and adminis-
trative framework within which ORSANCO must function. An interstate
compact is this agency's legal basis. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act and certain other federal statutes had to be analyzed, with particular
reference to their effect on interstate agency opportunities and constraints.
Relevant state laws also had to be examined. However, since none of these,
aside from the compact, empower ORSANCO to do anything or prohibit the
agency from undertaking any actions which it might reasonably consider,
an examination of the state programs, with particular reference to their
bearing on the Ohio, was actually the form that this inquiry took.
It has also been necessary to remember that ORSANCO does not have
the Ohio to itself. Relationships with the state water pollution control
agencies — now lodged in larger departments of environmental or natural
resources — had to be considered. Likewise, the actual and possible
interplay with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps
of Engineers needed to be taken into account. Finally, it was recognized
-3-
-------
that the Ohio River Basin Commission established pursuant to Title 2 of
the Water Resources Planning Act, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Appalachian Regional Commission have water resource responsibilities in
the Basin.
Ascertainment of an agency's role and the development of program
recommendations partake in some measure of legal, administrative and
technical analysis. By using such tools it has been possible to identify
the problems of the Ohio Basin and to map out in a fashion appearing to
have logical consistency what the assignments of each participant should
or might be. But ORSANCO is neither the fountainhead of jurisdictional
power on the river nor the ultimate director of the regional water manage-
ment program. It is the creature of eight states. Its financial support
comes from these jurisdictions and from the Federal EPA. Its governing
board is composed of 27 commissioners. Many of these were chosen because
of their responsibilities in water agencies of the participating govern-
ments. Others are citizen commissioners appointed by Governors for a
variety of reasons and with a variety of expectations as to the interests
they will represent or reflect.
From these facts it was concluded that realistic advice concerning
the role which ORSAWCO should play and the programs which it could hope
to mount must take the views of its members and constituents into account.
Accordingly, some of the ORSANCO commissioners and other concerned or
knowledgeable persons from each of the eight states and the Federal
Government have been interviewed. The purpose was to ascertain their
disposition toward the problems of the Ohio Basin and their receptivity
to ORSAWCO .as it now is or as it might become. It has not been feasible
to interview or otherwise consult all of the individuals who might have
contributed to our understanding of the milieu within which ORSANCO
must operate. We hope that our selection has been sufficient to provide
a fair basis for input to our study. Because the contractor bears full
responsibility for this report, and offers an independent analysis of
ORSAWCO's actual and potential position, it has not been appropriate for
us to identify by name those whose views have been sought or to attribute
any particular observations to specific persons.
The character of our product is also determined by its scope.
ORSANCO was originally conceived as a regional water pollution control
agency. It has functioned entirely within this role during all the
years of its existence. During the negotiation of the compact, questions
were raised as to whether ORSANCO should have other water management
responsibilities as well. This notion was rapidly abandoned on the
ground that it would be enough of a task to create an effective Inter-
state agency to deal with pollution alone.
More recently, the trend nationally has been to consider water quality
as but one component of a necessarily interrelated pattern of water manage-
ment (quantity and quality), water and related land resources management,
or even more broadly conceived environmental management. Accordingly, it
might have been appropriate to study the place of ORSAWCO in any one of
-It-
-------
these universes. Indeed, some might question whether the formulation of
an ORSAHCO role can be effectively pursued within the confines of water-
quality considerations alone. As some of our observations later in this
report will demonstrate, we have considerable sympathy with this broader
approach. However, the scope of the effort as set forth in the contract
governing this study has been confined primarily to water quality manage-
ment. In terms of first priorities for strengthening ORSAJCO, this
narrower scope may be quite functional and realistic. Nevertheless, it
has meant that we have not had the opportunity to consider in any depth
whether ORSANCO could perform useful services in the broader field of
water resources management or environmental management as a whole. Com-
ments on such matters will be necessary at some places in this report.
However, it must be understood that they will be more general in character
than our observations concerning water quality management.
—5—
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
The Ohio Basin
The main stem of the Ohio River commences at Pittsburgh where the
Allegheny and Monogahela meet. The river flows in a westerly direction
and empties into the Mississippi at Cairo, Illinois. Six states share
or border this main river, but eight are in the compact (New York,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois).
Consequently, there is warrant to consider the ORSANCO mission as basin-
wide, rather than limited to the main stem. But, as this report will
explain, there is some contrariety of possible concept in formulating
the geographic emphasis of ORSANCO activities.
The Basin could have been thought of in even larger terms. The
Tennessee is a tributary of the Ohio. When the compact was being
initially developed, some efforts were made to secure participation by
the Tennessee Basin States, but the five states which are in the Tennessee
and not otherwise in the Ohio Basin did not look with favor on participa-
tion in an ORSANCO Compact district. During the 1950s an effort was made
to develop a Tennessee River Compact for pollution control. Such a docu-
ment was drafted and enacted by Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi. But
the interstate agency created by the Tennessee Compact was never activated.
The Ohio Basin, then, as defined for ORSANCO purposes, stretches
from the headwaters of the Allegheny and Monogahela Rivers to Cairo. It
includes nineteen major tributaries, among them some important inter-
state streams like the New-Kanawha, the Big Sandy, the Mahoning, and the
Wabash.
The overall length of the Basin is approximately 900 miles and it
has a width that may be generally put at from 200 to 300 miles. Statistics
could be multiplied to show the Basin's importance, size and diversity.
But it is common knowledge that the Ohio is one of America's great rivers;
that vital industrial and agricultural activities take place in the Basin;
and that its people depend on the river and tributaries for water supply,
recreational opportunities, navigation, and reception of wastes. Accord-
ingly, it requires little demonstration that the condition of the streams
in the Ohio Valley is of major importance to the basin states, the region
and the nation as a whole.
A dominant fact is that the Ohio and many of its major tributaries
have been dammed for navigation, flood control and other purposes. The
main stem and some other portions of the river system, have lost their
character as free flowing streams. Their flow regimen is regulated,
although not generally for a full range of multipurpose uses. The entire
main river, and to a lesser extent the streams in the basin as a whole,
may be regarded as a gigantic series of slack water pools. The travel
time for water in the headwaters to reach the lower Ohio is as long as
several months, especially during periods of low flow.
-7-
-------
These circumstances have tremendous significance for the water quality
problems of the Basin. If the Ohio were a free flowing river system,
the rationale for interstate or federal-interstate cooperation in quality
management would "be the one that is principally advanced — the stream
flows from one state to another and "borders several; its geography and
quality characteristics are interjurisdictional. In the Ohio's particular
circumstances, however, it must "be added that, whether in the interests of
water quality or for other purposes, the river system is controlled and
affected by a number of governmental agencies and private interests.
These too are interjurisdictional in location and character.
The uses now and in future to be made of the Ohio Basin's waters
run the entire gamut. Only irrigation may be regarded more lightly than
in some parts of the country, but even so, reliance on supplemental
water for farming should not be overlooked and could become more wide-
spread in years to come.
The region includes a substantial portion of the country's coal
reserves. Consequently, mining, coal gasification, the operation of
fossil fuel plants, and nuclear energy all are or can rapidly become
important to the Ohio and the populations served by its resources. All
of these forms of energy generation make heavy demands on water, require
that its quality be managed, and have marked effects on the pollution
load which the Ohio and its tributaries must carry.
The myriad effects of a busy, diversified and unevenly but heavily
populated region on its water resources and on their ability to serve
the people's needs are among the most basic facts to be considered in
planning for and realizing the region's near term and long range ability
to support a prosperous and healthful way of life.
The Ohio is considered an abundant river. Its basin lies in a part
of the nation which is well endowed with rainfall. But the demands on
the region's water resources are heavy and the regimen of the river system
has already been committed to drastic regulation by the public works of
governmental agencies. The Federal Government controls flow, the federal
and state governments regulate discharges of wastes, municipalities and
private interests are primarily responsible for treatment of wastes and
for a complex variety of practices in land use, manufacturing and agri-
culture which affect pollution from non-point sources. Perhaps most
major rivers are intergovernmental streams, but the condition of the
Ohio is more affected than most by the course of intergovernmental
activities, inaction, and relationships.
-------
CHAPTER 3
Role and Program
In recent years, ORSANCO has not capitalized fully on its opportuni-
ties for service, nor has it come up to its potential in performing the
water quality management tasks which lie within its unique province as
an interstate agency. The present need is for strengthening of existing
programs and for assumption of additional responsibilities as the re-
sources placed at the disposal of ORSANCO by the member states and the
Federal Government allow.
This chapter identifies, describes and presents the rationale for
a considerable number of program activities. Many of them have been
recognized by ORSANCO, EPA and the member states as needful. Some are
currently performed by ORSANCO in more or less degree.
It should not be expected that ORSANCO could mount significant
programs in all of the fields discussed here in the immediate future,
even if the Commission wished. However, the presentation of a compre-
hensive set of programs should prove useful in outlining what can be
done.
The ORSANCO Role
The Intergovernmental and Interagency Network.
Each of the eight member states has assumed major responsibilities
for environmental management and has a department devoted to that field
of activity. The United States Government also has one of its more im-
portant and visible agencies assigned to environmental affairs.
This trend to see the physical universe whole and to emphasize the
interrelationships among land, water and air is fairly new. It was little
thought of and even less embodied in the administrative organization of
public agencies when ORSAWCO was created. Accordingly, it is not strange
that ORSAWCO, whose compact has remained unamended from the beginning
should be cast as a water pollution control agency and not as a compre-
hensive water management or environmental organization.
Nevertheless, water quality control cannot nowadays be considered in
its narrowest context. Stream flow regulation, for whatever purpose under-
taken, has a profound effect on water quality. Various waste disposal
methods such as incineration, land disposal and discharge to streams
present choices which materially affect the ability to control water
quality and influence the methods to be used. Consequently, even an
agency which is charged only with water pollution control jurisdiction
must be equipped and able to concern itself with much more than waste-
water treatment and the quality of effluents and receiving waters if
it is to have a really effective impact.
-------
The question of whether ORSANCO could be of greater service to the
states if it were a more broadly conceived agency is not considered here.
For practical reasons it probably would be unwise at this time to attempt
a major overhaul of the compact. Such an effort would consume substantial
time, funds, and attention of the Commission and its staff. Even if not
so intended, it might act as a deterrent to the prosecution of substantive
programs by ORSANCO on the plea that major decisions should be delayed
pending resolution of the conceptual debate. As the following pages
will show, there are so many vital things that will continue to go undone
unless ORSANCO performs them that serious consideration of entirely new
fields of responsibility would be debilitating rather than helpful at the
present time. Accordingly, ORSANCO should actively consider what its
role ought to be within the range of opportunities and constraints
afforded by its present compact.
The only direct public contact that ORSAWCO is likely to have is in
its information program and in one or two other services to be proposed
later in this chapter. Almost entirely, however, its role is that of
coordinator and provider of services to other governmental agencies.
Accordingly, in the most direct sense, ORSANCO's constituents are the eight
member states and the United States Government. Within these governmental
structures, those most immediately involved are the environmental depart-
ments, especially the water pollution control agencies. But the re-
organizations that have occurred at both the state and federal levels
during the past decade or so have not quite succeeded in gathering all
water quality related functions in single places. At the federal and
federal-interstate levels in addition to EPA, the Department of Defense
through its Corps of Engineers has a direct and large presence on the
Ohio; the Water Resources Council and its Ohio River Basin Commission
must be considered, both in general and because of the Section 209 river
basin planning provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972; the Appalachian Regional Commission has an effect by reason
of its water and waste management programs, consideration of mine land
problems and other public works programs in the eastern parts of the
Basin; and the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce
are also relevant because of their interests in fisheries, weather, geology
and other natural resources or environmental factors.
At the state level, the constituents and colleague agencies can also
be multiplied, depending on how active ORSAHCO itself becomes and on how
widely one proposes to consider the subject of river system management.
Many of the states separate the water pollution control and fisheries
agencies. In addition, other agencies such as the highway departments
may also be significant because of the effects of some of their activ-
ities on runoff and on water quality.
However, this array should not be taken as equally important in all
its parts. The core of the ORSANCO relationships is in the ambit of the
state water pollution control agencies and the Federal EPA. The Corps
of Engineers and the several fisheries agencies are also more intimately
concerned than others within the larger circle of agencies just referred
to.
-10-
-------
The ORSAKCO Compact.
The powers of a programmatic character most prominently set forth
in the Compact are those directly relevant for an enforcement activity.
Effluent standards are written into the Compact itself. However, all
that is required is the removal of settlea"ble solids and forty-five
percent of suspended solids. These conditions can be satisfied by primary
treatment. Because present treatment requirements at both the federal
and state levels are greater than this, the express provisions of the
Compact must be regarded as largely outmoded. However, the Compact also
confers on the Commission power to make additional requirements to govern
effluent discharges, as may be suitable in particular circumstances.
Just how extensive such a process might be and what its place could be
in the overall federal-state system of water quality management will be
considered later in this chapter. However, it should be noted here that
ORSANCO does have the legal authority to make and enforce standards,
effluent limitations and requirements beyond those expressly written in
the Compact text, and that from time to time it has done so. It is also
specifically set forth that the Commission may employ abatement hearings,
administrative orders and court proceedings to enforce its requirements
against municipalities and industrial waste dischargers.
From a mere reading of the Compact, one could come to the conclusion
that all there is to an enforcement program—at least so far as the Com-
mission is concerned—is the making of effluent standards and their ap-
plication to particular waste dischargers through administrative and
judicial proceedings. Other types of enforcement activities, and certainly
the nonprosecutorial kinds of water quality management programs are not
specifically mentioned. Accordingly, their conduct by ORSANCO depends on
the authorities that are necessarily implied in the Compact and its
general purposes or on amendment or supplementation of the Compact as it
now stands.
Since ORSANCO's direct action in issuing orders against and suing
alleged polluters is represented by no more than a handful of cases, it
is clear that almost all of the agency's actual program activities during
the quarter century of its existence have rested on implied authority.
This conclusion is reached because, aside from some powers of a study and
recommendatory character contained in Article VIII of the Compact, the
only grants of authority relate to enforcement.
To the extent that ORSANCO activities have been based on specific
words of the Compact, they have found their authorization almost entirely
in the following language:
ARTICLE VIII
The Commission shall conduct a survey of the territory in-
cluded within the District, shall study the pollution problems
of the District, and shall make a comprehensive report for the
-11-
-------
prevention or reduction of stream pollution therein. In pre-
paring such report, the Commission shall confer with any national
or regional planning body which may "be established, and any
department of the Federal Government authorized to deal with
matters relating to the pollution problems of the District.
The Commission shall draft and recommend to the governors of the
various signatory States uniform legislation dealing with the
pollution of rivers, streams and waters and other pollution
problems within the District. The Commission shall consult
with and advise the various States, communities, municipalities,
corporations, persons, or other entities with regard to partic-
ular problems connected with the pollution of waters, particu-
larly with regard to the construction of plants for the disposal
of sewage, industrial and other waste. The Commission shall,
more than one month prior to any regular meeting of the legisla-
ture of any State which is a party thereto, present to the
governor of the State its recommendations relating to enact-
ments to be made by any legislature in furthering the intents
and purposes of this Compact.
These words seem clearly to look toward a planning function and to
the making of recommendations. Some indication of how this might be done
is contained in the reference to uniform legislation and recommendations
of changes in law. The idea that planning should be done in cooperation
with a national or regional planning body is indicative but not necessarily
confining. Indeed, in its historic context, it would seem that what was
specifically in mind was the National Resources Planning Board structure
of the 1930s which was abolished before ORSABfCO commenced operations.
Nevertheless, the thought of cooperative planning could be applied equally
well to undertakings with the Ohio River Basin Commission, the Appalachian
Regional Commission, river basin planning entities under Section 209 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or areawide planning bodies under
Section 208 of the same statute.
It also seems clear that the Compact envisages ORSANCO as a con-
sultative arm of the member states which can give advice on control and
abatement measures such as the construction of treatment plants. However,
the language of Article VIII is not restrictive and so can provide a
basis for whatever kinds of nonregulatory forum, assistance and informa-
tional or analytical activities might be desired.
Activities that consist of the gathering of data, where compulsory
access to private property is not necessary, do not generally require a
specific statutory or compactual basis. It can be assumed that any agency
has an inherent right to inform itself in fields relevant to its subject
matter responsibilities. Similarly, the conduct of research by virtually
any method is a defensible activity. Consequently, it may be concluded
that if the party states, the Federal Government, and such other funding
sources as may be found are willing to finance ORSANCO, it may engage in
such activities.
-12-
-------
Although it is sometimes made explicit in statutory authorizations
or other types of charters, the forum function can also be performed
without a specific charge in the Compact, and none appears. Indeed, the
composition of the Commission makes it easy and perhaps inevitable that
ORSANCO be used to facilitate an interchange of views among water pollution
control agencies in the party states and the Federal Government. Since
citizen commissioners serve on the agency, there is also opportunity for
the forum function to include elements of the private sector in the
Ohio Basin.
Operating programs such as the construction of treatment systems or
stream flow regulating works are not mentioned. Since the conduct of
such undertakings usually involves large sums of money, the management
of extensive and valuable properties, the borrowing, management and re-
payment of capital funds, and frequently exercise of the power of eminent
domain, it is impractical to proceed very far on the basis of inferred
powers only. As already indicated, the Compact does not contain express
powers of the kind that would be necessary to permit ORSANCO to engage in
the conduct of large programs of public works.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, unlike the Compact, cannot
empower ORSANCO to engage in activities because it is not an enactment
of the member states. However, the Federal Act is important to ORSANCO
because EPA is and must be a principal participant in intergovernmental
water quality management and because of the role which ORSAWCO can play
in assisting the states and EPA to implement a number of key provisions
of the federal law.
Section 103 of the Federal Act (a reenacted provision from previous
versions of the statute) directs EPA to encourage several kinds of inter-
state and intergovernmental cooperation. In particular, the consent of
the Congress is given to the negotiation of interstate compacts which,
however, are not to be binding and effective until Congress consents to
the specific text of the compact in question. Accordingly, this pro-
vision has only limited significance, but it does evidence a policy on
the part of Congress to encourage interstate compacts for water quality
management.
The ORSANCO Compact antedated this provision of federal law, even
in its earliest appearance in the original 19^8 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. Nevertheless, the ORSANCO Compact does have the specific
consent of Congress and so meets any condition on this score which
might be held to apply.
The Federal Act Amendments of 1972 makes specific mention of inter-
state agencies forty-three (U3) times. The table on pages ik-lj lists
these provisions and gives a brief indication of their substance. Since
there are not interstate agencies on each of the major navigable river
systems of the United States, the Federal Act does not and could not
-13-
-------
Table No. 1
References to Interstate Agencies
Section number
ioi(b)(i)
102(a)
103(b)(2)
LOMb)(2)
LOMb)(3)
LOU(n)(l)
L05(a)
L05(b)
L06(a)
106(b)
Substance of provision
It is the policy of Congress to provide Federal technical
services and financial aid to interstate agencies in order
to aid research in the prevention, reduction and elimination
of pollution.
The Administrator of EPA shall develop comprehensive water
pollution control programs in cooperation with interstate
agencies. The Administrator is authorized to make joint in-
vestigations with any interstate agencies of water conditions
in any state and of sewage discharges which affect such waters
Congressional consent is given to states to negotiate compacts
for the prevention and control of pollution and to establish
interstate agencies.
In establishing national programs for the prevention, reduc-
tion and elimination of pollution, the Administrator shall
cooperate with interstate agencies with respect to research,
investigation and related activities.
The Administrator is authorized to make grants to interstate
agencies for research relating to prevention, reduction and
elimination of pollution.
The Administrator shall, in cooperation with interstate agen-
cies, conduct comprehensive studies of the effects of pollu-
tion on fish and wildlife, on recreation, on water supply and
water power, and on other beneficial purposes
The Administrator may make grants to an interstate agency
assisting the EPA in developing a new and improved method of
preventing, reducing and eliminating the discharge into any
waters of pollutants from storm water sewers and in demonstra-
ting advanced waste treatment and water purification methods
or new methods of joint treatment of municipal and industrial
wastes .
The Administrator may make grants to an interstate agency to
demonstrate advanced pollution control techniques within river
basins.
The sums of $60,000,000 and $75,000,000 were authorized re-
spectively for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June
30, 197 1| for grants, including those to interstate agencies
for administration of water pollution control programs
Program grant allotments will be made to interstate agencies.
-ik-
-------
Section number
Substance of provision
io6(c!
The Administrator is authorized to pay each interstate agency
each fiscal year the allotment made under subsection (b), or
reasonable costs as determined "by the Administrator of conduc-
ting a pollution program by such agency.
106(d)
No grant will he made under sec. 106 to any interstate agency
when the expenditure of non-Federal funds for such agency's
recurrent expenses for its pollution program are less than its
expenditure of non-Federal funds for such recurrent program
expenses during fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
106(f)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Grants shall he made under this section on condition that:
an interstate agency must file with the Administrator within
120 days after the date of enactment of this section a summary
report of the current status of the state pollution program
and additional information as required by the Administrator;
no federal enforcement as defined in sec. 309(a)(2) is in ef-
fect with respect to such interstate agency;
such interstate agency submits within 120 days after the date
of enactment of this section and before July 1 of each year
thereafter for the Administrator's approval its program of
pollution control.
108 (
a.
The Administrator, in cooperation with other Federal agencies
or departments, is authorized to enter into agreements with
any interstate agency to carry out programs of improved pollu-
tion control within the watersheds of the Great Lakes.
108(la)
Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to
the agency's paying not less than 25 per centum of the actual
project costs.
The Administrator is authorized to make grants to any inter-
state agency for the construction of publicly owned treatment
works.
The Administrator shall not make grants authorized for any
fiscal year beginning after June 30, 19TU to any interstate
agency for construction or improvement of treatment works un-
less the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that:
(A) alternative waste management techniques have been studied
and the works proposed will utilize the best waste treatment
technology, (B) the works proposed will take into account and
allow application of technology at a later date that will pro-
vide for the reclaiming or recycling of water.
20Ma)
Before approving grants for any treatment works project under
sec. 20l(g)(l) the Administrator shall determine:
that the applicant agrees to pay the non-Federal costs of such
works and has adequately provided for trained personnel and
has obtained approval of its plan of operation from an inter-
state agency where appropriate.
-15-
-------
Section number
Substance of provision
The Administrator shall, within 180 days after the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 and after consultation with appropriate inter-
state agency, issue guidelines applicable to payment of
waste treatment costs by industrial and nonindustrial users
of waste treatment services.
Approval by the Administrator of a grant for any treatment
works to an interstate agency established by interstate com-
pact shall constitute authorizatipn by Congress.
310(a)
Whenever the Administrator has received reports from an in-
ternational agency regarding pollution which is endangering
the health of persons in a foreign country, and the Secretary
of State requests that such pollution be eliminated, he shall
notify the State water pollution control agency in the State
or States where the discharge is originating and the appro-
priate interstate agency, if any.
Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity which may result in a discharge into navigable waters
must provide the licensing agency a certification from the
interstate agency having jurisdiction over the navigable wa-
ters where the discharge will originate. Such interstate -agen-
cy shall establish procedures for public notice in the case of
all applications for certification and where it deems appro-
priate, procedures for public hearings regarding specific ap-
plications. Where the interstate agency has no authority to
issue a certification, such certification shall be from the
Administrator. Certification requirements of this section
with respect to Federal application shall be waived, if with-
in a reasonable period of time after request for certifica-
tion, the State, interstate agency, or Administrator fails
to act. No license or permit shall be granted until certifi-
cation as required by this section has been obtained or has
been waived. No license or permit shall be granted if cer-
tification has been denied by the State, interstate agency,
or Administrator.
Certification obtained pursuant to paragraph (l) of this sub-
section with respect to construction of any facility, shall
fulfill certification requirements in connection with any other
Federal license or permit required unless after notice to the
interstate agency by the Federal agency to whom application is
made, the interstate agency notifies such Federal agency with-
in 60 days after receipt of notice that there is reason to be-
lieve the requirements of sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of
this Act may not be met because of changes in various areas
since construction license or permit certification was issued.
Provisions of this paragraph shall not be applicable in any
case where applicant has failed to notify where appropriate,
the interstate agency of any proposed changes in the construc-
tion or operation of facility with respect to which a license
-16-
-------
Section number
Substance of provision
(cont.)
or permit has been granted, which changes may violate re-
quirements of sections 301, 302, 306, or 307 of this Act.
Prior to initial operation of any federally licensed or per-
mitted facility or activity, and where appropriate, the in-
terstate agency shall be permitted to review the manner in
which the facility or activity shall be operated to assure
that applicable effluent limitations will not be violated.
The Administrator shall, upon request of any interstate agen-
cy provide relevant information, for the purpose of this
section, on applicable effluent limitations and shall, when
requested, comment on any methods to comply with such limita-
tions .
After promulgation of the guidelines under section 30U(h)(2)
of this Act, the governor of each State wishing to administer
its own permit program for discharges may submit a descrip-
tion of the program to be established and administered either
under State law or under an interstate compact. In addition,
a statement shall be required from the chief legal officer in
the case of an interstate agency to the effect that the laws
of the compact provide adequate authority for administering
the program.
502(2)
"Interstate agency" means an agency of two or more states
pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by Congress, or
any other agency of two or more States having substantial pow-
ers or duties relating to pollution control as determined and
approved by the Administrator.
502(5)
"Person" can mean an interstate body.
503(a)(l)
Appointed members of the Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board shall be selected from among representatives of various
agencies, including interstate agencies.
510
An interstate agency may adopt any standard or limitation re-
specting discharges of pollutants or requirement respecting
control of pollution; except that if such standard, limitation
or requirement is in effect under this Act, such interstate
agency may not adopt a standard, limitation or requirement
less stringent than that of the Federal Government.
-17-
-------
assign unique functions contemplated for performance only by such agencies
For this reason it is more instructive to discuss the special contribu-
tions vhich an interstate agency such as ORSANCO must make to the function-
ing of the Federal Act in programmatic terms. The presentations of
ORSANCO program possibilities in this chapter make appropriate references
to provisions of the Federal Act. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to
list the program implications for ORSANCO briefly before beginning the
more detailed exposition. This is done in the table on pages lW7.
Current and Possible Programs
If one were to attempt to gain an impression of the extent and
range of ORSANCO activities during the past year by drawing up a list of
all items which received at least some attention, the picture would be
of a varied program. Included would be the gathering and analysis of data
on stream quality, dissemination of information, the preparation of a
documentary film, the carrying forward of enforcement action, recommenda-
tions on control of deep well injection, stream modeling, power plant
siting, consideration of the problem of user charges, and a number of
other matters.
It is clear that current ORSMCO activities are dominated by the
monitoring program and attendant data processing and evaluation. For
FY 1975, 17. 5J of the total staff effort is directly allocated to moni-
toring and 45% to data processing and evaluation. For FY 1976 the
proposed allocations are 19.5$ and ko,2%, respectively.
Monitoring.
The monitoring program is composed of several elements. Twenty
electronic monitors have been placed along the main stem of the river
and are operated by the Commission. In addition, water users and the
U.S. Geological Survey who collect data for their own purposes are
organized to provide such information to ORSANCO on a regular basis.
All in all, a network of sixty-six stations report regularly to the
Commission office in Cincinnati on a number of parameters, The robot
stations transmit the data hourly. This is the backbone of the system
and virtually the sole reliance for obtaining a continuous picture of
water quality conditions in the Ohio.
When all of the circumstances under which it has been initiated and
prosecuted are recognized, it is clear that the ORSANCO monitoring pro-
gram is a remarkable one. It provides more data on a more frequent basis
than is regularly collected for the entire length of a major river any-
where in the world. The effort has been a truly pioneering one and has
provided ideas and experience which other agencies have used in devising
their own automatic monitoring undertakings.
Moreover, it has been done on a shoestring. Even though the costs
bulk very large as an expenditure from the limited resources available to
-18-
-------
ORSANCO, they are small for a program of its size. In putting the system
together, ORSANCO has made use of volunteer help in that it has relied
heavily on securing data from those who collect it for their own purposes
and who have teen willing to furnish information, either as a public ser-
vice or in exchange for reports containing the data that ORSANCO collects
and analyzes.
The Commission has recently developed and adopted a monitoring
strategy which calls for the substantial expansion of the system. The
subject engendered considerable discussion before its unanimous approval
by the Commission. It is not that anyone seriously doubts the desirability
of having information on water quality in the Ohio. However, there are
a number of questions as to the purposes of the system and whether the
monitoring program as it now is and as it is proposed to be will serve
them. Further, it must be considered whether the concentration of ORSANCO
resources in this program and the allied data processing and evaluation
activities prevents the Commission from undertaking other activities of
equal or greater importance. In order to address these questions, it is
necessary to ask why the interstate agency should collect and provide
information on water quality.
There are a number of purposes which could be served, These include
the obtaining of accurate knowledge of the actual condition of the river,
the taking of enforcement action against waste dischargers, the planning
of water uses and the allocation of waste loadings, determination of what
water quality problems exist and how they might be remedied, and the de-
tection of spills and other temporarily hazardous conditions so that
people, governments and industries along the waterway can take timely
protective measures, and to aid in the operation of the river regulating
installations which so substantially control the quantity of water in the
Ohio River system at any given time. Information about stream conditions
is important to the making of sound regulatory policy for a particular
stretch of waterway.
Under the present Federal Water Pollution Control Act such informa-
tion has an important bearing on whether waste dischargers will be required
only to employ "best practicable treatment", and at a subsequent time,
"best available technology", or whether in addition, a wasteloading
allocation will be necessary so as to further limit the total amount of
pollutant discharge which a municipality or industrial establishment will
be allowed. It must be recognized, however, that stream monitoring by
itself does not suffice for the abatement of pollution through the taking
of enforcement action.
In an abatement proceeding, it is necessary to establish that the
discharge of the alleged polluter is of a kind or amount that violates
applicable requirements of law. If one attempts to do this by offering
evidence as to the quality of the receiving stream, it is necessary to
recognize that the defendant is almost certainly not the only contributor
-19-
-------
to the pollutant load. Stream quality at any given location is deter-
mined "by all of the influences, natural and manmade, which have played
on the waterway from its headwaters to the point in question, with
allowances for such changes as may have occurred within the stream
itself. Furthermore, there is a much more direct and reliable way of
proving what a discharger is putting into the stream. The effluent
can "be sampled and analyzed,
Whether ORSANCO should engage in compliance monitoring in addition
to stream monitoring will be considered when we examine the suitability
of an enforcement role for the interstate agency. For the present, it
is enough to indicate that the conduct of abatement proceedings cannot
properly be offered as a major purpose of the ORSAWCO stream monitoring
program.
Each of the other possible purposes mentioned above is one that must
be served by knowledge of stream conditions. All of them, except for the
detection of spills, can be subsumed under one or the other of two head-
ings: for planning purposes and for determination of waste load alloca-
tions in a regulatory process. It then becomes essential to decide what
kind and how much data is required to serve these purposes and to shape
a data gathering, interpretation and dissemination system that will pro-
duce the desired information in convenient and usable form.
The beginnings of an answer can be found in the observation that the
states and EPA need to know as fully and accurately as possible what the
river is like. As the public agencies charged with seeing that the waters
of the Ohio Basin are available and suitable for all legitimate uses or
that the choices of use are equitably determined, these entities must
have all of the information necessary for any purpose. Municipalities,
industrial and agricultural users, and other private interests have vary-
ing needs which depend on the particular uses which they make or propose
to make of the river system,
Given the American governmental structure, there are only two kinds
of entity that could provide a comprehensive picture of the Ohio: an
agency of the Federal Government or an intergovernmental basinwide agency.
No individual state gathering and interpreting data within its own ter-
ritorial limits has the necessary geographic coverage. Even if the states
were separately to monitor as ORSANCO does, some coordinating body would
be required to put the pieces together and to make the undertaking in-
ternally compatible in its several parts. Accordingly, it may be con-
cluded that the stream monitoring function is a necessary one and that
it is ideally suited for performance by ORSANCO.
The robot monitoring system as now operated gives the appearance of
comprehensiveness and thoroughness. Plotting it on a map shows reporting
stations dotted along the whole main stem of the river. The impression
of thoroughness is also conveyed by the hourly reporting from the robot
-20-
-------
monitors every day of the year. But it should be recognized that the
monitoring system is only partial. It is limited to those parameters
which have been programmed into the system and which are susceptible of
collection by electronic means. It is also limited by the methods used
to operate the system and by the uses which ORSANCO and its client agen-
cies are organized to make of the information produced.
The need for the ORSANCO monitoring program is that it provides the
best hope of generating the information and analyses essential for plan-
ning and regulatory activities of the states and the Federal Government.
Even if it may be assumed that the Ohio is now in reasonably good condi-
tion and can accept substantial new burdens, it is idle to hope that the
river will be able to withstand the region's development of forty or more
additional power plants, intensified exploitation of its natural resources
(principally coal), and expansion of manufacturing and agricultural activity
in an effort to maintain and improve national standards of living, unless
there is very careful management.
Although it is better than anything yet devised for a river of the
Ohio's size, the ORSA1TCO monitoring program suffers from a number of
limitations which should be overcome in order to provide the very neces-
sary tool for river management.
On the average, the stations relied upon to construct the picture of
stream quality are twenty or more miles apart and located where a utility
or other water user could be found willing to host the installation with-
out charge. The aim was to tap into an intake through which a large
volume of river water was being withdrawn and thus obtain what could be
regarded as a fairly representative sample. (One power plant, for example,
withdraws as much as one-quarter of the total flow of the river at certain
periods of the year.) This mitigates the limitations which would other-
wise accompany a system in which there is not normally sampling at points
across from each other on both banks. However, it cannot be assumed that
water quality in the intervening distances between upstream and down-
stream monitoring points is the same as at the stations. Very substantial
supplementation of the existing data gathering system is therefore de-
sirable.
Prior to establishing a monitoring station, ORSANCO has usually, on
a contract basis with the U.S. Geological Survey, done a lateral cross-
section check of the river at the proposed site. However, once the in-
stallation is made, ORSAWCO has not been in the habit of doing any further
checks on a regular basis. Cost has been considered a deterrent.
Depictions of stream quality throughout the Ohio's length are made
by projecting conditions reported at the robot stations into the inter-
vening stretches of the river. It is also assumed that conditions
ascertained for one bank of the river at any given time are essentially
similar on the opposite shore, except in cases where the initial cross-
sectional check made when the station was installed has revealed other-
wise .
-21-
-------
It is "beyond the scope of this study to determine whether ORSANCO
has succeeded in placing its monitors in positions which, taken as a
whole, sample most of the different kinds of quality condition likely to
prevail somewhere on the Ohio. The data made available does enable
generalized conclusions as to whether the river as a whole is getting
better, deteriorating, or remaining in a stable condition with respect
to the parameters sampled. Other significant pollutants may not be
detected and could be increasing in concentration. If the data furnished
by water users whose stations make up so substantial a part of the
monitoring network can be taken as accurate, there is specific informa-
tion as to the quality of water with which some of the users along the
river have to deal. However, this is not enough to support detailed
planning efforts or management activities of a specific character, nor
will It really suffice to provide a reasoned basis for basic policy
decisions in the future when the river may carry a much greater pollutant
loading.
What the states and EPA need are the data required for decisions as
to whether more than "the best practicable treatment" is now needed at
a specific location; whether wastes of a particular description can be
safely discharged to the river at a precisely given point where a specific
plant already stands or will be built; whether the stretch of river between
mile 310 and 320 can take an increase in temperature without adverse
effects on aquatic life. These are the kinds of facts and judgments,
based on monitoring, which underlie sound standards making and realistic
permit conditions. Such data are also valuable to dischargers, public
and private in planning and designing treatment and disposal works.
Changes in water quality in the course of many mile reaches of the
river and laterally across the river are too probable and too numerous
to be left out of the reckoning in composing the picture of stream condi-
tions. They occur because of natural processes; they also result from
local discharges which may have a marked effect for several miles but
which may thereafter be diffused or diluted to the degree that they impact
much differently on the next monitoring station than on much of the
waterway above it.
The absence of certain kinds of data is also serious. Useful as
robot monitoring may be, it cannot detect many substances which have
in recent years been recognized as crucial elements of water quality.
For example, heavy metals and most other toxic substances, pesticides,
nutrients, oil and grease, total organic carbon, and the condition of
bottom mud cannot be monitored by electronic means. This is significant
in understanding the desirable directions for expansion of the ORSAWCO
stream data system. In some degree, this has been recognized in the
recently adopted monitoring strategy. We believe it deserves still
furt her empha sis.
It is not suggested that robot monitoring should be expanded to a
point where it would produce the kind of coverage necessary to overcome
-22-
-------
the limitations. Such a course could require a tremendous multiplication
of ro~bots and of the data operations attendant thereto as to "be in excess
of all reasonable cost. Even if this could "be done, it would solve only
part of the problem. On the other hand, it should not be concluded that
robot monitoring as presently done by ORBANCO is lacking in usefulness
because it fails to accomplish all that is required. As will be indicated
in a subsequent section of this chapter, what is needed is supplementa-
tion of the robot monitoring by other methods to the point where a well
rounded system of data collection and analysis is in operation.
The monitoring strategy recently devised by ORSANCO seeks to rectify
the situation to some extent by including manual sampling to supplement
data from the electronic stations. It has been recognized that this will
create a need for laboratory services not hitherto experienced in the
ORSANCO program.
To obtain what is required it is intended to rely on the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey Laboratory in Atlanta for much of the work. It is also ex-
pected that local arrangements will be made to secure analysis of samples
which would deterioriate if sent long distances or not processed immediately.
Such an approach may be the best that can be managed under present
cost and other constraints. However, it would be better to work toward
the strengthening and use of laboratory resources entirely within the
Ohio Basin. The monitoring requirements of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act seem likely to place great additional demands on all facilities
available for water quality analysis. This will be true in every part
of the country. Accordingly, the utilization, and where necessary the
augmentation, of state and federal laboratory capabilities within the
Basin which will be sufficient to handle both ORSANCO needs and those of
the other agencies themselves is the desirable objective.
Aside from the need for more satisfactory resolution of the laboratory
problem, the ORSANCO data collection system has a number of other aspects
requiring attention. The first of them is the absence of field and main-
tenance personnel and the shortage of technical personnel. This has at
least two undesirable consequences. One is the inability of ORSANCO to
check on the accuracy of information provided by the monitors and such
other sources as may supply data. The other is dependence on outside
sources for the functioning of crucial parts of the system.
In relying to a major extent on stations operated by water users,
the Commission bases its assumption of the reliability of data received
on the fact that the information is collected in the normal course of
the water user's own operations. The reasoning is that it is in the
best interests of the operators as well as ORSANCO that the data be
professionally gathered and reliable. The only check employed is the
furnishing by ORSANCO of occasional standard samples to be run by the
operators, with results of analyses furnished to the Commission. This
tests the capability of the station but does not test its actual per-
formance .
-23-
-------
It would be better if the Commission's own personnel made frequent
sampling visits to all of its stations, by whomsoever owned and operated,
to provide visual and manual checks. It may be argued that this would
be expensive. However, the validity of the entire undertaking and of
all investments in it depend on certain knowledge that the product is
reliable. Consequently, such costs must be afforded.
A limitation on the development of the monitoring system along
imaginative lines is the manner in which it is maintained. ORSAWCO per-
sonnel pay field visits to the robot monitors only infrequently—primarily
when a new monitor is being installed. This results in something less
than full staff capability with respect to the system. Commission staff
believes that the maintenance service provided by its private contractor
is satisfactory, and we have no evidence to the contrary. However,
even if this is true, the contracting out of this work prevents the de-
velopment in Commission staff of the intimate familiarity with the
system necessary to maximize its usefulness and efficiency.
It is a question whether the annual cost presently incurred for
servicing of the system would be exceeded or reduced by in-house per-
formance of the servicing function. The field personnel needed for
maintenance could be shared with other programs. In this connection,
however, it may be appropriate to observe that the substantial expan-
sion of the monitoring operations and network makes reconsideration
of the contracting out policy imperative. It would seem to be a general
principle that the larger the system, the more economic in-house per-
formanc e would be.
Be this as it may, it seems certain that contracting out of main-
tenance of the monitor stations reduces the number of staff members who
understand the system—both in its mechanical aspects and in its actual
and potential uses. Should the Commission become dissatisfied with its
contractor or wish to develop the system along lines not convenient for
the contractor, the lack of such in-house capability and resources
would be serious.
One other point needs to be made. The entire monitoring program
should be reviewed at frequent intervals—perhaps every two years—and
revised as necessary to secure the introduction of relevant new parame-
ters, and perhaps the dropping of some found insufficiently useful.
Manufacturing, agricultural, and treatment processes, as well as legal
requirements, change, thus affecting the nature of discharges and run-
off that contribute to stream content. Also, the state of knowledge
and awareness changes, with the result that the need to consider the
measurement of new parameters arises.
Spills and Temporary Hazardous Conditions.
It is sometimes supposed that a stream monitoring system should be
used to detect spills or other occasional discharges of pollutants. It
-24-
-------
would be adequate for such a purpose only if it possessed much greater
coverage than the ORSAWCO system now has or can reasonably be expected to
have and if staff members were on duty twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week to read the data received at the Commission office. It is
not likely that such an expansion of the program will occur, nor would
it be merited.
Most, if not all, spills and accidental discharges of any signifi-
cance are reported to the Coast Guard and EPA by those who cause them.
However, ORSANCO is in a unique position to run an effective warning
system to advise persons and agencies promptly of conditions needing
attention. This is true because of its knowledge of the river, including
flow velocities and location of intakes.
To run such a program would not require much in the way of resources.
Primarily it would involve publicizing the fact that the Cincinnati
office of ORSANCO is the appropriate recipient and transmitter of the
information. If all involved public agencies agreed, arrangements could
easily be made or reinstituted for the Commission to relay the news to
state, local and federal authorities in positions to do something about
each occurrence. An additional necessary element is the furnishing of
a continuous day and night, every day of the year reception and dis-
patching service for reports and complaints relating to the spills and
other conditions. The Interstate Sanitation Commission has such a pro-
gram in operation in the tri-state New York Metropolitan Area. Its
basic ingredients are a twenty-four hour answering service and a plan
pursuant to which staff members can be reached when the agency's office
is not open for regular business. Following the receipt of the first
draft of this report, ORSA1ICO procured a twenty-four hour answering
service.
For an interstate area, the performance of such a function by an
interstate agency is particularly useful. While there are other ways of
arranging for communications across jurisdictional lines, they require
the establishment and maintenance of operational relationships and in-
formational flow along channels not normally employed by the unijuris-
dictional agencies involved. In an agency whose entire character is
interjurisdictional, the basinwide transmission and coordination of in-
formation could be administered as a normal function rather than as an
extraordinary one.
Stream Surveys.
In view of the masses of data that are presumably available to show
what the condition of the Ohio is, it may be difficult to accept the
idea that for many stretches of the river quality conditions are un-
known. But as already explained, far from everything has been measured
and the validity of some information that has been reported or deduced
is subject to question. The accounts of ever greater quantities of
wastes being treated, and plants being upgraded from primary to secondary
-25-
-------
treatment give the impression of statistical progress. But in querying
both federal arid state water quality control personnel, we have "been
impressed "by how infrequently anyone actually gets out on most reaches
of the river to make informed inspections and samplings of it.
Neither the states nor EPA do this on a regular "basis. Some years
ago, ORSANCO attempted to institute a program of surveillance "by "river
wardens", but aside from an essentially one-man effort during a single
summer on the West Virginia portion of the river system, this type of
effort received no support from the states. This record is no worse
than on most other streams, but it should not instill confidence in
categorical conclusions as to the quality of the water.
The closest present approach to the gathering of comprehensive in-
formation, including much needed biological data and other data not capable
of being supplied by robots, is the periodic (once a month or less fre-
quent) taking of grab samples at a relatively few fixed stations or
check points. Failure to do more is generally ascribed to cost and
shortage of personnel. But with a truly coordinated approach, periodic
intensive samplings of the Ohio throughout its entire length could
be undertaken. A successful program of this kind has been in effect in
the Interstate Sanitation District (Hew York, New Jersey and Connecticut)
for some years. In that instance, the interstate agency itself charters
the boats used in the collection of samples and does the on-board and
laboratory analyses with its own personnel—some of whom are college
students hired at relatively modest cost as temporary help during vaca-
tion periods. Because of the much larger area involved and ORSANCO's
lack of field staff, the conduct of intensive stream surveys on the Ohio
probably should follow a different organizational pattern.
If the project were given a sufficient priority for the relatively
brief periods required for a survey, the states probably could detail
enough personnel to take the samples and analyze them. Boats already
owned by state and federal agencies could be used and when necessary,
supplemented by private craft hired for a day or two. ORSANCO could de-
velop the program, coordinate its operation and compile and evaluate
the data.
With automatic monitoring and surveys to complement each other,
a complete and accurate view of quality conditions on the water-
way could be obtained and kept current enough to provide a solid basis
for the sophisticated planning, operational and policy processes that
should go into good river management. In making this suggestion we wish
to emphasize that the purpose of the ORSABFCO data gathering and analysis
program should not be surveillance in the direct enforcement sense.
Rather, it should be to establish a reliable basis of factual information
for a variety of planning and policy decisions which must be made by the
Federal Government, the states, and in some instances, the local govern-
ments and private entities. For these purposes several days of actual
-26-
-------
thorough and accurate knowledge of the river gained from intensive surveys
using boats and analyses of samples could be more valuable than continuous
data of a more limited character.
Data Processing, Evaluation and Dissemination.
We have underscored the purposes for which ORSANCO should collect,
analyze and disseminate data. Such emphasis is ours. In recent years,
ORSANCO has seemed to gather, process and make available data in accord-
ance with a program that has become established and that continues in
its present pattern largely because previously accepted.
ORSANCO has elected to make its information available principally
in the form of its monthly publication called "Monitor". Much briefer
and more generalized versions find their way into the Commission's annual
reports, and so perhaps to a limited circle of the public. The assump-
tion appears to be that the recipient will make whatever use of the data
suits his purpose. The unspoken proposition is that if presented with
as much information as is available about the quality of the Ohio, who-
ever may have responsibilities or concerns will pick what he needs to
know and then act on it. It may be that this occurs in many instances.
However, our inquiries during the course of this study have made it
difficult for us to be confident of the extent to which this thesis is
demonstrable.
Some of the state water quality control personnel with whom we have
talked say that they pass ORSANCO data along to the members of their
staffs, but they have been unable to offer any specific account of what
happens to it thereafter. Others have emphasized the availability of
ORSANCO data but have been vague in identifying the manner of its use.
In still other instances, possible users other than the ones directly
in the ORSANCO family have merely received information from their colleagues
in the state agencies or from EPA but have not known its source and so
could not say whether or how much of what they received came from ORSANCO.
The monitoring system and its associated data processing and evalu-
ation activities would serve better if they were conceived as more than
the assembly and analysis of data for whatever uses others might in-
tend and devise. From the picture of the river that the programs here
suggested could provide, and from the water quality objectives for the
several water uses that a proper planning process would identify, ORSANCO
staff could examine its continuously collected data to determine immediately
whether stream quality requirements are being met. With proper program-
ming, this can be done automatically. Any untoward circumstances could
be called to the attention of the appropriate state, federal or local
operating and regulatory authorities immediately and accompanied by re-
quests that the situation be investigated and remedial action initiated.
If choices must be made, it is more important to perform such specific
services for a limited number of purposes known to be useful than to
-27-
-------
offer up a wider range of analyses for general information. Perhaps
consideration should be given to the use of teletype to furnish a limited
amount of data to the State Water Pollution Control Agencies on a daily
basis.
The storage of ORSANCO data can present a growing problem. As the
years go by, the tapes and analyses produced by the monitoring system
accumulate. Some, if not all, of this storehouse of information is
valuable for purposes of historic record, but its storage, servicing
and retreival must result in ever increasing expense as the volume grows.
It must be decided whether ORSANCO is to be the only or principal data
bank for the Ohio or whether its function is to be more limited. If ar-
rangements are completed and actually made operational for EPA's Storet
to become the master data bank, there will be no need for ORSAWCO to
serve this purpose. However, long range records and rapid access to
current data are not necessarily served in the same way. It is therefore
important that ORSANCO maintain current data from its gathering and
analytical operations. Perhaps full information for a year or two,
eventually backed by the historic files in the Storet system, could
provide a nonduplicative balance that would serve the widest range of
needs. Additionally, it may be necessary for ORSANCO to keep perma-
nent files for types of data not accepted by Storet.
State and federal agencies also should make their contributions to
the ORSANCO data collection system. This should be more than the present -
participation in the robot monitoring program. The results of monthly
or other periodic manual samplings, for example, should be reported
regularly and immediately to ORSANCO and worked into the information
sy st em.
Stream Modeling.
A predictable development from the present ORSANCO monitoring pro-
gram has been its entry into the field of stream modeling. Mathematical
models, if they can be properly formulated and validated, are useful tools
in planning for river management. Predictions can be made having a
variety of uses. To give one illustration—-in areas where there is or
may be need to limit the waste burden to be borne by particular receiving
waters, it becomes essential to determine permissible waste loadings. In
the immediate sense, any limitations which are to be prescribed must be
made specific so that they can be written as conditions of permits issued
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In the absence of reliable infor-
mation as to how given waste loadings will affect the condition of a stream,
it becomes difficult if not impossible to write satisfactory requirements.
As pressures on streams intensify, it may become increasingly neces-
sary not only to determine equities among individual water users and waste
dischargers but to make equitable allocations for stretches of rivers or
for state portions of basins. Ultimately, what municipal and industrial
-28-
-------
dischargers within one state may "be permitted to put into the river may
depend on establishing its probable effect on downstream conditions.
It is not enough to say that a given action will make conditions better
or worse. Specific effects on temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient
content, toxic conditions, and many other qualities must be known for
significant distances downstream, and in some instances possibly for the
river or the river system as a whole. The agency which gathers and
analyzes stream data is in the best position to do the modeling. In a
basin like the Ohio no single stare can do the job. ORSANCO has a
jurisdiction coterminous with the Basin and so can fit the pieces to-
gether .
ORSAUCO has already entered upon this type of activity. To date
it has produced a model for the main stem and additional models for
selected parameters. Expansion and refinement of the models for the
main stem for additional parameters and extension to tributaries is
needed. In this connection, it should be emphasized that the utiliza-
tion of stream models has at least two aspects. There must be enough of
a data base on which to construct a valid model, and it must be checked
against conditions in the stream as they are actually found to be. Fre-
quent checks, and prompt revisions whenever necessary, are required be-
cause of the dynamic nature of the river system. Only in this way can it
be determined whether the model is reliable and whether its projections
result in accurate predictions of the effects of the introduction of
specified changes in waste loading, flow control, natural conditions
or other factors.
Planning.
Management of water quality is one highly important aspect of the
management of the water resources of the Ohio River system. Moreover,
it is not done for its own sake. Rather, the objective is to contrib-
ute to the usefulness of the Basin's waters for a variety of legitimate
purposes. These waters must serve the needs of municipal and domestic
water supply, industrial water supply for both processing and cooling
purposes, agriculture, recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, mining, energy
production, fisheries and navigation. Quality is an important element
in most if not all of these uses.
It must be borne in mind that the ultimate objective is to pro-
vide for the needs of the Basin population and to contribute to the
strength and well-being of the nation. Accordingly, water quality manage-
ment must be responsive to local, state, regional and national needs.
Of course, ORSANCO does not play a central role in fixing those needs or
in deciding the balance of priorities among them. Nevertheless, it
should be a responsibility of a regional and basinwide interstate agency
to identify the opportunities and constraints which water quality con-
siderations in the Ohio River Basin place on the satisfaction of these
several kinds of needs. It is also important to point out on a con-
tinuing basis the probable effects on water quality of alternative
-29-
-------
balances in vater uses. In order to be of real help to federal and state
authorities with power over the Basin and its resources, such identifications
and analyses must be in specific terms related directly to the Ohio and
its entire region.
Comprehensive planning of water and related resources is in the
hands of other agencies, but this does not relieve ORSAHCO from the need
to have and exercise a planning capability. At a minimum, it must be
able to understand, make contributions to, and relate its own activities
to the larger context of regional needs and values. But more than this,
planning is a necessary tool in designing and adapting the other programs
of the agency. In particular, the shape of the monitoring system should
be made to depend on these present and projected needs in the water
quality area.
Further illustrations of the point may be gathered from the expanded
stream modeling and waste loading allocation activities in which ORSANCO
should engage or participate. Such activities and allocations are in
aid of the public objectives which can be identified by participation in
regional planning undertakings.
Planning of the types that could benefit from or be affected by
ORSANCO participation is done under many different auspices and within
several frameworks. For present purposes, they may be identified as
those emanating from the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act and those resulting from a multitude of other activities of the
state and federal governments.
Section 209 of the Federal Act directs that Level B plans pursuant
to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 be completed for all river
basins in the country by 1980. It was recognized that in order to make
many of the decisions which contribute to proper water quality standards,
waste treatment and disposal methods and the quality factors in water
use, it would be desirable to have an available context of comprehensive
''Level B" basin plans. The statute provides for these to be done by or
under the auspices of the Water Resources Council established by the
Water Resources Planning Act. Since the Ohio River Basin Commission is
a regional agency established under Title 2 of the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act, and is composed of both federal and state representatives, it
may be appropriate to suppose that ORBC will be a likely candidate for
any Section 209 planning undertakings on the Ohio. However, ORSANCO is
also represented on ORBC as a matter of right under the Water Resources
Planning Act. Accordingly, it would seem fitting that ORSANCO should
supply the water quality ingredient in Section 209 planning as well as
in other planning efforts of the Ohio River Basin Commission.
As a condition of their participation in key programs under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, states are also to have "continuous
planning processes" (Section 303 (e)). These include water quality
related planning activities for all navigable waters. In the case of
-30-
-------
interstate water "bodies, however, there is a specific requirement that
the continuous planning process provide for cooperation with the other
states involved. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that any state could
do effective water quality and related planning for common waters, without
intimate reference to and coordination with the plans of the other juris-
dictions. On the Ohio, the problem appears in two forms. Throughout
almost all of its length, the main stem is a "boundary river. For some
TOO miles Kentucky owns to the opposite shore, but it does not control
the policies or practices of land use or waste treatment and disposal
in the neighboring states. West Virginia and Ohio also share a 225 mile
length of the river between them. There is further the upstream-down-
stream relationship among states on the main stem and a number of the
more important tributaries.
Because of these circumstances, it seems appropriate that ORSAWCO
should be used as an express part of each Basin state's planning process
for performance of its 303 (e) responsibilities with reference to the
Ohio.
Finally, there is areawide waste treatment management planning
pursuant to Section 208. Some of the Ohio Basin States have already
designated areas within which such planning is to be done and others,
notably Virginia and New York, may not have areas likely to be designated
under Section 208 in the Ohio. For those localities where 208 plan-
ning will begin in 1975, it may be unrealistic to consider any significant
ORSANCO role. However, for future 208 areas, ORSMCO might well have
a part to play. In all probability, it would not be as the agency to
have principal responsibility for preparing the areawide waste treat-
ment management plan. The number of such involvements might become too
large to permit this, even if it were desirable. However, the inter-
state agency might well be a participant. Its data and analyses could
be directly relevant. Furthermore, in interstate metropolitan areas,
the concerns of the states and of EPA that there be interjurisdictional
coordination could give an ORSAWCO presence special merit.
A wide variety of other planning activities are constantly in pro-
gress. These are conducted by comprehensive state planning agencies,
by agencies of the Federal Government and by two federal-interstate com-
missions—The Ohio River Basin Commission and the Appalachian Regional
Commission. Also, a multitude of substate regional planning bodies
concentrate on problems of a more local character, frequently but not
always centered on a metropolitan area.
Except in the case of ORBC, and perhaps ARC, the relationship of
ORSAWCO to these planning activities is likely to be indirect or
occasional. It should stem from the obvious fact that water quality
is an important ingredient in virtually every use of water and so be-
comes a consideration in planning for recreational development, industrial
growth, residential concentrations, and many other types of activity.
-31-
-------
Water Quality Standards.
The making of water quality standards is part way between the plan-
ning process and the taking of enforcement action. Effluent standards
(called "effluent limitations" in the Federal Act) are directly regulatory
in that they set the permissible limits for discharges of pollutants.
Receiving water standards are geared to uses and cleanliness objectives
for the streams in question. There should be a relationship between
the two kinds of standards, but the degree to which this is so in particu-
lar instances must depend in significant measure on the accuracy and
completeness of knowledge of the stream, including its hydrologic and
purification characteristics.
The Federal Act recognizes such a relationship by providing for
identification of particular stretches of a waterway as "water quality
limited segments"; in such stretches, waste loading allocations are
necessary in order to reach or maintain the applicable stream standards.
However, the basic objectives of the statute are to place and maintain
all waters in such condition as will support the propagation of fish
life and recreational activity. The Ohio does not now have as many
water quality limited segments as it may in the future. Changes will
occur from time to time as additional parameters are measured; as know-
ledge of the actual condition of the river becomes more complete; and
as the pressures of population and industrial activity increase.
The ORSANCO Compact contains minimum effluent standards in express
language, but they are only partial and outdated. Of more present day
importance is the companion provision which permits the Commission to
make additional standards administratively. In its early years, ORSANCO
was active in doing so. However, since the advent of the Federal Water
Quality Act of 1965, this function has tended to atrophy.
That statute provided for the first time a procedure under which
the states were to submit "water quality criteria" (in reality, standards)
to the Federal Water Quality Control Administration. Upon approval,
these standards became effective under the Act. Although other standards
probably continued to be enforceable, if embodied in or authorized by
state law, the emphasis shifted to the federal-state standards making
process and to the requirements in force pursuant to it.
In 1966, at the behest of a number of its state water pollution
control agency representatives, ORSANCO discontinued its fledgling interest
in setting standards within the framework of the Water Quality Act. So
far as stream standards are concerned, the 1972 Act continues the system
established by the earlier statute. Federal effluent limitations are
generally pegged at a minimum of secondary treatment and "best practicable
treatment" for industrial discharges. The specific limitations applicable
to individual polluters are intended to be found in their discharge per-
mits, issued either by EPA or by a state having an approved permit system.
-32-
-------
Thus, despite some standards making action In 1970, ORSA1TCO is not
now a major participant in the standards area. Its position is due to a
self denying ordinance prompted by the 1966 attitude of some of the member
states. However, this is a matter of policy and not an inevitable result
of either existing federal or state law. The compact provision empowering
ORSANCO to make water quality standards administratively Is part of the
laws of each member state. Moreover, Section 510 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 allows state or interstate
agencies to make and enforce standards equal to or more stringent than
those in force pursuant to the Federal Act. Accordingly, ORSANG0 action
is not preempted. Of course, as a practical matter, it depends on the
willingness of the member states to accord the interstate agency a role
and on the attitude of EPA.
Under Article VI of the compact, ORSANCO is specifically given only
the power to adopt effluent standards for sewage and industrial wastes.
However, because as already explained, receiving water standards are plan-
ning tools rather than requirements that can be directly enforced against
waste dischargers, the Commission should not consider itself unable to
participate in the important tasks of formulating and coordinating stream
standards.
The monitoring and planning activities which ORSAITCO should count
among its most important tasks have a direct bearing on standards making.
Information about stream conditions is useless unless it is put to work.
Planning cannot be done in a vacuum or without relation to the water
quality that should be produced and maintained by the actions recommended
as a result of the planning process.
Moreover, the first premise on which the existence of ORSANCO rests
is that intergovernmental coordination is necessary for a basin jurisdic-
tionally divided among eight states. Coordination among the jurisdictions
in the making of stream standards is one of the most clearly interstate
problems in the Ohio Basin. The boundary character of the main river and
the basinwide influence of some pollutants make it essential that some
entity see that the standards for the Basin fit together so that the water
quality requirements and goals which each jurisdiction seeks to implement
are compatible with those of the other states sharing the river system.
The efforts of one state to achieve a given stream quality condition can
be vitiated, or at the very least seriously Impeded, if the neighbor
across the way or upstream is promoting an inconsistent course. While
some discharges upstream are so diffused or diminished as the river flows
that they have little consequence in downstream states, other discharges
may have an influence over hundreds of miles. (Examples are mine acid
and salt discharges.)
Of course, standards need not be uniform throughout the Ohio Basin,
The varying uses to which the waters are put and differences in subregional
priorities can legitimately call for variations. However, the several
sets of state standards must be able to coexist. At a minimum, one must
-33-
-------
not interfere with the attainment of the others; more positively, it is
desirable that each set of standards assist in the attainment of the
others.
This kind of coordination can be secured only by ORSANCO or EPA.
But the latter, perhaps not less than the several states, lacks a
mechanism. The Ohio Basin lies in four EPA regions, each with significant
measure of autonomy in reviewing and passing upon state submissions under
Section 303 of the Federal Act. On the other hand, ORSANCO is a single
agency with basinwide jurisdiction and responsibilities in the field of
wat er quality.
Such a coordinative role would not invade the prerogatives of either
the states or EPA. The individual states have the final responsibility
for such submissions as they make under Section 303 and ORSANCO has no
power to compel changes in them, either prior to or after submission.
EPA has the authority to approve or disapprove under the Federal Act, and
no authority conveyed by the compact could possibly abridge the rights
exercised by EPA pursuant to the federal statute.
The function as here envisaged would be that of providing a forum
for discussion and of encouraging and participating in the negotiations
among the states. Also included should be comparative analyses of the
stream standards, both actual and proposed, and of EPA requirements. The
results of such analyses should be presented to the states and EPA as
inputs to the coordination process.
What has so far been said leaves to one side the question of whether
ORSANCO should itself make stream standards for submission and approval
by EPA pursuant to Section 303 of the Federal Act. Of course, it would
be inappropriate for this to be done, if the states were also to submit
standards covering the same waters. However, there are two other alter-
natives which could be considered. One would be for the states of the
Basin to relinquish to ORSANCO the task of developing standards for
waters of the Ohio River and other interstate streams in the Basin. A
more likely approach would be for ORSANCO to participate actively in
the formulation and revision of standards for the several segments of
the river system and to have each state incorporate the results in its
own standards. Under such an arrangement, each state would continue to
submit its own standards separately. However, coordination could
nevertheless be achieved.
The remaining question is whether ORSANCO should avail itself of
the invitation extended by Section 510 of the Federal Act and make
standards equal to or more stringent than those in force pursuant to
Public Law 92-500. Such a course might be especially worth considering
if, as presently seems to be the case, effluent limitations and require-
ments developed by EPA on an industry by industry basis are only for a
limited number of parameters and do not include some which are impor-
tant to the welfare of the Ohio.
-------
It should also be considered that, if, as subsequent discussion in
this chapter suggests, ORSAWCO should have some part in the enforcement
process even if only on a standby basis, the interstate agency must adopt
standards and requirements of its own to enforce, including effluent
limitations. The compact does not authorize ORSANCO to enforce standards
or requirements made by the member states or by U.S. EPA. Further, it
is an accepted principle of lav that a jurisdiction can enforce only its
own laws. Accordingly, if ORSAWCO is to be in a position to take abate-
ment action against individual polluters, it must have standards and
requirements of its own, even if these are identical with those of the
member states or EPA.
Enfore ement.
While "natural pollution" is sometimes responsible for poor stream
quality, it is generally true that the failure of a waterway to be in
suitable condition is due to pollutant discharges or nonpoint runoff
incident to various kinds of human activity. Pollutants are introduced
into a stream by effluent from identifiable point sources such as munic-
ipal collection and waste treatment systems and manufacturing facilities.
On a river heavily used as a highway of commerce, pollution also results
from navigational activities. Nonpoint sources, such as runoff from farm-
land or city streets, is also a major contributor to the burdens which
streams carry. These latter sources present a special set of problems
which are not readily susceptible of approach by traditional enforcement
methods. In this discussion, as in most considerations of enforcement,
the focus of attention is the prevention or abatement of substandard
discharges from point sources.
The ORSAWCO Compact clearly contemplates a role for the interstate
agency in this type of activity. The compact empowers the Commission to
make and enforce water quality standards and effluent limitations. It
provides for public hearings, administrative orders and court actions
which can be taken against polluters.
ORSAWCO has not engaged in such activities to any great extent at
any time during its quarter century of operation. With the single ex-
ception of the Detroit Steel Case, now in the courts, the Commission
has undertaken only to participate with one or another of the states in
negotiating sessions that might have led to formal enforcement proceed-
ings. The instances have involved a few small or medium-sized com-
munities. In no instances have the pollution problems of any of the
major metropolitan areas in the Basin been involved. On each occasion,
the case was "given over" to ORSAWCO by the state water pollution
control agency which believed that the additional pressure that the
interstate agency's appearance might bring would be helpful. There is
some opinion that it has been, but the number of cases involved is
not large enough to provide a firm basis for any generalized conclusions.
-35-
-------
The advent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 is regarded by EPA as presaging a basic change in enforcement methods.
Under Section h02 of the statute, each point source discharger to navigable
receiving waters (whether municipal, industrial, or agricultural) is re-
quired to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit,
either from EPA or from the state if it has established an EPA approved
permit system. These permits contain conditions governing the discharges
and can include limitations on both the volume and content of effluents.
Failure to have a permit makes the discharge unlawful. Violation of
permit terms is ground for revocation and so will ostensibly end the
discharger's right to put anything into the stream. The permits are now
being processed. Most if not all of the ORSANCO states have either
placed NPDES permit systems in operation or are preparing to do so.
If the permit system is assiduously applied and rigorously administered,
it will offer a complete method of control over point source discharges
and so will make any other means, of enforcement superfluous. It is still
too early to tell whether the system will actually work that way. However,
in view of the minor role which ORSANCO has until now played in enforce-
ment proceedings, and because the Commission could make substantial con-
tributions in a number of other fields, it does not seem wise for ORSAWCO
to plan on channeling any significant portion of its limited resources
into abatement actions. On the other hand, there would be little point
to the taking of affirmative steps to amend the present enforcement powers
out of the compact. Instead, they should remain as standby authority
which can be used if other means of enforcement fail or appear incon-
venient or Impolitic.
In this connection, it is once again to be observed that Section 510
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act expressly contemplates the
possibility that states or interstate agencies may have effluent limitations
equal to or more stringent than those in force pursuant to the federal
statute. Section 510 declares that the state or interstate agency may
enforce any such limitations. Accordingly, there can be no question of
federal preemption which would bar an enforcement role for ORBANCO in
any instance where special circumstances may make this useful.
However, the bringing of abatement proceedings is not the only
activity directly useful for enforcement. At least two services which
ORSANCO can or should be able to render In unique fashion would be
valuable.
The first would be a proper outgrowth of the monitoring and related
analytical programs. It consists of the offering of expert testimony
and assistance. The exact extent of such service would depend on the
degree to which the ORSANCO programs, designed to gain thorough and
reliable information concerning river conditions and their conseauences,
are bolstered.
In a narrow sense, it may be enough for a permit or abatement pro-
ceeding that violation of effluent limitations is proved. Nevertheless,
-36-
-------
it often "becomes necessary in court actions to demonstrate the harmful
consequences of what the polluter is doing and to supply a suitable
"background of information relating to the condition of the stream and
its availability or lack of utility for particular uses. ORSANCO
staff could appear as expert witnesses to testify to stream conditions
and related matters.
Another kind of service that ORSAWCO is particularly suited to per-
form is an extension of its interstate forum function. This has been
developed in the sanitary engineering aspect of pollution control because
the Engineering Committee of the Commission is composed of technical
personnel from the water quality agencies of the member states, from EPA,
and from the Corps. It is suggested that consideration "be given to
establishment of a Legal Review Committee composed of lawyers who serve
the enforcement agencies of the member states. This would offer a forum
for discussion of common problems in the compact district and how they
might best be resolved. One legal matter that could claim attention is
agreement on a common definition of what constitutes an abandoned mine;
variations of definition among the states (or no definition at all in
some cases) hardly provides a satisfactory basis for adoption of inter-
state control measures for acid discharges from so-called abandoned mine
workings. Likewise there is use for illumination of the legal framework
on which to build effective regulation of subsurface disposal facilities;
this was pointed out several years ago in a consultant's report to the
Commission on issues to be faced with respect to underground injection of
waste waters.
A continuing function for such a committee could be periodic dis-
cussions of enforcement proceedings of common interest. These could
involve either specific situations in geographic areas of interstate
concern or proceedings from which something could be learned because of
techniques used or problems involved.
Certification, Reports, and Compliance Monitoring.
There are a number of regulatory activities which in one way or
another have a bearing on enforcement. OR5A1JCO might be better able to
participate in some of them than in others. Whether and to what extent
it should become involved is a matter of policy as well as of capability.
For the most part, if not entirely, these activities are among the normal
state responsibilities, either because placed there by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act or because they contribute to the effectiveness of
state water quality management programs.
Section Uoi of the Federal Act provides for the certification by
states, and where appropriate by interstate agencies, of the probable
effects of specific discharges on water quality conditions. This is a
part of the permit process employed by EPA and states in implementing
1IPDES. Of course, if the state itself administers the permit system,
it need not make a certification but will merely ascertain and consider
-37-
-------
the probable effect of a discharge for which an applicant seeks a permit.
If EPA issues the permits in a particular state, the Act gives the state
the right to certify and would appear to require EPA to deny the permit,
if the certification is adverse.
There is no express provision of the compact which empowers ORSANCO
to give certifications such as those contemplated by the Federal Act.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the compact which would inhibit
it. Since a certification is essentially a statement setting forth the
conclusions of a water pollution control agency on the probable effects
of a discharge, the more relevant inquiry would seem to be whether ORSANCO
is or should be in a position to make the analysis required to present a
competent opinion. In some ways, ORSANCO is ideally suited for such a
role because it, better than any other agency, is in a position to
assess probable effects on waters in other state segments of the Basin,
as well as on waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed point of
discharge.
However, it would riot be desirable for ORSANCO to undertake partici-
pation in the certification process if that would mean a second certifica-
tion for any discharge in the Basin. Abandonment of the certification
function by states in the Ohio Basin does not seem likely. Accordingly,
it seems more appropriate for ORSANCO and its member states to think in
terms of what contributions the interstate agency could make to the infor-
mation and analyses on the basis of which judgments are made concerning
probable effects on water quality.
Such contributions could be substantial and should serve a purpose
whether the states are merely making certifications to EPA or whether
they are themselves administering the permit programs. Before evaluating
permit applications, states should query ORSANCO to whatever extent the
character and content of the interstate agency's stream quality information
and evaluation programs make it likely that either a data or analytical
input can be supplied. The state water pollution control agency also
should solicit ORSANCO comments on permit applications covering discharges
which will have interstate effects. If this practice were regularized, it
would not be a complete departure from present practice. Even now, ORSANCO
reviews some permit applications.
Information also can be supplied to the states and EPA through reports
having particular relevance for regulatory activities. ORSANCO has had
such a procedure in its status reports on control facilities. Rather than
being reports from the interstate agency, they have been reports to it
of the status of abatement undertakings. Generally speaking, there have
been periodic reports on the construction of facilities designed to remove
violations or otherwise to improve water quality. The member states have
undertaken to make these reports concerning activities wichin their own
boundaries. When staff capabilities have allowed, ORSANCO has reviewed
these reports and conferred with each state about them. The very knowledge
that such reports will be expected, and discussions of what they show, can
-38-
-------
have a salutary effect in promoting accountability among the individual
state agencies with respect to their problems. It can also provide the
basis for ORSANCO reports to other Basin states on how their neighbors
are doing in meeting some of the obligations which they have under the
compact.
For these reasons we have been disappointed to learn that these
status reports have not been regularly solicited, furnished and reviewed
in recent times. In view of ORSANCO's presently limited staff complement
and the internal problems with which the agency has had to cope for
several years past, this situation is understandable, However, appropriate
administration of a status report activity, accompanied by regular con-
versations on progress or the lack thereof, would be useful.
Section 305 (b) of the Federal Act calls for another kind of status
report to be made on an annual basis. States are to inform the EPA
Administrator concerning quality conditions of their waters, to report on
the extent to which applicable stream standards are being met, and to
assess the costs and effects of meeting or not meeting them. Assuming^that
ORSAUCO's monitoring program and other data gathering and analysis activ-
ities recommended in these pages are properly developed and maintained,
the interstate agency should take over the responsibility for making at
least the Ohio River portion of each state report required by Section 305,
or could provide substantial input to aid in its preparation. Likewise,
ORSAWCO could be clothed with similar responsibilities for interstate
tributary streams such as the Allegheny, Monongahela, Mahoning-Beaver,
and the Wabash rivers.
Specific information as to how individual waste dischargers are
performing is another aspect of reporting. The states have the bulk of
the responsibility for this kind of activity. The eight ORSAECO member_
jurisdictions have performed inspections and other surveillance activities
only in part. While all the states have programs calling for inspection
and sampling of municipal and industrial treatment facilities, and some
have more complete and frequent coverage than others, in practice inspec-
tions of such plants as are visited occur, on the average, hardly more
often than once a year. Shortage of personnel is generally offered as
the reason for deficiencies in this kind of surveillance activity.
ORSANCO has never undertaken to do plant inspections and sampling.
To do so throughout the Basin, or even for waters on and directly affecting
the main stem would require a very large staff. Such inspections, with
attendant sampling and analysis, should be vigorously carried forward.
However, there would be little advantage in relying on ORSAWCO for this
kind of work. The interstate agency might be justified in performing it
on some occasions, especially where there is an aggravated interstate
pollution problem and where each state would want to know from an impartial
source what the character of discharges and treatment within the neighbor-
ing jurisdiction's territory actually is. However, ORSAUCO has no present
-39-
-------
capability along these lines and no resources with which to institute a
plant inspection and sampling program. Since the need is at least equally
great for the individual states to increase their inspection and related
activities, it seems best to advocate strengthened performance by the
states. Toward this end ORSANCO should complete a manual relating to
uniform procedures for plant inspections and audit on which the staff
and the Engineering Committee have already been at work.
Under the 1972 Federal Act, the inspectorial function and other
methods for ascertaining the conduct of individual waste dischargers is
conceived as "compliance monitoring". In the terms of the Act, the
objective is to determine whether permit holders are living up to the
requirements of their permits. Much of the reliance is on reports to be
submitted by the dischargers concerning their own activities and on self
monitoring to supply the data which go into the reports. It is most
appropriate for the permit issuers to receive this information. Of course,
the validation of the information thus supplied will be a key to the
success of the permit approach. However, for the reasons already indicated,
it does not seem that ORSAMCO is a likely participant in compliance moni-
toring, except in one way.
Earlier in this chapter, it was suggested that ORSAWCO should not be
a data collector and receptacle only, but that it should take an active
role in calling some of the current information yielded by its monitoring
program to the attention of the state agencies. To the extent that sudden
changes in stream quality or evidence of generally deteriorating conditions
in a particular area may signal behavior requiring inspection or other direct
surveillance action, ORSAUCO could be of great assistance. However, this
could be the case only if ORSAWCO undertook a more frequent data distri-
bution than the monthly ''Monitor1' and if items having specific meaning
for a particular state agency or EPA were called directly and pointedly to
its attention as soon as observed.
River Management.
If no flow control structures had ever been built on the Ohio River
and its tributaries, one of the important influences on water quality would
have been variations in flow caused by seasonal factors, periods of high
precipitation and droughts. These considerations continue to be signif-
icant, but their consequences are now much more subject to control than
would otherwise have been the case.
Today the river is managed, but primarily for navigation and flood
amelioration. The heavy investments in water transport and the reliance
of the population on existing flood protection structures makes it certain
that these objectives of management will continue to dominate. Never-
theless, there is still likely to be a significant measure of flexibility
in the volumes and timing of storage and releases. Some thought has al-
ready been given to the operation of the flow regulation facilities for
water quality purposes, within the framework of the navigation and flood
-UO-
-------
control programs. The Corps does make analyses of its projects for multi-
purpose operations and cost-benefit justification. Some proposals are
set forth on page 7 of the 1966 annual report of ORSANCO. More should
be done along these lines.
Active and continued cooperation among ORSA1ICO, EPA, and the Corps
of Engineers should be the keystone of river management for water
quality purposes. This is another aspect of river management which
cannot be undertaken on a local basis or even in state segments of the
river system. ORSANCO and the Corps already have something of an in-
vestment in such a program.
The Corps purchased and installed robot monitors on the Allegheny in
order to facilitate operation of its installations at and near the
Pennsylvania-New York border for water quality management benefits. The
equipment has now been given over to ORSANCO to operate under contract.
However, unless a specific river quality management program is developed,
it is likely that the result will be only to expand the geographic
coverage of the present data collection and analysis activities.
The Corps and the states in other regions already have some experience
in cooperative control of stream flow regimen for multiple purposes.
Notably, the program of annual scheduling of releases on the Missouri
has been in effect for many years and has helped to ameliorate conflicts
among water uses in the several parts of that basin, as well as to provide
the operating procedures for both Corps and Bureau of Reclamation in-
stallations in the Missouri.
The purposes and methodology would not be the same as in the Missouri
Basin. The principal source of managed stream flow there is the annually
accumulated snow pack which presents a known quantity by early Spring
which can then be scheduled as to storage and releases for the balance of
the year. In the Ohio Basin, the water comes primarily from rainfall
which occurs throughout the year and which therefore cannot be accurately
scheduled for flow management months in advance. Nevertheless, the
Missouri experience is suggestive and might be drawn upon to create a
cooperative flow management program that would provide a mechanism for
incorporating water quality considerations.
The ORSANCO stream monitoring program puts the interstate agency
in the logical position to guide the correlation of flow releases. It
better than any other agency knows, or should know, the quality condition
of the entire river system on a continuing basis. It, better than any
other agency, could calculate the relationships between releases, with-
drawals and storage in the several portions of the Basin and the values
of both long range and individual instance management of the regimen of
stream flow.
Indeed, the possibilities are larger than mere management of releases.
Some of the Corps dams and private utility installations are operated
-------
for purposes of power generation, as well as navigation and flood control.
In the past, ORSAUCO has made suggestions which have led to operation of
these facilities in ways that improve water Quality. For example, at
ORSANCO's request, some of the power producers have bled oxygen into
their discharges and releases and so have achieved improved river quality
conditions for this parameter. This experience suggests that proper
exercise of ingenuity, under ORSANCO leadership, could result in a variety
of measures that would improve the quality of the river in connection
with the operation of programs for stream flow management.
Interstate Investigations and Coordination.
On some parts of the Ohio, its interstate character is more apparent
and undoubtedly more real than on others. The main stem is a boundary
between states and also between Regions 3, ^ and 5 of EPA. Each of these
entities has decision making powers, operational activities, or both which
can result either in compatible administration of the Basin's waters or
which can produce troublesome inconsistencies and conflicts. The list
of possible sources of incongruity could be extended at greater length
than will be attempted here. Eowever, a few illustrations will serve to
indicate the nature of the problems and the services which ORSANCO could
provide.
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, each state assigns
priorities for applications made by its community sewage treatment
systems for construction grants. It should normally be presumed that
these priorities are influenced by views of the water quality agencies
on a state-by-state basis. They reflect a balancing of concerns as
among the several parts of a jurisdiction, both within and without the
Ohio Basin. They may also on occasion reflect efforts of a particular
state to concentrate on a specific geographic area which is perceived
to have a water quality problem requiring special effort. This per-
spective may vary as seen from across the river or from the upstream
and downstream sides of a border.
Coordination of priorities within a state is a necessary objective,
and individual states are in a position to pursue it. But coordination
within the several parts of a basin—particularly in the same or adjacent
areas—is also necessary.
Under the Federal Act, it is the states and not interstate agencies
which make up the priority lists. It is not suggested that this be changed.
However, by bringing state agencies together and by pointing out to each
of them what the policies across the state line are and what their effects
may be, the participation of ORSANCO might secure an improved pattern
of construction activity.
The problem also involves the several EPA regions. In reviewing
grant applications and in determining conditions which will be imposed
for the receipt of particular grants, Region 5 occupies a universe which
includes the Great Lakes as well as the Ohio, and much in between. Region
-H2-
-------
U looks at the Southeast from Atlanta where the population pressures and
peculiarities of Florida's development may seem more compelling than the
needs of Ashland or Louisville and the many smaller communities along
the way. To Region 3, the balance to he sought is between the needs
and opportunities of the industrialized lower Delaware Valley and the more
thinly settled reaches of West Virginia's portion of the Ohio River. For
the New York City based Region 2, the Ohio is a long way off, of periph-
eral concern in problems and population and less demanding of attention
than Puerto Rico for which it also has responsibility.
The focus which each of these EPA regions must preserve cannot be
gainsaid and probably should not be altered. But since the Ohio is also
a unity, there should be some mechanism for encouraging administrative
jurisdictions organized on a different logic to accommodate, in so far
as they can, to the activities and policies of the others who share the
Ohio and affect its use and development. ORSANCO could be that mechanism
and has responsibilities more directly suited to the task than any other
agency.
The designation of "water quality limited segments" also needs to
be coordinated both laterally across the river and on an upstream-down-
stream basis. While the Ohio is a relatively wide stream and so may
vary in quality from bank to bank, degrees of treatment and limitations
of discharges above and beyond "best practicable treatment" or "best
available treatment" should be coordinated for both sides of the river,
regardless of state or regional boundaries. Further, the determination
of how much and what kinds of effluent can be put into particular stretches
of the waterway should not be made only with reference to the immediate
vicinity. Questions of equitable use of the waste loading capacity
among the states must be considered. These encompass upstream-downstream
relationships as well as lateral ones.
The possibility of interstate allocation of waste loading capacity
does not now seem to compel attention on the Ohio, except perhaps in
stretches encompassed by the Cincinnati and Louisville metropolitan
areas. However, in years to come, further population pressures and in-
dustrial growth are likely to make such allocations real necessities.
The direct and indirect use of water for energy production clearly is
going to affect temperature, quantity, mineral content and perhaps
radioactivity. Tolerances for these factors will have to be assessed
for long stretches of the waterway and the just shares of the communities
and states negotiated. To make determinations on the basis of individual
permits may be too atomistic. At stake is the economic welfare and con-
venience of many millions of people. ORSANCO is not likely to have the
power of decision in these matters. The compact does not confer any
such authority beyond standards making, nor would its exercise by the
interstate agency likely be politically acceptable. But ORSANCO is and
will likely continue to be the possessor of the most complete and most
impartial body of information and analyses on which the decisions can be
made. As such, and as the joint creature of all the contending juris-
dictions, ORSANCO could provide an invaluable stimulus and forum for
negotiation of the issues and development of the equities.
-------
There are other kinds of interstate, interagency and interregional
problems which are sometimes revealed by episodes, but -which may also
signal persistent conditions having interjurisdictional effects. One
such is the recurring fishkills in various parts of the Basin. In the
past several years, these have occurred at the Virginia-West Virginia
line on the New River and on the New York-Pennsylvania stretch of the
Allegheny. The causes are sometimes in dispute or unknown. On other
occasions they are readily determinable but may highlight conflicting
interests on either side of the jurisdictional line. The need to in-
vestigate such episodes or conditions and to formulate corrective or
preventive action is clear.
In some instances, neither of the states involved has "been able to
concentrate the resources required to investigate the problem systematically
or intensively enough to produce an answer. Furthermore, where the
parties may be aware that fixing of blame is a possible element in the
investigation, neither side may be willing to accept the other's fact
finding. If its knowledge of the Basin's waters and its lack of parti-
sanship is appreciated, ORSAWCO might qualify as the most appropriate
fact finder and recommender of remedial action.
Pollution from Konpoint Sources.
The realization has been growing that nonpoint runoff from urban
areas and agricultural lands is a major contributor to deteriorated
water quality and that it cannot be dealt with by discharge permits or
effluent limitations. What to do is a largely unsolved problem, per-
haps at a stage of consideration analogous to that of point source pol-
lution thirty or forty years ago when the states were formulating their
first comprehensive water pollution control laws.
Every state and the Federal Government must consider the problems
of dealing with nonpoint sources, but it may be hoped that some of the
duplication in such consideration can be avoided. Just as regional
leadership was useful in formulating the early water quality standards
for the Ohio, so regional and national approaches to the study of non-
point sources may be fruitful. As the catalyst and as a forum in which
all states concerned in the Basin, and several EPA regions as well, can
come together for the discussion of common problems and for the formulation
of similar programs, ORSABCO may have an opportunity to facilitate advance
in the control of nonpoint sources. ORSAWCO could take the lead in
defining and quantifying the problem and its effects on river quality.
Insofar as we have been able to ascertain, this has not been attempted
as yet. In this respect, ORSAWCO's role could be similar to that which
it fulfilled in the 1950s through the work of its industry committees on
the point source problems of individual types of manufacturing or mining.
The compact does not provide any powers which would permit ORSANCO
to undertake a regulatory role in dealing with nonpoint sources. Indeed,
such regulation probably will involve land use controls as well as measures
-hk-
-------
designed to affect farming practices and municipal sanitation. However,
since there is still little consensus as to what should "be done, the
absence of regulatory authority should not be an obstacle to OR5ANCO
participation in the consideration of the problem, especially with regard
to its specific ramifications in the several parts of the Ohio Basin.
Mine Drainage.
A problem much longer recognized is that of mine drainage. Active
mines can discharge huge quantities of acid and other pollutants. An
even more perplexing problem is presented by the abandoned operations
where the land is no longer of value to the owner because the mineral
wealth has been extracted. How to secure pollution control and abate-
ment has taxed the ingenuity of many minds.
Many of the state water pollution control agency personnel suggested
to us that ORSANCO should give greater consideration to the mine drainage
problem. Their wishes that this be done appear to spring from the fact
that so many parts of the Basin, from near its headwaters to its lower
extremity, have the concern in common.
In the past, ORSANCO's Coal Industry Committee has gathered and
made available information on mine wastes and on the practices of the
Industry. Undoubtedly, the Commission could continue to provide a forum
for discussion of mine drainage. In doing so, however, it should be
aware that other agencies and organizations are also in the field. The
Appalachian Regional Commission has given much attention to the problem
and is likely to continue its interest. There is now in existence an
Interstate Mining Commission established under a compact among mineral
producing states, both in and out of the Ohio Basin. Further, the in-
dividual states and the Federal Government have considered and undertaken
programs of mine sealing and other measures.
There can be no doubt that the subject is important and that it is
of substantial concern throughout the Ohio Basin. But under present con-
ditions, it is necessary to appreciate the limits of ORSANCO capabilities
when making proposals in this field. To the extent that they are known,
the regulatory powers appropriate to deal with mine drainage are largely
outside those given to the interstate agency in its compact. For example,
the laws regulating mining methods and practices and providing for the
rehabilitation of mined lands are not generally within the purview of
water quality agencies. They involve land use more than they do water
pollution control. Similarly, measures of a public works or financial
character seem to be either beyond ORSANCO's authority or better performed
by others.
Accordingly, it would seem that because of its regionwide incidence,
mine drainage and other problems associated with mine wastes should be
kept in mind by ORSANCO, but its role should be primarily as a stimulator
of interest and action by others.
-1+5-
-------
Ground ¥ater Management.
A subject which has a less obvious impact on stream quality but
which is important is that of ground water management. One would normally
not suppose that an interstate water quality agency should concern itself
with such a matter. While the problem of ground water quality may be
common to all of the jurisdictions, the aquifers or pools involved are
interstate only in some instances. Moreover, the states in the ORSA1TCO
Compact have so far done relatively little to manage their ground water
resources.
The Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts give the com-
missions established by them some authority over ground water through
the power to review and approve projects having a substantial effect on
waters of their respective basins. Since ground waters are "waters of
the basin", significant withdrawals or other actions which materially
affect quality can come within the regulatory purview of the interstate
agency. However, the ORSANCO Compact contains no provisions of a similar
nature.
Nevertheless, the Commission has become engaged in one endeavor
which is related to ground water quality. It has compiled a registry
of underground injection wells. If kept up-to-date, this registry
could supply a basinwide inventory of points of waste discharge to the
subsurface and information concerning the practices at these locations.
The ability to compare practices from state to state within the Ohio
Basin can be of value in helping each jurisdiction to formulate and
administer its own programs for the control of underground injection
wells.
The subject is also one, owing to its relative newness, in which
ORSANCO could provide useful service as a forum for discussion, dis-
semination of information and development of improved criteria for such
installations in order to protect overlying usable ground waters and the
surface. A step in this direction was Commission sponsorship several
years ago of a comprehensive report setting forth both administrative
procedures and geological considerations for control of injection wells.
Power Plant Siting.
The location of a wide variety of facilities having environmental
effects is becoming a matter of increasing concern. In general, land use
regulation is a matter for local governments, but increasingly with a
state ingredient. Except for the efforts of the Lake Tahoe Regional
Commission (California and Nevada), no phase of the subject has yet be-
come part of the responsibilities of an interstate agency. At least,
this is true if one puts aside the general interest evinced by regional
planning agencies which do not have regulatory authority.
However, the siting of facilities which account for large and crucial
discharges into the river system can have a direct bearing on water quality
-k6~
-------
and its management. This has become an issue of concern in respect to
new power plants, both conventional and nuclear. Moreover, effects on
water temperature, radioactivity concentrations and stream flow can be
interstate in character.
Through its Power Industry Committee, ORSANCO has already provided
a convenient means of making known to all member states the plans for
new power plants in the Basin. It is thereby possible for the water
quality agency of a single state to know how installations in another
jurisdiction may affect its concerns. This kind of activity by ORSANCO
is beneficial and should be conscientiously pursued.
Research.
Each of the four subjects mentioned in the immediately preceding
sections of this chapter is one in which approaches and solutions need
to be developed. Since the Ohio flows through varied country that re-
flects most of the life styles and economic profiles found in the nation
as a whole, it would be possible to identify many other problems in water
quality management for which research must help provide the answers.
Furthermore, if we are serious about our commitments to clean water,
massive research undertakings must be part of the overall water quality
management process.
Everywhere one turns, it is possible to identify potential performers
of research. The universities consider it one of their major functions;
the Federal Government gives grants and does some of it directly; private
industries pursue it within the limits of their own recognized self interest,
But the view is widespread that no one is adequately engaged in the re-
search necessary to answer the technical and institutional questions
important for improved water quality management.
The difficulty is that research takes investments of funds, most
often without any direct or immediate expectation of dramatic or even
tangible return.
ORSAWCO lacks the funds and the staff necessary to engage in research
on a significant scale. However, there are limited research roles
which ORSANCO could consider and that would be of substantial value.
A number of the other interstate agencies, both in and out of the
water quality field, have on occasion provided sponsorship for research
activities. ORSANCO itself has had some experience with this type of
activity—notably in the instance of its 1959 aquatic-life resources
study as well as in the matter of subsurface disposal practices.
Given present patterns for organizing and administering research
activities, there are some attractions in their performance under the
auspices of an interstate agency. Individual states are so heavily in-
volved in operational and regulatory activities, that they do not normally
-H7-
-------
think of themselves in connection with research, except perhaps as users
of the results. EPA, too, is primarily concerned with regulatory activities.
Its research function is oriented toward providing the funds with which
water quality research can be done.
As a regional agency charged with seeing to the water quality
welfare and needs of an eight-state basin, ORSAWCO is in a particularly
good position to identify and focus interest on common problems needing
investigation. Whereas an individual state may feel that it has no warrant
to take the leadership and responsibility for a problem which, if solved,
will benefit its neighbors fully as much as itself, the interstate
agency can act for several or many who are similarly situated.
The first focus for ORSAWCO should be to identify matters on which
research would be particularly useful to the Basin. It should then
attempt to interest those with research capabilities in undertaking the
assignments. Preferably, ORSAWCO should seek to persuade others to use
their own resources for the studies and projects. However, in a limited
number of instances, and where others cannot be induced to proceed on
their own, ORSANCO could act as a grantee and as an active entrepeneur
to put the needed resources together for the accomplishment of a research
undertaking. In such circumstances, ORSAWCO could perform the functions
of project management and disseminator of the results. A precedent
exists in the phenol treatment plant-scale research sponsored by ORSANCO
in the early Fifties.
The number of projects and the variety of subjects on which ORSANCO
sponsored research could usefully proceed is very large. Any specific
comments should be treated only as possible illustrations.
For example, applied research is needed on combined sewer systems
in urban areas. The growing and much emphasized use of secondary treat-
ment may produce many situations in which the efficiency of the sewer
system is no more than one-half that of the treatment plant and in which
periodic combined sewer overflow seriously undermines the value of the
entire treatment process. Strategies should be developed to minimize
the problems caused by combined sewers and to determine their true load.
impact on the waterways.
To postulate water quality conditions on the basis of treatment
plant effluents is certain to yield erroneous results. The influence
of industrial wastes entering combined sewers (including actual pre-
treatment practices) and of nonpoint contributions to storm water must
be taken into account. Especially the discharge of heavy metals, oil
and grease, and other toxic substances into municipal systems should be
investigated.
In connection with any ORSANCO sponsored research, however, a
caution should be voiced. Research administration cannot be a passive
activity, if the results are to be good. It is not enough to act as
a collector and disburser of funds, or even to frame the initial speci-
fications for a contract. The administering agency must be willing
-------
and able to keep close watch on the performance of the research which
it sponsors and must have the capability to direct and monitor it in-
telligently.
Technical Assistance.
An area in which the benefits of cooperation have long been thought
to lie is technical assistance. Individual jurisdictions cannot justify
or afford experts in every field. Water quality management has its
share of specialties and problems which are beyond the competence of
sanitary engineering and other technical personnel.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 point
up the problem by specifically adopting an industry by industry approach
to the formulation of requirements for waste discharges. Even EPA, with
its nationwide responsibilities, has not sought to recruit in-house
capabilities for all the specialties but it relies heavily on contract
procurements to perform the studies needed in the formulation of effluent
limitations and other requirements which particular classes of dischargers
will be expected to meet.
It seems to make sense that the expertise which individual states
cannot afford but must have should be maintained by a central source and
made available as need arises, ORSANCO could provide a pool of such
experts. But to do so on a regular and comprehensive basis would require
a large staff with varied talents. Even so, the usual experience with
technical assistance is worth bearing in mind. Most agencies which are
capable of providing it come by specialized personnel because of operating
or regulatory programs or research in which they are themselves heavily
engaged. The demands of the agency's own programs are likely to consume
the time of the very people who could provide technical assistance.
Accordingly, it probably is not realistic to conceive of technical
assistance as a separately staffed or programmed function. Nevertheless,
if ORSANCO develops a strong set of programs along some of the lines pre-
sented in this chapter, it will have personnel with special knowledge and
skills not otherwise sufficiently available in the Basin and not dupli-
cated by EPA or the states. If ORSANCO becomes known to have a techni-
cally expert staff in certain fields, it will have opportunities to give
advice and to help both the states and EPA with special problems.
One such kind of possible assistance was mentioned in connection
with the discussion of enforcement when it was remarked that personnel
from the ORSANCO monitoring and stream survey programs could provide
expert testimony at hearings and in litigation. It also seems that
ORSANCO could assist other agencies in the design of water quality data
collection and analysis systems. The range of potential opportunities
for service is large, but specific applications must await the choice
by ORSANCO of the program elements which it is to develop in depth.
-H9-
-------
Training.
An activity similar in its import to technical assistance is training
of personnel. The difference is that the former supplies capabilities
which the recipient is unable to provide for itself or which it would be
inefficient for the agency to maintain on a regular basis, while the
latter develops the capability on the recipient's own staff. The types
of functions may also differ in that technical assistance is generally
conceived as the provision of highly skilled or professional help,
whereas training may be provided for any level of employee.
EPA regards training with special favor in evaluating applications
for Section 106 program grants. The reason is that effective personnel
improves the end result and so may be expected to obtain better water
quality from a given quantum of funds and equipment.
The point was first conceived primarily in terms of the effective-
ness of sewage plant operators. During the 1960s, it was often remarked
before Congressional committees and elsewhere that the quality of effluents
was usually much lower than the plants were capable of providing and that
the reason was faulty operation and maintenance.
Self monitoring is stressed in the Federal Act Amendments of 1972.
Many municipal treatment plant laboratories are at present of limited
value. A treatment plant operator training activity would strengthen
ORSANCO's program. Many of the treatment plants within the ORSANCO
area have been upgraded, or will be, to provide secondary treatment. The
secondary treatment plants introduce a biological step in treatment which
causes additional problems for the plant operators. While a laboratory
was desirable for efficient operation of a primary treatment plant, it
now becomes a necessity to operate a secondary treatment plant. The
data generated by such laboratories is now meant, among other things, to
aid the States and EPA in its compliance monitoring program.
At the present time, operator training is offered in short courses
given by universities, regional laboratories of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the states, and in-house training by the larger sewer-
age treatment plants. Many of these courses are not suitable for training
of the laboratory personnel or treatment plant operators who must perform
the laboratory tests in smaller plants. The inadequate background of the
operators plus the fact that class sizes are usually large make instruction
difficult. There is need for more individualized instruction in the
relevant laboratory procedures.
ORSANCO could visit, upon invitation, treatment plants (especially
the smaller ones) to provide personalized instruction in performing
the necessary tests which conform to Standard Methods. The teaching
program could provide for a visit by a graduate chemist and sanitary
engineer to the individual plants that express an interest in such
-50-
-------
training. The sanitary engineer could explain the need and the use
for the particular tests that would be performed, and the tests demon-
strated and discussed in detail by the chemist. Assuming the personnel
were made available, this type of training could be instituted immediately.
More elaborate and complex training activities might take longer to de-
velop.
The Interstate Sanitation Commission has a training program for
this kind of personnel which is fully utilized and well received. It
does not concentrate on the more sophisticated operational tasks. Rather,
it specializes in bringing simple instruction into plants to make it
possible for employees with little or no previous technical training to
perform the basic laboratory tests and other operations required for the
monitoring of processes and effluents. The training emphasizes -individual
instruction on the job rather than seminars or courses to which large
groups of operator personnel and candidates are brought for formal in-
service and pre-service programs.
The waste treatment agencies in the Greater New York Metropolitan
Area have as much access to college and technical school instruction and
to the regular courses for plant operators as do most other places in
the United States. Yet, this kind of service has demonstrated its use-
fulness. Accordingly, it might fill a need that appears so far to have
gone unfulfilled in the Ohio Basin.
The disadvantage of such a program from the ORSANCO point of view^
is that the Basin is very large and the only Commission base of operations
is Cincinnati. This is a central location and from it a significant seg-
ment of the Ohio could be reached. But unless the kind of training pro-
gram here being discussed could be decentralized, it would likely not
benefit all parts of the Basin or all of the states in the Compact.
Within the limits of its resources, ORSANCO has engaged in some
activities that might be regarded as training. Its occasional clinics
and seminars to disseminate findings of its industry committees and
developments in electronic monitoring could be so viewed.
As ORSANCO develops unique services for the Basin, it may be in a
position to consider a training function if the states so desire. Per-
haps the Commission personnel would have something to impart^on a regular
basis in fields such as the management and use of water quality data.
The point is that a training function should be associated with the
strengths in the Commission's programs so that the teaching personnel
can bring knowledge and skill to the instructional process.
Information Dissemination and Public Relations.
Whatever the specific elements of the ORSAWCO program, there^is a
continuing need for the agency to communicate with others. This is
not a need coterminous with the generally understood domain of public
-51-
-------
relations. Press releases, brochures, films, and public appearances
all have their place. But it is necessary to ask why and when they should
be employed. With whom should ORSAKCO communicate and for what purposes?
The answers depend largely on what kind of organization ORSANCO
proposes to be. To the extent that it is a technical arm of the state
water pollution control agencies, the information it furnishes and the
goodwill it seeks to build is with them. To the extent that it helps
to administer Public Law 92-500 and otherwise assist with tasks in which
EPA or other federal agencies have interests, the format of its infor-
mation program must cater to that audience. In either case, the techniques
and content of an information dissemination program are different from
what they would be to reach the general public or the state administra-
tions and legislatures. All of the last named can be important to ORSANCO.
How these relationships should be handled is a question that also needs
attention.
The Commission has prepared materials in the past which have been
designed to inform the general public of its activities and of water
quality problems in the Ohio Basin. This has been done through motion
pictures (now totaling nine). It has also been considered that the
annual report "Yearbook" should be attractively enough produced and
written to serve a public relations function. To accomplish this pur-
pose, and also because ORSANCO has been short of staff, the writing of
its most recent annual report was farmed out to an outside contractor.
Other public relations activities of ORSANCO have been very occasional
and cannot be considered part of its regular t>rogram.
ORSANCO certainly should inform the public concerning its activities
and the problems with which it deals. However, resources presently
available for this purpose are extremely limited. In view of the urgent
needs to strengthen its substantive water quality work, it does not seem
that the Commission should devote any more than an occasional and rela-
tively small amount of money to what is generally considered public
information. The Commission must first concentrate on building a program
which has clear value for the Basin, the member states and EPA. When it
has made a good start in that direction, it will have something around
which it can develop a meaningful public information program.
Despite what has just been said, it is important that the Commission
staff prepare its own annual report and technical bulletins as it did
until recently. At present, the first individuals who must be impressed
are the officials of the party states. They must be ORSANCO!s immediate
reliance for support. This argues for a good and informative technical
report on Commission activities. Those who have been directly engaged
in the work are best equipped to report on it. If funds are available
to secure public relations or other editorial advice to make the report
attractive, such an effort may be desirable. However, first emphasis
must be on the substance rather than on the form. The preparation of
documentaries and other informational materials is a worthwhile service.
-52-
-------
The only question is where this should stand in the order of priorities.
Since ORSANCO is in the best position to see the Basin as a whole, its
production of an occasional film or similar undertaking is in keeping
with the agency's overall mission. It may also help to maintain and
enhance its image with public interest groups in the region. However,
the next several years should make heavy demands on ORSANCO's resources
for staff expansion and the development of its technical programs.
Contacts with the state governments and the several EPA regions
have fallen into disrepair. This is probably less true of Region 5 than
of any of the others because the Director of that EPA Region is an ORSMCO
Commissioner and the agency's program grants are handled through Chicago.
However, it is disturbing to report that in many of the ORSANCO states
where we conducted interviews, we were told that it has been a very long
time since the ORSANCO staff head or any of his senior employees visited
the state capital. We understand that the new Director is aware of this
shortcoming and is undertaking efforts to remedy the situation. It must
be emphasized that personal contact between the ORSANCO staff and those
in the states and EPA whom the interstate agency serve is essential. In
its absence, the impression gets abroad that ORSANCO is a distant, do-
nothing organization. Further, the neglect of contacts at the state
capitals and EPA regional headquarters limits opportunities for ORSANCO
to ascertain what the needs and wishes of the interstate agency's most
important constituents may be.
In recent years, ORSANCO has devoted much effort in its information
dissemination program to its monthly publication "Monitor"'. This is a
selective presentation on a frequent periodic basis of significant
quality data gathered by the monitoring system. As pointed out earlier
in these pages, there is considerable doubt as to whether this publica-
tion serves the most useful purposes possible. In our visits to the
states we have too often learned that "Monitor" is simply filed and
seldom consulted, or that no one has a clear idea how and to what extent
the data are used.
This suggests a serious need to rethink the entire information dis-
semination program, to identify specifically the intended audience for
each kind of ORSANCO communication; to formulate reasonably definite
ideas as to what ORSANCO would like or expect recipients to do with the
information; and to devise modes of communication that will fit each
purpose. An illustration of how ORSAWCO data should be aimed directly
toward those responsible for or capable of a specific response is pre-
sented in the portion of this chapter dealing with monitoring and
related data programs. Moreover, more direct and pointed transmissions
of data would repeatedly bring ORSANCO to the attention of the recipient
agencies and individuals in ways that point out the vitality and use-
fulness of the ORSANCO operations.
One step removed from the water pollution control agencies are the
higher policy making levels of the member governments — particularly
-53-
-------
the Governor's offices and the state legislatures. Whether and to what
extent ORSANCO should seek direct contacts with them is a difficult
question. Their knowledge that ORSANCO exists and is a worthwhile
agency is important. These instruments of government often determine
what forms of organization will be employed and what jurisdictional
arrangements will be made to carry out water policy. This includes
its intergovernmental aspects as well as those which are entirely internal
to a single state. Accordingly, their knowledge of the realities of
intergovernmental relations and of the roles which ORSANCO could play
is essential in advancing a constructive set of ORBANCO programs and
in protecting the agency from inadvertent inroads on its functions and
financial resource base.
However, the position of the heads of the state water pollution
control agencies on ORSANCO as commissioners must be considered. In
the past, they have been relied upon as both the supporters and inter-
preters of ORSANCO needs and program to their state governments. In
significant measure, this should and must be so. However, this deriva-
tive kind of contact is sometimes not enough when legislatures and budget
officers ask questions, or even worse when they have unspoken doubts
in their minds.
ORSANCO has not sought to use its citizen commissioners as emissaries
to their state governments nor does it appear to have given them any other
tasks of a representational character in dealing with citizen organiza-
tions. Some ORSANCO commissioners have been appointed because they
represent Industry, civic organizations, university communities, or
local governmental interests. But we are not aware that any of them
have been asked by ORSANCO to perform specific tasks involving contact
on the part of ORSANCO with these agencies and interests. For the
citizen commissioners, as well as for the state environmental officials,
the representational function should go in both directions. This could
forge links between ORSANCO and the general public that do not now
exist.
It is important to make government officials and the general
public aware of the interrelationships which establish the Ohio River
system as an entity. ORSANCO is peculiarly fitted to do this because
of its data gathering and analysis functions. Some of the state water
pollution control agencies have told us that they would like to have
ORSANCO materials which they could use and distribute in explaining
the problems of the Ohio Basin and in providing information concerning
measures being taken by other states to deal with them. Such a service
would be of benefit and could strengthen ORSANCO's ties with civic organ-
izations and other public interest groups throughout the Basin. In
considering matters of this kind, however, ORSANCO must make an appraisal
of the dollars which it is justified in committing to such endeavors.
If, as we believe, it may ultimately become necessary to make equitable
allocations of waste loadings to the individual states, an appreciation
of the integral aspects of the river system will be essential to gain
public acceptance of and cooperation in the negotiation and administra-
tion of such allocation on an equitable basis.
-------
CHAPTER h
Priorities
ORSANCO has two paramount program needs. One is to carry on its data
collection and analysis activities more comprehensively and purposefully.
The other is to add planning activities which will give the interstate agen-
cy the capability to identify the water quality needs of the Ohio Basin, the
probable course of future developments which will affect those needs and im-
pact on the quality of river system waters, reveal and assess the interjuris-
dictional relationships involved and display the factual and conceptual frame-
works and alternatives applicable to present and possible future actions of
the state, federal, local governmental, and private entities which develop,^
manage, regulate, use and seek to conserve or improve the waters of the Basin.
In considering the possible program activities for the interstate agen-
cy, it is unrealistic to act as though all the subject matter elements pre-
sented in Chapter 3 are equally open for immediate implementation. ORSAWCO
already has investments in equipment and facilities, a staff (some of its mem-
bers with years of service), and a set of long standing relationships with
state and federal agencies. Major changes, including some of those which may
be most desirable, will take time to be made effectively. Even if the Commis-
sion should wish to engage in all of the activities outlined in Chapter 3 at
levels sufficient to be productive, it could not do so. Accordingly, identi-
fication of priorities for ORSANCO must consider both the needs of the Basin
and the state and federal agencies which have responsibilities related to its
water quality, and the pace at which the interstate agency can develop its
performance capabilities in various fields.
During recent years, ORSANCO has not been as vigorously active as it
should have been. Accordingly, it is at least as important for the Commission
to perform effectively the more important of the functions in which it is al-
ready engaged as it is to add new ones.
A program activity for ORSANCO can be either operational in the sense of
its robot monitoring and data processing, coordinative of the activities and
plans of others, catalytic in that it provides the encouragement and impetus
for action by others, or cooperative in that it is performed partly by ORSAWCO
and partly by agencies of the member states, the Federal Government or others.
In identifying a program item priority order for ORSANCO, the discussions in
Chapter 3 will not be repeated. They should be consulted for accounts of the
specific role and function or approach which we conceive suitable for the in-
terstate agency in the particular circumstances of the Ohio Basin.
However, it is important to emphasize that there are relatively few ac-
tivities which can be performed one hundred percent as coordinative or catalytic
undertakings. Unless the agency's own personnel are engaged actively enough in
a particular line of activity, they are not likely to have or maintain the de-
gree of professional competence, understanding or imagination necessary to make
them useful in the stimulative functions. Nor will they likely have opportuni-
ties to achieve and hold the respect necessary to be acceptable as negotiators,
-55-
-------
leaders, or representatives of the state and federal water quality programs
for whom they are suppose to serve. Accordingly, ORSMCO must do enough of
the actual work in enough of the fields so as to be a viable resource.
The Stream Data System.
The monitoring program should continue to be a primary activity of OR-
SMCO. As explained in Chapter 3, it provides an essential basis for water
quality management planning, regulation and operating activities of the states
federal agencies and the Commission itself. Moreover, it is a function for
which ORSMCO is presently better prepared than any other. Consequently, U
aifords the firmest base on which a strengthened ORSMCO can be built.
However, we believe that it is unfortunate to continue to think of the
program^ simply one for monitoring. This way of regarding the program prob-
ably originated from the heavy reliance to date on the robot equipment and
its attendant data processing operations. However, this method of data col-
lection and analysis is only a technique for the assembling of information and
its conversion into a meaningful picture of stream conditions in the Ohio
Basin. It would be more helpful to conceive of the program in terms of this
objective than in terms of a particular means for approaching the result.
Several data collection, analysis and reporting methodologies were iden-
tified in Chapter 3. ORSANCO should give the highest priority to welding all
of them into a well rounded, accurate and instantly usable stream information
system.
Robot monitoring should continue to be employed and perfected for those
things which it can do best. Although expensive in hardware, it is saving of
manpower and so cost efficient in the long run. Moreover, ORSMCO has already
made much of the necessary investment.
However, thorough visual examination of the river system, accompanied by
the taking and analysis of manual samples, is also essential. This should be
added to the ORSMCO program by employing one or more of the administrative
arrangements suggested in Chapter 3. In combination with the automatic moni-
toring the stream survey method would provide truly comprehensive and detailed
knowledge of stream conditions.
The maintenance of a data bank and current interpretative reporting of
items needing attention by the state and federal agencies are closely associ-
ated elements of an utilitarian stream data program. They should not be con-
sidered as separate items.
Planning.
Planning is a logical next step from data collection and analysis. Of
course, it requires much more than the information which ORSMCO itself will
develop because water is a supporting resource rather than an end in itself
Water is to be placed and maintained in a particular condition so that it ma-
be suitable for the uses to be made of it. Accordingly, the ORSMCO knowledge
-56-
-------
and competence must extend to an understanding of the uses and the place which
the waters of the Ohio River system have in the life of the Basin's people.
The objectives set in applicable statutes such as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the various state laws also must be taken into account.
Moreover, planning is the principal tool that ORSANCO can employ to co-
ordinate the actions and policies of the member jurisdictions and their agen-
cies in respect of the Ohio Basin. Since ORSANCO is a forum for the further-
ance of intergovernmental cooperation rather than the arbiter of the destiny
of the Ohio, its chief impact is in the basis that it can provide for the po-
licy, operating and regulatory programs of the states, federal agencies, and
to a lesser extent, local governments and the private sector. The success
which ORSANCO may hope to have in coordination will come from its ability to
marshal facts and to apply them in persuasive fashion whenever it seeks to
promote the meshing of the standards, managerial activities, public works pro-
gram, and other water quality related activities of the public and private en-
tities that have effects on the Ohio River system.
To these ends, a number of predictive and analytical methods can be used.
Deserving of special mention among them is stream modeling. ORSANCO has already
undertaken such an activity. It should be expanded so that it ultimately encom-
passes the entire Basin and all of the significant parameters which are or may
become subject to regulatory action or further planning and developmental con-
cern. While other agencies may also find it useful to do stream modeling in
their segments of the Basin, ORSANCO's work should constitute the centerpiece
of any such efforts. The reason is that only an interjurisdictional approach
can lead to development of a comprehensive model of this interjurisdictional
river system.
Accordingly, ORSANCO should prepare itself to assume the role of lead
agency or participant in planning undertakings.
Coordination and Accountability.
Coordination and accountability appear third on this list of priorities.
Nevertheless, they are of at least equal importance with stream data and plan-
ning programs. However, they are different in kind from any of the other ac-
tivities in which ORSANCO might engage.
Coordination and accountability are not substantive subject matter areas.
Rather they are techniques and procedures. Effective conduct of them must be
built on other programs in which ORSANCO engages.
It is sometimes an express or tacitly held view that coordination consists
of providing a meeting room, sending out invitations to confer and furnishing
a professional or technical secretary to take and distribute minutes. These
services are often indispensable, but they constitute only some of the mechani-
cal tools of coordination. They should not be mistaken for performance of the
function.
-57-
-------
ORSANCO would have no ability to promote the coordination of stream
standards among the several state portions of the river system if it did
not have a stream data program to provide the substantive knowledge on the
basis of which to call to the attention of the states and EPA the interjur-
isdictional problems and possible approaches to them.
It may be doubted that any agency will be able to have a catalytic or
coordinative input into Section 303 (e) plans made by the states for their
parts of the Ohio Basin, unless it is otherwise sufficiently a participant
in planning activities to understand the 303 (e) plans, to acquire the in-
sights that make competent analysis possible, and to command the profession-
al respect of the agencies whose planning it seeks to coordinate. Similar
observations apply to river basin planning pursuant to Section 209 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and areawide waste treatment management
planning pursuant to Section 208.
In those instances where it is desirable for ORSANCO to provide leader-
ship, the need is for substantive programs from which to develop both the
claim and the competence to lead. The technical expertise or policy crea-
tivity essential to anyone who would make worthwhile suggestions to others
concerning what they should do is not found in isolation. If recruited by
ORSANCO from the outside, individuals having these attributes might perform
coordinative functions for the interstate agency on the basis of their pre-
vious knowledge and experience. But once in ORSANCO employ, such staff mem-
bers can keep and further develop the ability to serve as coordinators only
if their work at the interstate agency gives them constant and active parti-
cipation in the program areas where they are to perform the coordinating
function. &
The usages of accountability are of the same order. ORSANCO is neither
strong enough nor the type of'agency which is able to compel obedience from
the states, EPA and the Corps. The data which ORSANCO collects and the analy-
ses which it makes of them must be the backbone of ORSANCO ability to make
one agency or jurisdiction accountable to another.
As pointed out in Chapter 3, the most clearly identifiable accountabil-
ity mechanism which ORSANCO has employed at some times in the past has been
the status report on treatment construction projects. There are several
reasons why the use of this accountability tehcnique has faltered in recent
years. Perhaps the most important is that ORSANCO has had no more than an
r°noc^ and Very llmlted Contact with enforcement. Making these reports
to ORSANCO has not seemed to the state water pollution control agencies to
have any significant context of ongoing programmatic interchange with the in-
terstate agency on enforcement matters. If ORSANCO should decide to under-
take the enforcement related activities suggested in Chapter 3, and if its
participation in interstate water quality planning becomes substantial, the
state water quality agencies would better appreciate the value of status re-
ports to ORSANCO and of any factfinding or negotiation concerning their con-
tents done by or under the auspices of the interstate agency
-58-
-------
But even more than status reports, accountability is accomplished in
a number of incidental ways which can be more effective than the conscious-
ly labeled activity. In the course of analyzing stream data and calling sub-
standard water quality conditions to the attention of the state, federal and
local agencies, accountability can be established in practical and concrete
terms.
Another reason why coordination and accountability are unusual kinds of
program items is that an idea of their significance cannot be gained by draw-
ing up work plans for them and giving them assigned rankings in the budget
and allocation of staff time. Undoubtedly, implementation of these program
elements will take time and money. However, it is easier and more meaning-
ful to think of such matters in the context of the standards making, planning,
stream reporting and analysis or other subject matters to which they will be
be applied.
Other Activities.
Chapter 3 discusses a large number of possible programs. From what is
said there, the reader can gain some idea as to our estimate of the relative
importance of each item. It does not seem useful to go further here in rank-
ing present and possible ORSAWCO activities on a priority scale. For the im-
mediate future, good performance of the several functions just mentioned
would command most if not all of the resources that the interstate agency can
reasonably be expected to muster.
Nevertheless, there are other activities that ORSAWCO can and should en-
gage in on a modest scale or as spin off from undertakings of principal con-
centration. Synergistic effects can make a tremendous difference in the total
worth of the agency.
For example, even if ORSAWCO does not specifically identify technical as-
sistance as a separate program function for which it is prepared on a major
scale, the possession of a sophisticated competence in the collection and an-
alysis of water quality data should mean the availability of staff whose exper-
tise could be provided on a limited basis to the participating jurisdictions
and perhaps, within reason, to others.
It was earlier suggested that ORSAWCO may not be able to afford much atten-
tion for a public information program. However, if a number of the recommenda-
tions made here are implemented, the Commission may find that it is furnishing
considerable information to important segments of the public. Good monitoring
and planning programs would provide considerable material from which to fash-
ion public information output.
-59-
-------
-------
CHAPTER 5
Resources for Program Accomplishment
Utilization of Present Resources.
In considering what the ORSANCO program should be, the Commission's
present staff, equipment, and financial resources should not be control-
ling, although they must be taken into account.
As this report is being written, ORSANCO is undertaking some staff ex-
pansion. It also has unexpended funds left from Fiscal Year 197^ and, due
to a projection of substantial increase in its monitoring and data process-
ing activities, is budgeting on the basis of hoped for additional appropria-
tions and program grant funds. Therefore, it is necessary to be explicit in
identifying what is meant when discussing "current resources" and their al-
location. In succeeding paragraphs, the expenditures and distribution of
staff activities for FY 197^ will be treated as current. This is done because
the year which concluded on June 30, 197^ is a certain and known quantity no
longer open to the vagaries of shifts in plans. It is also a convenient
base from which to begin the discussion because, at the time of writing, it
still represents with reasonable accuracy the manpower actually on hand. The
only exceptions are the adding of an Executive Director which occurred in
August 197*1 and an information specialist at the beginning of 1975-
The tables on pages 62-63 were developed by ORSMCO for use in its
amended program grant application to EPA. They show the distribution of
staff effort in the immediate past and as projected for the immediate future.
It is apparent that during FY 197^ staff time was fully committed and
no additional activities could have been undertaken, nor present ones in-
tensified, without adding personnel or otherwise supplementing the work
force. Of course, it is always open to consider whether it would have been
desirable to redistribute staff assignments, to eliminate or reduce concen-
tration on some program items, and to substitute others.
The 197^ figures support what is already known: i.e., the monitoring
and data processing programs dominate in any consideration of current ORSANCO
activities. They account for virtually half of all Commission activity. In-
deed, when the general administration of the Commission is put to one side,
the figure is approximately two-thirds.
In view of ORSANCO's relatively modest resources, one may ask whether,
this degree of concentration leaves enough to conduct any other programs at
levels which can make them sufficiently effective. Meaningful coordination
of the water quality and related activities of eight states, four EPA^regions,
and one or more other federal agencies as they impact on the Ohio Basin is a
large responsibility. It should not consume the attention of an imposing
bureaucracy, but it should receive at least several full man years of energy
during any twelve month period.
-61-
-------
Ta"ble no. 2
Man Power and Funding Requirements
i
cr\
ro
Revenue from:
Prior year carryover
States
U.S. EPA Grant
Miscellaneous Income
Prior year receivable
Income
Totals
Activities:
Monitoring and Surveillance
Data Processing and Evaluation
Planning
Criteria, Standards and
Special Studies
Enforcement
Public Information and Liaison
Administrative and Executive
Net Program Outlays
Funds Available-carried
forward to FY 1975
ORSANCO
FY 197!+
Man Years
1-3/8
5
1-lA
5/8
1/8
1-1/2
3-5/8
.3-1/2
- Program Plan
Amount
$ 8,522
220,000
268,200
6,323
1+9!+, 523
$503,01+5
$ 71,732
131,666
13,712
22,761
38,370
96,782
W01,509-a)
Compa
- FY 1975
Total Amended 1975-c)
Man Years Amount
$ 90,336-b)
220,000
351, OU9
3,800
11,200
586,Ql+9
$676,385
3 $210, U85
7-3A 222,800
1-1/2 hl,hOO
1/2 11,300
1/8 2^,200
2-1/8 1+3,100
1+ 123,100
19 $676,385
$101,536
(a- Reporting has been on a current year - FIFO Basis
(b- Excludes prior year receivable of $11,200 itemized below
(c- S
Comparison of FY 191k, 1975, & 1976
Projected FY 1976
Man Years Amount
9-lA
1-1/2
1/2
1/8
2-5/8
U-l/2
23
$375,000
376,300
3,800
755,100
$755,100
$252,700
239,000
U6,300
12,600
26,700
52,300
125,500
$755,100
page
for details
November 21, 19714
-------
Details of Amended FY 1975
Table no. 3
Revenue from:
Prior year carryover
States
U.S. EPA Grant
Miscellaneous Income
Prior year receivables
Income
Totals
Activities:
Monitoring & Surveillance
Data Processing & Evalua-
tion
Planning
Criteria, Standards &
Special Studies
Enforcement
Public Information &
Liaison
Administration &
Executive
Net program outlays
ORSANCO - Program Plan - FY 1975
FY 1975 Adlusted FY 1975 Addition FY 1975 Additional Req'd
Man Years
2
6-3A
1-1/2
1/2
1/8
1-1/8
3-1/2
15-1/2
Amount jyiaii icaia ^uuuniiu i-n^n j-^-^j.^ - - _-
$ 90,336-a)
220,000 , .
268,200 $56,7^9 $26,100
3,800
11 200
503,200 56,7^9 26,100
$593,536 $56,7^9 $26,100
$159,536 1/2 $2U,8U9 1/2 $26,100
208,700 i iU,ioo
11,300
2l|,200
29,300 1 13,800
119T1QO 1/2 U,000
$<5Q3.536 3 $56,7^9 1/2 $26,100
Total Amended 197_5_
Man Years Amount
$ 90,336
220,000
351,0^9
3,800
11,200
586,0^9
$676,385
3 $210,U85
7-3A 222,800
1-1/2 ltl,^00
1/2 11,300
1/8 21,200
2-1/8 U3,100
U 123,100
19 $676,385
(a- Excludes prior year receivable of $11,200 itemized below
November 21,
-------
Each of the other program items also has a threshold below which its
performance becomes subject to question. For example, the table shows one
and one-quarter man years of planning time during 197^- This figure, as
the others on the table, was developed from the time sheet records of the
Commission employees. The planning item included assistance with Section
303 (e) planning as required for performance by the states pursuant to the
Federal Act, and internal ORSAHCO planning. This latter comprises staff
time spent considering how policy directives from the Commission of all
kinds were to be implemented and how each of the several ORSA1ICO program
elements should be further developed and administered. Accordingly, a
very substantial part of the manpower allocation for planning could have
been assigned to the "administrative and executive" category. It would
seem that no time reflected on the time sheets was spent on the other kinds
of water quality planning called for by the Federal Act or otherwise en-
gaged in by the states, federal agencies, or other public bodies in the
Ohio Basin.
Even though the time records and the ORSANCO developed tables appear
to warrant this conclusion, our general observation leads us to wonder
whether it is literally accurate and whether consideration of these other
kinds of planning was in fact entirely neglected. Nevertheless, the point
is a significant one. ORSANCO presently possesses relatively little plan-
ning capability and, without augmentation of staff in this area, it will
not be able to respond satisfactorily to some of its greatest opportunities
for service.
We understand that under the revised FY 1975 budget approved on Octo-
ber 25, 197^- two environmental engineers are authorized for addition to
the staff. One of them is intended to have some responsibilities of a
planning character. However, this position is not conceived to be that of
a planner per se nor to add anything like a full man year of staff capa-
bility in the water quality planning field.
The Executive Director appreciates the need to reallocate staff re-
sponsibilities among present employees in order to secure more balanced
coverage of the several program elements already underway or likely to be
added in the near future. However, even when necessary reassignments are
accomplished, the present staff will not be adequate. Accordingly, the
intention to add as many as nine positions contemplates movement in an
appropriate direction. Whether the projected types of new personnel are
the most appropriate ones depends on the scope and emphasis of the Com-
mission's developing program.
On a small staff, every person must be regarded as a major addition
to overall capability. However, the Executive Director should not be
thought of as a significant contributor to the operation of any of the
specific program elements. No matter what his professional or technical
education and experience, his full time should be spent in administering
the Commission. In OKBANCO's situation, this means both oversight and
direction of staff activities and the greater part of the work in keep-
ing in contact with the commissioners and the higher officialdom of the
-6U-
-------
member states and EPA. Thus, in this discussion of staff available for
performance of each of the program elements, no specific assistance is
considered to come from the Executive Director.
In some respects, this exclusion of the Director overstates the si-
tuation. For example, should ORSANCO undertake to mediate interstate dis-
putes or to participate in negotiations on behalf of the member states
with EPA or the Corps, it is more than likely that the Director will be
heavily involved. Nevertheless, it is only safe to consider that the in-
formation and analyses employed by him will have been developed by other
staff members.
Similarly, the Director is likely to make more public appearances
on behalf of the Commission than anyone else. His speeches and partici-
pation in meetings or interviews may be regarded as significant contribu-
tions to the information and public relations program. However, it would
be inappropriate to look upon the Director as the ORSANCO public informa-
tion officer or even to count such time as he may spend in these pursuits
as part of the manpower allotment to a public information program.
Internal administration of the Commission received primary attention
from the Acting Executive Director, the Business Officer and some signifi-
cant portion of the three person secretarial force. Undoubtedly others
also spent fractions of their time on administration and this would have
to be taken into account in any detailed manpower study. However, for the
level of precision required in this discussion, it may be considered that
the two professionals and the three secretaries engaged in general admin-
istration represent a core for such tasks which must be assigned to this
area regardless of the size of the staff and the extent of the ORSANCO pro-
gram. Expansion or intensification of activities, if very substantial
might require an increase in personnel for the administrative function,
but program cutbacks would not likely make possible a significant reduc-
tion in the present administrative force.
It can also be assumed that unless ORSANCO becomes a very much larger
organization than at present, relatively little increase in the general
administration category will be necessary to service the internal needs of the
agency effectively. In this connection, however, it should be observed
that any major increases in staff will sooner or later require additional
office space and furnishings. ORSANCO's present offices can accommodate
only a modest increase in personnel. Nevertheless, we have not attempted
to estimate costs for such an item.
The collection, analysis and reporting of stream data is now the in-
terstate agency's largest activity. Consequently, most of the staff now
at the Commission is suitable for such activities. It would be beyond the
scope of this discussion to consider what replacements or substitutions
may be necessary if some of the personnel presently assigned to this pro-
gram element are shifted to other duties. Consequently, we will assume that
the present staff members, or equivalent replacements, now assigned to the
-65-
-------
collection, analysis and reporting of stream data will continue to be
utilized for such purposes. It also seems likely that most'of the aug-
mentation of staff now planned will "be in this area. The monitoring strat-
egy calls for substantial expansion, but most of ORSANCO's personnel con-
tribution should involve field personnel who will spend relatively little
time at the Cincinnati office.
Mew Resources.
The discussion in Chapter 3 supports the idea that the stream data pro-
gram should continue to be at the center of Commission activities. However,
a more varied program is recommended. It is also urged that ORSANCO rely
less on outside contractors and more on its own staff and coordinated under-
takings with state and EPA personnel for performance of the work. If ac-
cepted, these recommendations would necessitate the addition of kinds of
staff members not now employed.
Primarily, the additional need would be for field personnel to survey
stream conditions by actually being physically present on the waterways, to
take and analyze some of the samples, and to maintain the automatic moni-
tors .
No hard and fast recommendations concerning numbers of personnel are
possible at this time because much depends on the negotiated distribution
of work among the states, federal agencies and ORSANCO. Likewise, estimates
of direct costs to the Commission will vary, depending on the distribution
of work in making stream surveys, taking and analyzing samples, and in op-
erating the robot stations.
The type of staff not now possessed by ORSAWCO, but essential to round
out the data gathering system is field personnel. These should be kinds
suitable for performance of two basic functions: visual inspection and man-
ual sampling of the waterways, and routine maintenance of monitoring equip-
ment. If ORSAWCO makes arrangements with the states to perform some of the
wet chemistry checks at the more distant monitoring stations it will be pos-
sible to reduce the interstate agency's needs for additional personnel as-
signed to maintenance. As noted in Chapter 3, it also would be desirable
for such ORSAWCO personnel to pay visits to stations in the ORSANCO network
operated by others. This would be for the purpose of making sure that their
procedures and performance are such as to supply data consistent in kind and
quality with that obtained from ORSAWCO's own stations. In addition, some
of the Commission's senior professional and technical personnel who now rarely
work outside the Cincinnati office should pay reasonably frequent visits to
the field operations in order to maintain a comfortable familiarity with them,
as well as for purposes of supervision.
No effort is made here to calculate how much additional staffing the
field work of senior personnel would require in the totaling of man years of
activity for ORSANCO. The reason is that it is impossible at this time to
assess the effect of such redistribution of present staff assignments that
might be made among existing personnel in shifting the emphasis of the data
-66-
-------
gathering and analysis functions from essentially office situated work to
a combination of office and field activity. It is certain, however that
changes such as those envisaged in Chapter 3 would require the addition of
some personnel whose primary work locations would be in the field. Indi-
viduals of this kind are not now employed by ORSAJCO. Some of the present
ORSANCO staff members probably would be capable of performing field work.
However, their training, experience and compensation is more than called
for by the necessary field functions. Accordingly, it would be an under-
use of their abilities to reassign them in such a way.
Recognizing all the caveats already stated, one might reasonably con-
sider an ORSANCO field staff of ten. This would include four sanitarians
with enough education in the sciences to qualify them to inspect and ap-
praise river conditions, and also to be the backbone of the ORSANCO com-
ponent of the intensive stream surveys. In this connection, it should be
noted that the 1976 projected budget for ORSANCO already envisages three
"field aides" who appear to be fairly close to the salary level, and per-
haps to the qualifications, which we would consider appropriate for the
sanitarians.
The sampling and maintenance duties of the field force might be served
by two electronic technicians and four semi-professional or semi-technical
fieldmen.
It should be emphasized that these suggestions are based on the prem-
ise that large parts of the overall data gathering, analysis and report-
ing system will be performed by the states and federal agencies , but with
ORSANCO coordination. It should also be understood that the personnel in-
volved are not to be considered unipurpose staff members. To some extent,
they may be used interchangeably on the several aspects of the field opera-
tions. Their presence in the field would give ORSANCO a dimension to its
program which does not now exist and which could produce great flexibility.
The yearly operating cost for the field activities here outlined might
total $1^6,^00. A breakdown of this figure shows a budget allowance of
$58,^00 for the four sanitarians, an estimated $7,000 in travel expenses
which includes gas, tolls, repairs, and finally $5,000 for depreciation of
the vehicles. The total is $70,^00. The initial capital cost is estimated
at $20,000 of which $12,000 would be spent on the purchase of the four
motor vehicles and $8,000 on necessary equipment for the motor vehicles.
To support the maintenance of the remote water monitoring system, two
electronic technicians and four fieldmen would be hired at a yearly salary
operating cost of $60,000. Travel costs and depreciation for two vans
and two other motor vehicles would account for $U,000 and $12,000 respec-
tively, giving a total of $76,000 for operating costs. An additional
$18,000 would be needed to purchase and equip the four vehicles.
Differences in cost between the present ORSANCO stream data program
and the one proposed in this report will depend in part on the amount of
shifting of program emphasis and personnel responsibilities that actually
-67-
-------
occurs. Some degree of lessened emphasis on robot monitors in favor of
more manual sampling could mean that funds and manpower allotments other-
wise destined for present categories could be used to accomplish parts of
the new or expanded components.
Much also depends on the proportions of state, federal and ORSANCO
personnel and other resources which will go to make up the cooperative un-
dertakings. The ORSAWCO budgets and staff allocations will need to re-
flect only the stream data activities being directly performed by the in-
terstate agency.
The most clearly new item would be the stream surveys to be made by
intensive physical traversal of the waterways in boats. Judging from the
experience of the Interstate Sanitation Commission in conducting similar
surveys, they could be accomplished for an expenditure of not to exceed
$100,000 per year, if four surveys were done annually. This figure in-
cludes boat and crew rentals for a sufficient number of days to do the
work. To the extent that state or federally owned boats can be contri-
buted, the cost could be reduced. Also, it seems probable that, after
the initial surveys establish a good data base, the number of surveys per
year could be cut back.
Planning (including stream modeling and the several kinds of activity
discussed in Chapter 3) would require the addition of a kind of personnel
not now on the ORSANCO staff. It is true that senior professionals now in
ORSAWCO employ have had the kinds of experience on the job and with the
Ohio Basin to engage in some activities of a planning character. Indeed,
such attention as ORSANCO has been able to devote to Section 303 (e) Plan-
ning, as required of states pursuant to the Federal Act Amendments of 1972,
has been accomplished by persons who are not planners by academic training
or principal work experience. However, there are limits to what can be
done by pressing staff members into service when their major interests and
responsibilities lie in other necessary fields of interstate agency activity.
It may be possible to accomplish the stream modeling ingredient of
the proposed planning program with present personnel. They are engaged in
the work now. The amount of additional time that they could give to this
aspect of the Commission program depends on the nature and extent of re-
assignments of work responsibilities that may occur in the process of
strengthening ORSAWCO's overall staff activities. However, nothing addi-
tional is suggested here because we do not anticipate that a significant
increase in time spent on modeling should be projected until some of ORSANCOTs
other needs have been met.
To coordinate state activities for the Ohio Basin of the several kinds
envisaged by the Federal Act Amendments of 1972 and to make contributions
of a substantive nature to them will require personnel with specific water
resources planning education and experience. The field is a large one and
could justify more of a staff increment than is presently warranted in view
of other needs. An addition of two or three such planners in the near fu-
ture is highly desirable. At current salary scales, this would mean a
-------
cost of $30,000 to $50,000 annually.
The addition of, or increase in the level of activity for any one
or more of the other program elements suggested in Chapter 3 probably
would involve cost factors. No effort will be made to estimate them
here because they involve variables too numerous to postulate at this
juncture. Much depends on the kinds of program elements which the Com-
mission chooses to emphasize and for which it increases its staff capa-
bilities. Moreover, the development of stronger and more varied programs
will itself lead to a readiness to engage in some of the most vital func-
tions of an interstate agency on a more frequent and sustained basis.
For example, a more numerous professional and technical staff will find it
easier to devote time to participate in the negotiation of interstate
and federal-interstate matters, to undertake project management of re-
search, or to render technical assistance. Assuming enhanced staff cap-
ability, some increment of these functions could be accomplished as by-
product activities, or by adding only modest costs for limited travel.
Obtaining the Resources.
In FY 197^ ORSAWCO expenditures were substantially below income.
This was due to a temporary internal situation which made the agency less
active than it would normally have been. As we have seen, the projections
for 1975 and 1976 call for levels of expenditure which will require about
fifty percent more in appropriations and grants than ORSANCO has ever re-
ceived in the past. Moreover, the financial plans approved on October 25,
197^ and the program delineations on which they are based would fully com-
mit both the funds which ORSANCO might previously have been expected to
receive and the increased support being requested of the states and EPA.
As these pages have shown, the current ORSANCO intention is to expand its
program, although not entirely along the lines suggested in this report.
Yet, the Commission has also evidenced an intention to reexamine its pro-
gram in the light of this study and to make such changes as in its view
may be warranted.
The main difference between the plan underlying the October
budget projections and the recommendations contained in this report is
that the former is more closely tied to a continuation of the Commission's
activities in the present mold, albeit with considerable expansion.
Implementation of the recommendations made in this report could re-
sult in shifts of emphasis in the stream data system, with reductions in
some aspects and increases in others. The overall program would be a
larger one than the one presently envisaged by the Commission, but the
costs to ORSANCO would not necessarily be commensurately higher. By re-
directing or only modestly expanding some of their efforts in the Ohio
Basin, the member states and EPA, acting in concert with ORSANCO , could
acieve the more balanced and much more useful program of stream data col-
lection, analysis and use.
-------
Nevertheless, it must be recognized that a program vhich ascertains
and Accurately reports the wider range of quality conditions on a timely
basis does require a greater level of expenditure than needed for a robot
monitoring and attendant data processing operation alone. We believe that
once the water quality management agencies, Governors, State Legislatures
and EPA are aware of the differences between the results to be produced by
the narrower and broader programs, it should be possible to demonstrate to
their satisfaction the merit of the more comprehensive approach.
There are two elements of our recommendations which would most clear-
ly result in greater direct expenditures by ORSANCO. These are the diver-
sification or enrichment of program to be carried on by ORSANCO itself and
the extension of the interstate agency's activities to include the tribu-
taries on a more regular and consistent basis. The former is emphasized
in Chapter 3 and the latter receives attention in Chapter 7. But even
these new or broadened activities are not necessarily to be regarded as
costs that would not otherwise be incurred.
In a number of instances, the program recommendations are for activ-
ities which will be performed to implement the Federal Act Amendments of
1972. As a practical matter, states will find it necessary to perform
many of them with their own funds. Federal grants will provide only part
of the cost. Where interstate agency performance is less expensive, more
convenient, or productive of a superior result, entrusting the activity
wholly or partly to ORSANCO may actually accomplish a saving or return
the best value. Where the alternative is EPA or other federal agency per-
formance, the advantages of ORSANCO participation may be financial, ad-
ministrative, or in the promotion of better intergovernmental cooperation.
-70-
-------
CHAPTER 6
Staff, Committees and Commission
Staff.
When this study began in May 197'+5 the Commission had thirteen em-
ployees, including one temporary and a long time senior employee who was
Acting Director.
Of course, with so small a work force, it would be fictional to con-
struct a table of organization that showed each person confined to one
type of activity or even to those most suitable for his or her training
and experience. But among them, they either were doing all that ORSANCO
accomplished or they had to find such ways as they could of supplementing
their input.
On August 15, 197^ a new Director assumed his duties. Early in 1975
an information specialist was added. Thus, at the time of this report,
the staff totals fifteen; it has never been larger.
It must be borne in mind that ORSANCO is not intended to carry the
basic responsibility, and certainly not the complete onus, for water qual-
ity management throughout the Basin. Nevertheless, even the conduct of
the present ORSANCO programs at reasonable levels of performance requires
greater professional and technical time and more supporting personnel ac-
tivity than a staff of the present size can possibly provide.
The situation places the staff, and ultimately the Commission, in an
unfair position. By purporting to run a program which tells everyone al-
most everything they might wish or need to know about water quality condi-
tions on the Ohio, ORSANCO is placed in the position of embracing more
than it can be expected to achieve. It has sometimes attempted to appear
to do miraculous things and hope that they will be accepted as authorita-
tive because they constitute the best that can be done under very limiting
circumstances.
A belief that the system is doing more than in fact it can, stands in
the way of improvement. Thus, it may be difficult to persuade the states
and others that the expansion called for in the recent staff report on
monitoring strategy, to say nothing of other meritorious changes, should
be made.
For example, it has been explained to us that the policy of contrac-
ting out several of the agency's key operations is an advantage because
it permits flexibility. This method of operating avoids building up a
staff of a particular kind which might not be suitable if ORSANCO's work
should undergo a change in emphasis. Even so, a degree of inflexible spe-
cialization has been produced by the need for several computer personnel
who cannot readily share in other work.
Nevertheless, this may be so as a generalization, but it leaves the
Commission with a staff whose capabilities are too narrowly restricted.
-71-
-------
Contracting.
Contracting out the maintenance of the robot monitors makes ORSANCO
completely dependent on the contractor. If there are no staff members
who can regularly make visits to the monitoring installations and only
one or two with training and experience that would permit them to eval-
uate what they might see on inspection, the Commission itself is in a
poorer position to understand its own system, to develop improvements
in it, or even to check on the service received from the contractor.
This may be a particularly opportune time to reassess the contrac-
ting policy. Now that expansion of the monitoring network is being sought,
an increased volume of activity may be anticipated. It is generally the
case that an operation becomes more feasible in-house as its size and
frequency increases.
Of course, this is not to say that contracting is an inappropriate
practice, or even that services received from present contractors are un-
satisfactory. Many of the program elements suggested in Chapter 3 un-
doubtedly would require the services of contractors. However, the Com-
mission staff should keep intimate control over ORSAWCO's key operations.
This is most likely to be achieved on an in-house basis.
Use of Committees.
Another device which has been used to supply resources not possessed
on a staff basis is the extensive use of committees. As will be pointed
out shortly, this is not the only purpose for their utilization. However,
it has been an important consideration.
Preparation of industrial waste control manuals produced by ORSANCO
in past years is a good case in point. Each such publication was developed
by a committee composed of members of the industry concerned. Undoubtedly,
this brought a great storehouse of expertise to the Commission at little or
no expense. But for a public agency to depend so heavily on the interests
subject to regulation could make ORSANCO vulnerable to criticism. Some
might look askance at placing the imprimatur of a public agency on treat-
ment practice manuals prepared by such sources, especially if they had rea-
son to know that available technical supervision or evaluation from the
staff was limited.
ORSANCO also uses a committee for its work on aquatic life resources.
In this instance, the membership of the committee is recruited from per-
sons who are experts in the field and who do not appear to have any affilia-
tions of kinds that would be open to question. However, the formulation of
a very limited program and the financial situation is such that the commit-
tee meets only several times a year and is remunerated only for days in at-
tendance at meetings, including travel expenses. We understand that indivi-
dual committee members do some work in the intervals between meetings on an
uncompensated basis.
-72-
-------
However, it is difficult to see how ORSMCO can sustain a meaningful
effort relating to the problems of aquatic life on the Ohio in this way.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the members of the committee are
regularly resident and employed outside the Basin and so are unlikely to
maintain an intimate knowledge of the river system and its environs. This
limitation is mitigated only in part by the practice of selecting the Com-
mittee from among persons who have spent previous parts of their careers
in the Basin. However, the committee approach would be only somewhat less
undesirable as ORSMCO' s principal reliance if its members were resident
in the Basin.
The usual function of committees composed of persons not otherwise
associated with a public agency is to provide advice and to help keep the
agency informed of interest group opinion. Some of them may furnish in-
formation which lightens the tasks of the staff and which provides the
agency's governing authority with parts of the background useful to the
consideration of policy issues. However, the extent to which ORSMCO has
relied on such inputs in the past as substitutes for or major supplementa-
tion of staff work is open to question.
This is even truer now than during the 1950s and 1960s. At that
time, interest representation on the governing boards of agencies charged
with regulation of water pollution was widespread and generally accepted.
In more recent times, however, such representation has become less custom-
ary because of the feeling that it interferes with the objectivity of the
public agency. Whether or not this has ever been so in ORSMCO' s case is
not now relevant. However, the development of a staff that can itself do
the agency's work is vital. The importance of public confidence in ORSMCO's
impartiality is beyond question. It should be emphasized that these ob-
servations are in no way intended as disapproval of the full use of advi-
sory c'ommittees provided only that they are employed in ways customary for
such bodies.
The kind of committee structure ORSMCO should have depends on the
kind of agency it is to be. If ORSMCO adopts the premises underlying
this report, and if its programs develop along some of the lines proposed
here, ORSMCO will be a fact finding, planning and coordinating agency.
Its data and views will have an effect on the regulatory policies and ac-
tions of state and federal agencies, but its own direct regulatory functions
will be of a standby character and will come into play only occasionally.
Commissioners.
Each participating state and federal jurisdiction selects its own
three ORSANCO commissioners according to its own laws and appointment pol-
icies. The patterns vary, and the exercise of executive discretion in the
several jurisdictions can produce a shift in the kinds of members who com-
pose the Commission as a whole. There is a considerable variety which,
at least if one judges from member affiliations, produces a mixture of re-
presentative qualities. The largest single group is of officials who hold
-73-
-------
full-time positions in the state and federal governments and whose respon-
sibilities are directly in the field of water resources and environmental
matters. The citizen commissioners are and have "been variously drawn from
academic life and industry. Presently, and for the first time in the Com-
mission's history, one commissioner is the operator of a public treatment
plant and another is a representative of a state League of Women Voters.
Accordingly, there is at least some representation from officialdom, spe-
cial interest groups, and the general public.
Two of the present intergovernmental commissions having water quality
management responsibilities are federal-interstate compact agencies. This
means that their compacts (those for the Delaware and Susquehanna River
Basin Commissions) have been enacted by Congress as federal laws instead
of merely being consented to by Congress in the manner of most interstate
compacts. Another consequence is that the United States is a full party
and has a vote equal to that of a party state.
As the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basin Compacts are much broader
in scope than the ORSANCO Compact and include regulatory powers of kinds
that could not be effective unless embodied in federal as well as state
law, the status of federal-interstate compact rather than merely of inter-
state compact seems appropriate to their needs. In ORSANCO's case, however,
much of the effect of a federal-interstate compact is achieved in practice
by the presence of the three federal commissioners. This is the same vot-
ing strength as that of a party state, except that the compact excludes the
federal commissioners from voting on the taking of enforcement action. Per-
haps even more important than the vote is the fact that the federal commis-
sioner who represents EPA takes an active part, both in the Commission and
on its Engineering Committee,
It remains to be considered what kind of a body ORSANCO proposes to be
and on that basis, to determine what the Commission itself and its commit-
tee structure should expect their roles to be.
Our suggested answer to the first part of the question has already been
given. ORSAICO has its greatest opportunities for service as a fact find-
ing, planning and coordinating mechanism. For this purpose, a commission
composed partly of state and federal environmental officials and partly of
properly chosen representatives of key elements of the public is quite
suitable. However, the commissioners themselves are not likely to present
an ideal distribution of persons who ca.n represent or reflect in sufficient
depth all of these points of view.
Further, the commissioners, if they act only through attendance at
and participation in commission meetings, are not likely to have a deter-
minative impact on the work of the agency. A one-day meeting held three
times a year does not give a commissioner more than a cursory acquaintance
with the problems and activities of ORSANCO. On the other hand, it may be
unrealistic to expect much more from individuals who are unpaid citizen
representatives. The public official members, whose service on ORSANCO is
in the nature of ex officio duty, may be expected to devote considerably
more time, and a number of them do. However, this fact alone gives the
several kinds of commission members unequal influence.
-------
The position and use of committees can help to redress the balance,
at least so far as giving full exposure to the points of view of the varied
constituency.
For this purpose, a proliferation of committees is not now necessary.
A stream monitoring program, for example, does not require an industry-by-
industry examination of problems. Although the kinds of planning and co-
ordination that ORSANCO is most likely to be doing will benefit from a
broad information base, they too are unlikely to require a continuous re-
view from individual forms of manufacturing enterprise. The only foresee-
able exception appears to be in the field of energy. The need dramatical-
ly to expand energy sources, and the pressures which this is virtually
certain to put on coal production, as well as the use of all fossil fuels
and nuclear materials, argue strongly for the rearrangement of some of the
present ORSANCO committee organization to establish an Energy Committee
which would encompass both mining and power generating activities. The
other industrial pursuits could be represented on a consolidated Industry
Committee.
An interest group which has not generally been considered by pollu-
tion control agencies is Agriculture. In the past, it has not been thought
important to do so because Agriculture is not usually identified with
point sources. However, there would seem to be at least two reasons why
an advisory committee on Agriculture might be merited. One is that farmers
are water users. Especially as supplemental irrigation grows in the more
humid parts of the country, farmers will become increasingly concerned
with the quality of water in streams in much the same way as industrial
users. Secondly, if ORSANCO should decide to interest itself in the prob-
lems of nonpoint sources, Agriculture will be an important consideration.
Under such circumstances, farm interests should have an input to Commis-
sion deliberation.
Another kind of interest which ORSANCO has constantly dealt with is
that of local government. Cities, counties, and special districts are re-
sponsible for the collection and treatment of wastes, including their dis-
posal. While the Commission itself presently has one member who is respon-
sible for a local treatment system, the interests of local government in
the quality of the Ohio are substantial and diverse enough to merit the
kind of recognition that an advisory committee would accord.
Then there is the question of input from the general public. This is
always difficult to obtain in a truly comprehensive fashion because most
members of the general public are inarticulate or not sufficiently informed
to present views on water quality issues in specific or tangible form.
However, a committee that would have membership from civic organizations
which display interests in water and from recreational interests could
round out a balanced network of contacts for ORSANCO with the Ohio Basin
community. ORSANCO already has such an advisory committee but needs to
develop further its input.
If one of the aforementioned committees is inappropriate to consider
a particular problem needing attention, the special committee device could
-75-
-------
be employed. However, it is our belief that the proposed number and kinds
of advisory committees would cover the desirable range of'ORSANCO's public
contacts.
Another reason to keep the number of regularly functioning committees
at a_minimum is that, in order to be most effective, each committee should
receive regular staff services from and meet with an appropriate senior
staff member. In some instances, it also might be desirable to place Com-
mission members on one or another of the committees. There is precedent
for this because at times in the past ORSMCO did designate a commissioner
as liaison member on industry committees.
However, if either or both of these practices are to be followed a
large number of committees would place unreasonable burdens on staff time
on Commission members, or both. '
Engineering Committee.
The Commission also has an internal committee structure for the con-
sideration of such matters as policy, finance, and engineering matters.
inese are composed of Commission members and, in the case of the Engineer-
ing Committee, of a mixture of members and senior state and federal agency
personnel having water resources responsibilities. Most of these commit-
tees require no special comment in this report. However, the Engineering
Committee holds a special place and does merit discussion.
There is a feeling on the part of some ORSMCO commissioners and
among others who have occasion to observe the Commission's workings that
the Engineering Committee has at times become the principal policy organ
of ORSMCO and that its meetings have sometimes made the important deci-
sions. Those who express this point of view go further and assert that
the Commission is merely a proforma ratifying body to make official what
the Engineering Committee has decided.
These sentiments are reported here, not because they are necessarily
correct, but because the Engineering Committee has over a long period of
years been the place where substantive issues of water quality management
on the Ohio are most thoroughly discussed. As such, they have provided a
T™irnr P^Ce ^^ the Commission meetings to acquire an understanding
of ORSMCO activities and of the views of the states concerning the inter-
state agency's role and program.
_ Perhaps "Engineering" is not appropriately descriptive of the Com-
mittee s scope. The rationale for the title is that the Committee is
concerned with technical matters of sanitary engineering and related dis-
ciplines having to do with water pollution control. However, because its
members are administrative heads or representatives of state water pollu-
tion control agencies, EPA, the Department of the Interior and the Corps,
the Engineering Committee has considered water quality problems and pro-
grams more broadly than in terms of scientific or technical aspects/
This report has emphasized the importance of coordination as a func-
tion for ORSANCO. It has been pointed out that this is a need on a federal-
-76-
-------
state as well as on an interstate basis.
The Engineering Committee is one of the mechanisms that is available
for the furtherance of coordination. But one important element is lacking.
Region 5 of EPA is present because its Director is an ORSANCO commissioner
and has taken an interest in the Engineering Committee as well as in the
Commission itself. This might encourage the supposition that all of EPA
is thus effectively represented because, within that agency, Region 5 has
been considered to have the principal role in dealing with ORSANCO. How-
ever, the coordination of policies and actions of the several EPA regions
as they affect the various parts of the Ohio Basin is not achieveable by
or through Region 5- For this reason, it is suggested that consideration
be given to representation of all four EPA regions on the Engineering
Committee. In matters where voting is important, such a course might make
it necessary to conform the EPA vote to its proportionate place on the
Commission. However, it seldom becomes a question of totaling up the for-
mal affirmatives and negatives. As members of the Committee, all four
EPA regions, the Corps, the Interior Department and the eight-state water
quality agencies could come together for the resolution of common matters.
It is recognized that the ORSANCO Compact is generally viewed primarily
as an interstate coordinating mechanism. However, the participation of
the three federal commissioners which is pursuant to direct provision of
the Compact suggests that ORSANCO was also conceived in federal-state
terms, although it seems doubtful that during the 1930s and 19UOs there
was any real conception of the pattern of federal-state relations that
has since developed.
Source of Initiative.
The relationship of the Commission, its staff, and the committee
structure is important for a variety of reasons. It is elementary that
the Commission is the governing board and that the other organs provide
means of informing it or getting its work done. But there is more to
it.
A vital question in determining ORSANCO's role is where the ideas
and initiatives for the interstate agency's functions and program are to
come from. In any given Instance, the source could be almost anywhere.
Even a suggestion volunteered by an outsider might strike fertile ground.
However, the environment in which ORSANCO lives makes it more likely that
its shape and progress will be powered by some engines more than by others.
EPA carries a large persuader in the form of its program grants. Its
importance as the administrator and interpreter of the crucial federal
water pollution control law also should be emphasized.
The states are vital to ORSANCO because the compact is state law and
because each of them contributes funds. But if ORSANCO is to prosper, the
staff must be the primary engine for the development of the agency's role;
for the identification of new program possibilities; and for the presen-
tation of them in ways that will win approval from the commissioners, the
states and EPA.
-77-
-------
The commissioners are part-time officials whose principal interests
lie elsewhere, either in the state agencies which they serve full time
or in the private pursuits from which they draw their livelihoods. It is
not to denigrate their interest and helpfulness to say that most of the
time they are not concerned with ORSAWCO at all.
This is at least as true of the members of advisory committees. Each
such member may serve because of private or personal motivations which
lead to a concern with public machinery for water quality management on
the Ohio. But, except by accident, none is likely to have the knowledge
or the perseverance to formulate and develop program plans for the inter-
state agency.
Unlike any of ORSAWCO's components, the staff is continuously on the
job and, unlike any other component, the professional and personal welfare
of the staff is more affected by the course the agency takes. The staff
is legally controlled by the Commission and its constituents. Moreover,
this is as it should be. But unless the staff informs, persuades and pro-
poses, no one else is likely to think of uses for ORSAHCO.
This is yet another reason why the present chapter began by consider-
ing the condition of the staff. Size means expense. But insufficient
size means a lack of time to think and analyze and an absence of the di-
verse skills and points of view essential to identify the agency's proper
missions and implement them with imagination.
-78-
-------
CHAPTER 7
The Interests of Participating Jurisdictions
Many of the interests of the eight states and the federal government
in managing water quality in the Ohio Basin are held in common. So are
some of the values which they may hope to obtain from an interstate agen-
cy. However, the various jurisdictions are bound to view the river system
from their own geographic position on it and in terms of its relationship
to their overall needs and responsibilities.
Each of the states and the United States, therefore, have differing
stakes in ORSANCO. Nevertheless, in this analysis, it is helpful to group
the participants and then to examine such individual differences as may be
significant. Five states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio
and Indiana) may be regarded as having the largest concerns. They are on
the main stem. This waterway and its tributaries within or bordering their
territory constitute major resources associated with large parts of their
geographic area. The United States may be similarly regarded in that it
has jurisdiction over and responsibilities for the whole Basin, but impor-
tant though the Ohio may be, it is only a small part of the nation's total
water resources.
New York, Virginia and Illinois have a less intense interest in the
problems of the main stem of the Ohio. In the case of the first two states,
their presence is only on tributary or headwater streams. Illinois bor-
ders the lower part of the main stem, but in a sparsely populated area.
The actual or potential value of ORSANCO to the member states and
the United States can be properly judged only by examining the present and
possible future programs of the interstate agency. Substantiated opinions
can then be formed as to whether the services rendered or proposed are
worthwhile and who will benefit from them. Such a discussion of program
components appears in Chapter 3.
The first fact to be considered is that ORSANCO is comparatively lit-
tle known. This may not be recognized by those whose professional activi-
ties bring them into fairly frequent contact with ORSANCO or by sanitary
engineers and other water resources specialists who have learned of ORSANCO
through the technical literature. Nonetheless, it is true that very few
of the people on the street have ever heard of ORSANCO. Even the present
cadre of state and federal officials who, by reason of their work responsi-
bilities, might be thoughtto have some interest in the condition of the
Ohio Basin, if taken as a group, know relatively little about this inter-
state agency. Undoubtedly, this situation will change if ORSANCO increases
its level of activity and diversifies its programs. However, it is de-
sirable to reexamine the ORSANCO clientele and the geographic focus of the
agency's activities.
The district over which the Compact gives ORSANCO jurisdiction in-
cludes the entire Basin, aside from the bulk of the Tennessee and Cumber-
land watersheds. Yet, it seems to have been the predominant view that
-79-
-------
the interstate agency should "be concerned almost exclusively with the
Ohio River from Pittsburgh to Cairo, and with its tributaries only to
the extent that water quality conditions in them demonstrably affect
water quality in the main stem. Whether correctly or not, in most cases
that has been taken to mean that ORSANCO should concern itself only in
short stretches of particular tributaries immediately above the conflu-
ence with the main stem.
Of course, this approach has not been followed with complete con-
sistency. At various times ORSANCO has been involved with studies on
the Allegheny, Mahoning, Monongahela, Muskingum and the Wabash. Most
recently, the assumption of responsibility for the Allegheny River moni-
toring stations originally installed by the Corps is an undertaking far
removed from the main River. Nevertheless, with relatively few excep-
tions, the proposition has been accepted by ORSANCO for some years.
Geographic and hydrologic circumstances will continue to argue for
more involvement of the interstate agency on the main stem than else-
where. Nevertheless, we believe that more attention should be paid to
the tributaries and the headwater rivers than has heretofore been the case.
Certainly, ORSANCO should concern itself with those tributaries which are
interstate in character and with those which have or may have a signifi-
cant influence on the main stem. The reasons for this view will become
apparent from an examination of the values of the interstate agency with
respect to both the narrower and the broader concepts of its responsibil-
ities .
General Values.
The interstate agency has functioned as a forum for the sharing of
information and experience. Our interviews in each of the eight states
have testified to this point in greater or less degree. The performance
of this function has not been necessarily limited to the specific areas
for which ORSANCO gathers data, exhibits interest in enforcement, or for
whose benefit it seeks to influence the flow regimen.
The work of the Industry Advisory Committees has been frequently
mentioned in this connection. During the 1950s and 1960s, they undertook
studies and prepared manuals on waste problems and treatment methods which
were considered valuable sources of information by all the states. The
materials were not necessarily limited in their utility to industries and
regulatory agencies on the main stem of the Ohio, nor even to the Ohio
Valley as a whole. Indeed, interest in them was sometimes international.
It is of continuing benefit to the administrators of the eight states
to meet periodically. When they do so, they gain knowledge of each other's
problems and attitudes. It is true that some other organizations (notably
the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administra-
tors) offer somewhat similar opportunities. However, they do so only once
a year and on a nationwide basis which makes the contact more general, and
perhaps even more casual.
-80-
-------
Virginia, New York and Illinois, for example, have only limited re-
gional forums in which all can share experiences. For two of these three
states, the Great Lakes Commission created by interstate compact and the
Great Lakes Basin Commission established under Title 2 of the Water Resources
Planning Act might serve similar purposes. But they do so only slightly.
Because the focus of neither agency is specifically on water quality, the
state pollution control administrators do not often attend their meetings,
and in any event, each lake is in many respects a separate entity.
Some of the activities discussed in Chapter 3 will have value for all
member states, regardless of the specific areas at which they are directed.
For example, it has already been pointed out that the registry of deep wells
can be used for comparative purposes as well as for information on parti-
cular injection sites. Also, if ORSANCO were to engage in the sponsoring
of research, the findings, in most cases, would have a basinwide application
or even a broader significance. Presumably, members representing states
not on the main stem would have a voice in selecting the projects and so
could influence choices so that they would be of regionwide or general in-
terest.
The problem of federal-state coordination also is one which has broader
significance for the member states than the geographic limits of the Ohio
Basin. Each of the eight states can benefit from exchange of views on the
policies and attitudes of three other EPA regional offices serving different
sectors of the Basin. Thus, they may acquire some insights which will as-
sist them in negotiations with their own EPA regional organizations.
There is also a value to membership in an organization which affords
continuing information as to developments and attitudes in other parts of
a Basin which the state shares. If interstate allocation of waste loadings
becomes appropriate, or if planning to forestall its necessity is undertaken,
all of the eight states may be concerned to assure that the equities are
properly considered and balanced.
Further, if flow regulation for quality purposes is much developed for
the benefit of the main River, control of withdrawals, diversions and re-
leases is likely to be practiced in the headwaters and far up the tribu-
taries as well as closer to the main stem. All states would want to have
a voice in this process.
Specific Values.
Other values of participation in ORSANCO depend on the agency's pro-
grams being applied to particular parts of the Basin. Accordingly, it is
difficult to look further at ORSAWCO from the point of view of each of the
member states and of EPA without determining whether the Commission will be
active in: all parts of the Basin, on the Allegheny and Monongahela and
the main stem of the Ohio River only, or on the Ohio River and some other
selected tributaries. Before proceeding to discuss each of these alterna-
tives, some observations on the significance of the compact under present
circumstances for New York, Virginia and Illinois are in order.
-81-
-------
At present budget conditions, New York contributes $2,332 annually to
ORSANCO, and Virginia's share is $7,52^. It does not require much service
from the interstate agency to make such expenditures worthwhile. Contacts
with the other states in the Basin, the availability of a forum in which
regional problems can be discussed, and even an occasional gain of informa-
tion or insight is sufficient to more than justify this kind of cost.
Perhaps of more significance is the amount of staff time which any
member state should spend in examining ORSANCO documents and attending
ORSANCO meetings, if participation is to be fruitful. Under present cir-
cumstances, this does not amount to more than a few days a year and thus
represents a minimal internal cost.
In view of the relatively small amount of specific attention paid
to the New York and Virginia portions of the Basin in the past, we sought
to ascertain whether either state had ever requested services of the in-
terstate agency that were not forthcoming or suggested any alterations in
its program for the purpose of increasing ORSANCO activity in ways that
they would consider beneficial to them. No such requests ever appear to
have been made.
Illinois is in a slightly different category from the two headwaters
states. It is at the lower end of the Basin and thus the recipient of
whatever pollution finds its way into the river system and has not been
dissipated in the journey downstream. However, because its percentage of
the basin budget is small, Illinois currently contributes only $11,088.
This sum is greater than either New York or Virginia but is still not in
a range that would require much in the way of benefits to justify the pur-
chase price. Indeed, being a party to the compact obligations that pledge
the upstream states to control and abate pollution in the waters which
sooner or later reach Illinois, is itself worth something. In this sense,
the existence of an active regional forum in which Illinois can regularly
make known its desires with respect to water quality management on the
Ohio River is a positive advantage.
The ORSANCO Program Area.
The several alternatives of geographic area in which ORSANCO should
concentrate its activities have often been in the minds of the people most
intimately associated with the interstate agency. However, the reasons
for choosing one or another are seldom articulated. Consequently, even
identifying them accurately and fairly may be open to some contrariety of
opinion. Nevertheless, an analysis of the geographic focus of ORSANCO at-
tention must present them as the analyst perceives the problems.
The proposition which seems to have widest adherence among the member
states is that ORSANCO should concentrate its activities on the main stem
from Pittsburgh to Cairo. It should concern itself with tributaries only
for short distances above their confluence with the main stem, and then
only where it can be easily demonstrated that conditions are such as to
markedly affect the Ohio River. Since the compact gives ORSAWCO jurisdiction
-82-
-------
over the entire river system within the member states, the justifications
for this narrower definition of the area of active interest must "be examined.
One explanation is that the main stem is nearly one thousand miles long
and is a big enough bite for ORSANCO to chew. Given the interstate agency's
present and past resources and its distribution of them among and within its
several program activities, there has been little opportunity or substance to
devote to matters off the main stem.
Another consideration is that nobody really loves a policeman. While
interstate accountability is one of the primary reasons for the compact, the
states are understandably sometimes ambivalent toward the forms it might
take. This is especially to be considered in the light of the enforcement
powers which bulk so large in the language of the compact. Even though
ORSANCO has in fact participated only marginally as a direct enforcement
agent, there may have been a certain amount of concern over the possibility
that it might do so and that, in such circumstances, it would be better to
keep the interstate agency off the tributaries. The state agencies tend to
regard many of these as intrastate waters, even though they are parts of an
interstate system.
The view that ORSANCO could fully occupy itself on the main River if
it chooses to do so is sound enough. Anything like full implementation of
the program possibilities discussed in Chapter 3 would require much more
staff and money than ORSANCO is likely to have for some time to come.
On the other hand, such a geographic focus of attention restricts the
value of the agency for the two states not on the main stem. While they
have not articulated complaints, the absence of protest should not be taken
as approval. No Virginia commissioner has appeared at an ORSANCO meeting
for several years. Contact with that state has been limited almost entirely
to participation of a Virginia member on the Engineering Committee.
Moreover, the hydrologic interdependence of the several parts of the
entire river system is more than a slogan. As noted elsewhere in this re-
port, some pollutants such as acid mine wastes and salts do spread their
influence for hundreds of miles from the point of discharge. Indeed, as
the entire river system comes to be more intensively monitored and as pres-
sures on waters of the Basin become greater, additional interrelationships
may come to light or become much more significant than they were thought
to be.
If stream flow regulation for quality purposes is seriously under-
taken, the involvement of headwaters, streams and tributaries will become
essential. This is already indicated by ORSANCO's assumption of responsi-
bility for the Allegheny River monitors originally installed by the Corps.
Indeed, the service orientation of present and possible future ORSANCO
programs does not justify uneasiness on the part of those who have felt un-
comfortable toward the admission of a potential new enforcer in their midst.
There may be genuine questions as to how many and what kinds of burdens
-83--
-------
ORSANCO can assume at any given time. However, virtually all of the
things that ORSANCO is likely to do in coming years are informational,
analytical and coordinative rather than directly regulatory. So long
as the ultimate policy decisions as to enforcement under Public Law
92-500 are left for the individual states or federal agencies, all con-
cerned should be benefited by the activities of a more vigorous ORSANCO.
Finally, it should be observed that ever since the "conference pro-
cedures" of the 1956 Federal Water Pollution Control Act came into opera-
tion, and certainly now that the Basin must take account of federal EPA
powers under the 1972 Act, it becomes unrealistic to look askance at the
possibility of ORSANCO assistance on the tributaries. Both EPA and the
member states could be well served by the application of ORSANCO services
that might on occasion prevent problems from arising or could resolve
them without the need for the most forceful kinds of federal intervention.
This is as true of problems on tributaries as of those on the main River,
provided only that they have some interstate aspect.
In the course of this discussion, most of the advantages and disad-
vantages of ORSANCO activities comprehending more than the Ohio River and
immediately adjacent portions of tributaries have been mentioned. How-
ever, some additional observations should be made.
In our view, the chief concern is the enlarged scope of ORSANCO tasks
which would involve increased funding and staff. The participating jur-
isdictions will determine what resources they wish to make available. But
attempting to project what may be possible is not a simple task. Reactions
may depend on appraisal of the value of such new or expanded programs as
the interstate agency could offer.
An increase in monitoring and stream survey activity to include seg-
ments of the Basin not now served may involve expense that sooner or la-
ter someone will find it necessary or justifiable to afford. To the ex-
tent that ORSANCO undertakes it, others will be spared the effort. More-
over, it is better to have a basinwide monitoring and survey program from
which the maximum information can be ascertained about interrelationships
than to have compartmentalized data collection and analyses which develop
data only for individual state segments of the river system.
Further, it should be emphasized that in considering a basinwide mon-
itoring and stream survey program, it is not necessary to presume direct
ORSANCO operation of the entire undertaking. There could be any number of
patterns of ORSMCO-state-federal agency performance. The most important
thing would be to have a single network, well coordinated and integrated
into a meaningful whole. ORSANCO might operate the entire system or it
might be part operator and part coordinator.
Most of the other activities in which ORSANCO might engage do not
require its physical presence on a continuous basis everywhere on the
Ohio River system. This may be illustrated by an interstate agency's role
in mediating or otherwise helping to solve a specific interstate problem.
-8k-
-------
There does not appear to be any inevitable reason why ORSANCO ser-
vices in fact finding on the New-Kanawha rivers shared by Virginia and
West Virginia would be less worthwhile or essentially different from
those which it might perform for states on opposite banks of the Ohio
River.
Nor is the need for promoting the coordination of EPA regions con-
fined to the Ohio River proper. The Allegheny flows from Region 2 to
Region 3 in two separate meanderings. The New-Kanawha rivers are shared
by Regions 3 and h. The Mahoning is a problem for Ohio, Pennsylvania
as well as EPA Regions 3 and 5-
It may be argued, however, that an eight-state agency is not a
suitable participant in a subregional problem. But there is no real
reason to believe this is so.
Some interstate agreements, of which the Potomac River and Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Compacts are examples, authorize the establish-
ment of "sections" for the consideration of problems of primary concern
to some of the member jurisdictions but not to all. Thus, the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission has maintained a North Atlantic Sec-
tion, a Middle Atlantic Section, a Chesapeake Section, and a South At-
lantic Section—each coincident with a group of migratory fisheries
which do not significantly overlap into the other geographic regions.
However, this degree of formalization is not really necessary to the
separate consideration by the interstate agency, or some of its members,
of problems which are of peculiar concern to them alone. This is es-
pecially true where the functions involved are service or mediation or-
iented. Commission votes are not likely to be important in such situa-
tions. Accordingly, there should be no legal or practical barrier to
ORSANCO staff or members dealing with matters which are of less than
universal impact. Indeed, this is frequently the case even on the main
stem.
In individual instances, the states involved may prefer direct con-
tact between themselves and may have little need for a third party—even
one to which they both belong. Where this is so, there is no virtue in
soliciting the intervention of ORSANCO merely to find things for the in-
terstate agency to do. However, where ORSANCO programs have given the
interstate agency special knowledge or competence, or where it could be
the convenient vehicle for performing or procuring a study of a bistate
problem, it should not be dismissed merely because the area in question
involves a tributary rather than the main stem.
On occasion, the Commission has recognized the validity of this pro-
position. In addition to the already mentioned studies on tributaries
and recent assumption of responsibility for the Allegheny River monitors,
one may cite the preferred lead agency role in the Ohio River Basin Com-
mission's water quality task group for the Monongahela. ORSANCO declined
to serve in this capacity because the Commission felt that at the time
-85-
-------
when the assignment was offered, it did not Have the available staff to
perform it. However, the Commission recognized that the decision to re-
fuse was regrettable.
The ORSANCO policy of limited activity on the tributaries begets a
circular set of effects. Because this type of restriction on the agency's
present programs is known to the state water pollution control officials,
they do not now think of ORSAWCO as having anything to contribute to the
solution of their problems off the main stem. Consequently, the states do
not seek to involve the interstate agency in such matters. In turn, non-
participation strengthens the feeling that ORSANCO would have little or
nothing to offer, even if invited.
The key to the situation is the nature and vigor of ORSANCO programs.
The stronger and more relevant they are to the states in a particular part
of the Basin, the more likely the interstate agency is to be thought of
when help is needed.
The extent to which ORSANCO will eventually be actively involved in
waters of the Basin other than the main stem of the Ohio River, inter-
state tributaries and for reasonable distances up other tributaries hav-
ing a significant impact on the main stem is one that cannot be categori-
cally predicted at present. In the estimation of a purist, there can be
no doubt that the Basin should be viewed as a whole. However, extending
ORSANCO's program to the tributaries mentioned will involve so consider-
able a reorientation of the present ORSANCO focus as to occupy some years
of program development. As already indicated, the interstate agency is
now small, to the point where it consists of an almost irreducible staff
complement. How much growth there should be and at what pace will be de-
termined by the programs that the Commission finally authorizes. In any
event, however, it is best to strengthen capabilities at a rate that en-
courages solid development and not to swallow more than can be digested
at any one time. Accordingly, ORSANCO should work toward a truly basin-
wide set of programs gradually. On the other hand, some activities can
be performed for all eight states without major commitment of resources
beyond what is necessary to serve the needs of six.
Values for EPA.
We generally think of ORSANCO as functioning under an eight-state
compact. But there is a ninth member whose degree of participation is
hardly less than the others. The Federal Government has not enacted the
compact. It is not legally bound by such obligations as the compact places
on the states. But in fact it shares abundantly in two basic attributes
of membership. The compact gives to the Federal Government three commis-
sioners, just as any member state. Through its program grants, the Federal
Government contributes more funds than any member state.
Three agencies have traditionally represented the Federal Government:
the EPA or its predecessors, the Corps, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
-------
But of these, it is most relevant to speak of EPA. Its program grant
funds are the federal financial contributions most crucial" to ORSANCO's
budgets, even though the Corps and the U.S. Geological Survey also provide
funds through contractual and other arrangements.
Consequently, the values which EPA can hope to receive from a strong
ORSAWCO are somewhat analogous to those which benefit the states. Since
water of good quality is the objective, activities which help to secure
and maintain it contribute to or make easier the discharge of EPA responsi-
bilities. It follows that for EPA, as for the member states, the measure
of ORSAWCO's value is in the programs which the interstate agency conducts.
Most if not all of the program possibilities discussed in Chapter 3 are or
would be of benefit to EPA as well as to the states.
At least since the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1956, EPA and its predecessor agencies have been in a supervisory
position. The Amendments of 1972 have made this position even clearer and
more dominant than before. EPA is responsible to Congress and the American
public for seeing that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act works. EPA
is and will be judged by its success in achieving the goals of fishable,
swimmable water everywhere, or at least by the measurable and steady strides
which are made in this direction. But EPA cannot accomplish these results
with its own forces alone, nor is it supposed to do so. It must rely on
the states. They are to develop the stream standards which become both
federal and state law; they are to do or get done much of the planning for
water quality management; they are to help run the permit system and in-
creasingly to assume operational responsibility for it; they are to moni-
tor and report on progress in achieving the goals of the Federal Act; they
are to check compliance by waste dischargers and to prosecute the bulk of
the actions when violations are found.
The lodging of so heavy a policymaking role and of so much of the re-
sponsibility for achievement with EPA while placing so many of the imple-
menting activities in the states creates mammoth needs for coordination so
that the system will fit together as a functioning whole. These needs run
in several different directions.
The first is a problem of federal-state coordination. EPA has sought
to handle this directly by dealing with each of the fifty states. In many
respects, the federal law requires this. Individual states must have Sec-
tion 303 (e) planning processes approved by EPA; construction grant funds
are allotted in state chunks and thence distributed to local units of govern-
ment by a complex state-EPA process; individual states are eligible for
assumption of permit system responsibilities, with EPA approval. The items
in the list could be multiplied.
But neither the states nor EPA is organized to treat the Ohio as a
basin, or even as a whole main river. Such treatment is essential if many
aspects of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are to be administered
equitably, or perhaps at all. ORSANCO is just such an agency as can pro-
vide the multi-jurisdictional-interstate-federal, EPA regional bridge
needed to bring the pieces together basinwide.
-87-
-------
ORSANCO cannot fulfill this coordinating role because of any power to
compel others to accept its judgments. The compact contains no such author-
ity, except in the field of abatement orders where, as previously indicated,
the interstate agency's role is most likely to be supplemental. However,
the interstate agency can perform it by virtue of its basinwide jurisdic-
tion and the superior knowledge and insights which its monitoring, data analy-
sis, planning and other programs should give it. The states, EPA, and other
agencies to a somewhat lesser extent, should find benefit in according ORSMCO
a place because of the services it can render.
However, any benefit which EPA can realize from the interstate agency's
presence must rely heavily on the federal agency's willingness to deal with
and through ORSMCO. Unless EPA considers ORSMCO as the fulcrum in regional
affairs relating to the Ohio, the states will be hard put to it to do so.
In many ways, EPA approval processes have become so crucial that they can be
made virtually to determine the procedures and channels which the states as
well as EPA will employ. If EPA makes it known that it expects ORSANCO to
have a part in coordinating standards and requirements on opposite sides of
the river, or above and below state lines, the chances are that the inter-
state agency will be able to participate meaningfully. On the other hand,
if EPA channels most or all of its significant communications directly to
the individual state capitals, the purposes for having the interstate agen-
cy will be undercut and its only role will be to provide a forum in which
the states may from time to time seek to formulate their views in disputes
with the federal authorities.
Assuming a willingness, and even some initiative on the part of EPA
to recognize ORSANCO as a regional water quality agency, other factors be-
come important. First among them is the vigor and initiative exhibited by
the ORSMCO staff and commissioners in finding ways to be useful. One can-
not emphasize too strongly that no one is likely to formulate and insist
on a vital interstate agency program if ORSMCO does not do it. Even the
state water pollution control officials — those serving as ORSMCO commis-
sioners and others who can affect the agency's welfare — have primary re-
sponsibilities in their own intrastate agencies. To them ORSMCO must be
at best a secondary area of interest.
The final consideration is the states themselves. As already indi-
cated, they cannot be expected to invoke ORSANCO participation at every
turn where simple contacts between state capitals will achieve desired re-
sults effectively and rapidly. But they must get into the habit of using
ORSANCO as their major avenue of interstate and interstate-federal relations
and actions when the Ohio Basin is involved.
If all of this sounds like a circular process, it is. One of ORSMCO's
worst liabilities is the dormancy which has afflicted it for several years
past. Until improved and more varied program performance makes it clear that
the interstate agency is truly a reliance for defining and resolving inter-
state problems and for getting important things done, its aid will not be
sought. Yet ORSANCO can build this kind of confidence only if its member
jurisdictions and EPA are willing to invest something in encouraging the in-
tergovernmental machinery to work.
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
; Please read 1 untruetions on the reverse
DATA
before completing)
= ORT NO.
EPA-905/9-75-003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Study of Prospective Water Pollution Control
Activities for the Ohio River Valley Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO)
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI ON-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1975 (Approval Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Mitchell Wendell
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wendell Associates
1432 Laburnum
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2BH 387 (4-38705GB4X)
11. CONTRACTXHKHXKBGX.
68-01-2631
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
NONE
ORSANCO is an interstate agency. A compact was enacted by the eight member states
and consent given by the United States of America in 1948. This study analyzes and
recommends prospective roles that this agency can best perform which would be
complementary to or in lieu of activities for which the member States or the federal
government is responsible in controlling and abating water pollution in the Ohio
River drainage basin. The study was needed because of the change of strategy and
Congressional mandates imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
ot 1972 (P. L. 92-500). A study of this nature and scope had not been performed
since the agency was organized 27 years ago.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Management Engineering, Pollution, Waste
Disposal, Environmental Engineering,
Organizations, Planning
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
ORSANCO
c. COSATI Field/Group
ORSANCO or U. S. EPA, Region V
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert ilic EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of. Presorted at conference of,
To he published in. Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTH-TERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote rekusability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19, & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |