-------
IWIOilAL liMKHBffAL QUALITY INDICATORS
HOW TO IMPROVE THE WAY EPA REPORTS ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY TO THE PUBLIC
APRIL 1977
L. Edwin Coate
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region X
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
-------
TABLE OF COfiTEIR
Executive Summary
Preface and How the Report is Organized
Index to Graphical Displays
SECTION 1
1.1 Background
1.2 Findings, Conclusion and
Recommendations
1.2.1 Summary of Recommendations
1.2.2 Objectives For A 12-Month Next
Phase
1.2.3 Other Benefits from the
Preparation of the Profile
1.2.4 Use of the Profile for Better
Illustrating Policy and
Resource Allocation Effects on
Environmental Quality
1.2.5 Remarks on Implementing
Regional Environmental Profiles
PAGE
i - ii
111
iv - vi
1 - 6
7-19
7
9
10
11
17
61
1.3 Discussion of Displays Recommended 20
for a Near-Term National Profile
1.3.1 River Water Quality 21
1.3.2 Lake & Great Lakes Water 24
Quality
1.3.3 Marine Water 33
1.3.4 Drinking Water 35
1.3.5 Air Quality 37
1.3.6 Solid Waste Disposal 44
1.3.7 Radiation 44
1.3.8 Pesticides 50
1.3.9 Noise 50
1.3.10 Summary of Findings on 57
Feasibility of Proposed Displays
SECTION 2 PAGE
2.1 Index to Displays in January 1977, 63 - 65
Report
2.2 Complete Listing of the Displays and 66 - 135
Specifications for their Preparation
2.2.1 River Water
2.2.2 Lake Water
2.2.3 Great Lakes Water
2.2.4 Marine Water
2.2.5 Drinking Water
2.2.6 Air Quality
2.2.7 Solid Waste
2.2.8 Radiation
2.2.9 Pesticides
2.2.10 Noise
2.3 Summary of Content of Displays
2.4 Summary of Comments Made by
Reviewers
2.4.1 General Comments
2.4.2 River Water
2.4.3 Lake Water
2.4.4 Marine Water
2.4.5 Drinking Water
2.4.6 Air Quality
2.4.7 Solid Waste
2.4.8 Radiation
2.4.9 Noise
2.4.10 Pesticides
67
78
87
94
94
98
115
122
125
129
136 - 137
138 - 160
138
141
146
149
149
150
156
156
158
160
-------
EXECUTIVE: SJITIAOT
PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY THE REPORT: EPA has been
increasingly concerned in recent years in
finding better ways of describing the ambient
quality of the environment. The National
Academy of Sciences and others have challenged
EPA and CEQ to provide more useful indicators of
environmental quality. These indicators are
needed for better informing the public and
elected officials and to allow improved
evaluation of the effect on the environment of
National policies and programs. Regional, state
and local governmental entities need similar
information in order to effectively explain
problems and programs to the public and special
interest groups.
Two principal problems have plagued the
development of a national system of indicators:
(1) There is insufficient data to
rigorously measure the ambient
environmental quality at a precise
level, which is consistent throughout
the Nation.
(2) It has not been possible to reach an
agreement on which of the many tech-
nical algorithms is most appropriate
for producing indicators of water
quality, air quality and for other
environmental programs.
HYPOTHESIS UNDERLYING THE PROJECT: The project
was conducted under the hypothesis that complete
data bases do not exist and there are no
uniformly acceptable algorithms. However, there
is available knowledge on the state-of-the-
environment at the regional, state and local
level which is not being used. It was further
hypothesized that this knowledge could be
aggregated and displayed in a report which would
be informative to the public and elected
officials and which could improve the evaluation
of the effectiveness on EPA's programs. Thus,
the project was conducted under the hypothesis
that a national system of environmental
indicators (a "national environmental profile")
could be best achieved by carefully aggregating
local, state and regional perceptions of
environmental quality rather than by attempting
to construct and apply uniform analytical
techniques to an inadequate data base. This
hypothesis in no way was intended to diminish
the ultimate importance of either data bases or
analytical techniques for measuring environ-
mental quality but was intended to face current
realities. Where data are adequate technical
algorithms should be used to substitute for or
verify professional judgments.
PROCESS: The project was based on initial
reports devising systems of environmental
indicators in Regions I, VIII and X and research
by the Office of Planning and Evaluations in
Headquarters. Based on this initial work and
with the collaboration of all EPA Regional
offices, Region X, over the course of one year,
drafted and refined a series of graphical
displays. In January 1977, a set of 43 of these
displays were circulated for comment to all
Regional Offices and interested Headquarters
personnel. Approximately 20 of the displays
were selected as feasible to produce at the
regional or state level and useful at the
national level as well as Regional and state
levels for purposes of producing a national
environmental quality profile in the near future.
-------
These displays rely heavily on color to convey
information and to emphasize issues. Specifi-
cations for the preparation of the displays
along with comments of all reviewers are
presented in this report. The displays cover
river, marine, lake and drinking water, air,
pesticides, noise, radiation and solid waste.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: It was the consensus
of the EPA regional offices and interested
headquarters personnel that the graphical
displays, with some modifications, would improve
the ability of EPA to describe the quality of
the environment. Some regions believed that not
only would the profiles produce useful public
information, but that the same information could
be used to improve the measurement of
performance as required by the Agency's MBO
system. With technical support, most regions
should be able to develop the proposed
indicators by 1979.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The report recommends that
work be continued at the regional and national
level to produce a profile using the displays
described in the report and that:
(1) The development of the information
needed for these displays be made an
element of the MBO outputs for all S&A
Divisions in 1979.
(2) The organizational approach used in the
past be continued, i.e., coordination
by Region X in close collaboration with
all Regional Offices and the Office of
Planning and Evaluation.
the profile to improve MBO output
measures and to illustrate the impact
of policies and allocation of resources.
(4) $270,000 be allocated for technical
support for the project for FY 1978 for
technical support of the Regional
Officers.
(3) Region X conduct a pilot study on the
feasibility of using the information in
-------
PREFACE A!€ m THIS RETORT IS ORGArtL
The purpose of this report is to present the
findings and conclusions obtained from a year-
long study of the feasibility of developing a
National Environmental Quality Profile based, in
part, on graphical displays developed in the
Regional Offices of EPA.
This report was prepared by Anthony Mason
and Richard Bauer of the Region X Office. The
project was directed by L. Edwin Coate. Science
Applications, Inc. provided consultative
assistance. William Garetz of the Program
Evaluation Division of OPE assisted in the
design and implementation of the project, and
coordinated Headquarters reviews. Guidance and
important contributions were made by all
Regional Offices, Headquarters, and interested
persons in several states.
The report is organized into two major
sections. Section 1 provides background
information on events leading to the project
(Section 1.1), and findings and recommendations
(Section 1.2). Section 1.3 shows examples of
the graphical displays of national environmental
quality thought to be relatively feasible and
useful in the construction of a National
Environmental Quality Profile in the near
future. Also included in Section 1.3 is a
synopsis of comments and recommendations made by
various interested persons in the Regional and
Headquarters offices.
The comments made by Regional and
Headquarters personnel were in response to a set
of 43 graphical displays and specifications for
their preparation that were circulated by Region
X in January, 1977, in a report entitled Draft
Displays and Specifications for a National
Environmental Quality Profile.
These January 1977, materials in their
entirety comprise Section 2 of this document.
In addition, all comments received on the
January report are included in Section 2.
m
-------
INDEX TO GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS
Exhibit showing how changes in river
basin water quality resulting from
different policies could be illustrated.
Exhibit showing how changes in overall
regional water quality resulting from
different policies could be illustrated.
Exhibit showing how changes in types
of air quality standards violations
resulting from different policies could
be illustrated.
Exhibit showing how changes in severity
of air quality standards violations
resulting from different policies could
be illustrated.
Summary of Conclusions on displays
presented in January 1977 Report.
RW-1: Water Quality of Nation's River
Basins
RW-2 River Miles Meeting National
Goals By Principal River Basin
RW-3: Trend in Percent of River Miles
Meeting Goals
RW-4: Types of River Water Standards
Violations in the Nation's
Principal Rivers
PAGE
13
14
15
16
57
25
71
26
72
74
27
76
PAGE
RW-5: Point vs. Non-Point Source
Contributions to River Water
Pollution 77
LW-1: Lake Surface Area for Which
Highest Beneficial Use Is
Impaired (Principal Lakes 30
Excluding Great Lakes) 79
LW-2: Causes of Impairment of
Principal Lake Water Quality 82
LW-3: Eutrophication of Major Lakes 31
(Except Great Lakes) 84
LW-4: Trend in Eutrophication of
Major Lakes of the United
States (Except Great Lakes) 85
LW-5: Miles of Lake Shoreline
Acceptable for Swimming 86
GLW-1: Percent of Swimming Beaches
of Great Lakes Meeting Water 32
Quality or Health Standards 90
GLW-2: "Problems Areas" in Great
Lakes 91
MW-1: Commercial Shellfish Acreage 34
Open for Harvesting 92
MW-2: Types of Marine Water
Standards Violations 93.
-------
INDLX TO GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS (CONT.)
MW-3:
MW-4:
DW-1:
DW-2:
DW-3:
AIR-1:
AIR-2:
AIR-3:
AIR-4:
AIR-5:
AIR-6:
Trend in Commercial Shellfish
Areas Open for Harvesting
Status of Shellfish Harvesting
Areas
Population Served by Drinking
Water Supplies Meeting all
Standards
Types of Drinking Water Standards
Violations
Number of Drinking Water Supplies
Meeting Standards
Reduction in Stationary Source
Emissions Attributable to Air
Quality Controls
Number of Days with Standards
Violations by Type of Pollutant
PAGE
95
96
36
97
99
100
40
101
41
103
Days of Standards Violations by
Type of Pollutant and Severity of
Violation For Non-attainment Air
Quality Control Regions 104
Trends in Air Quality by 42
Pollutant 106
Types & Trend in Number of Air
Quality Standards Violation by
State 108
Number of Persons Exposed to Air
Quality Standards Violations 109
PAGE
AIR-7: Cost of Air Pollution 110
AIR-8: Numbers of Persons Exposed
to Air Quality Standards
Violations, by Year 112
AIR-9: Maximum One-Hour Oxidant
Concentration for "Your City"
by Year 113
AIR-10: Days of Air Quality Standards
Violations, By City & Month
of Year, for all Pollutants 114
AIR-11: Total Suspended Particulate 43
Air Quality Status 116
SW-1: Percent of Population Served
by State Approved Solid Waste 45
Disposal Facilities 117
SW-2: Numbers of Persons Served by
State Approved Solid Waste 46
Disposal Facilities 118
SW-3: Tons of Hazardous Waste
Disposed of By State Approved
Methods 120
SW-4: Population Served by
Acceptable Sludge Disposal
System 121
SW-5: Implementation Status of
Full-Scale Resource Recovery
Systems 123
-------
liJDEX TO GRAPHICAL DISPLAYS (CONT.)
PAGE
RAD-1: Trend in Amount of Radiation in
the Environment Due to "Fall Out" 47
(Strontium 90 in Milk) 124
RAD-2: Trend in Amount of Radioactive
Materials Escaping from Nuclear 48
Plants (KRYPTON 85 in Air) 126
RAD-3: Average Amount of Exposure to 49
Radiation, Per Person, Per Year 127
51
PEST-1: Pesticide Usage, By Year 128
PEST-2: Changes in Pesticide Residual
Levels in Fish (Species Menhaden) 52
Since DDT Was Banned 130
53
PEST-3: Benefits of Pesticide Usage 131
NOISE-1: Numbers of Persons Living in
Areas With Objective Noise 54
Ordinances 132
NOISE-2: Number of Persons Exposes to
Unacceptable Noise Levels
(Greater than 55 Ldn) By Source 55
of Noise 134
56
NOISE-3: Noise Energy by Major Source 135
Summary of Content of Displays in January
1977 Report. 136
-------
1.1 BACKGROUND
In 1974, both EPA Headquarters and several
Regional Offices initiated efforts to develop
improved environmental quality measures.
The Headquarter's effort was conducted by
the Program Evaluation Division of OPE. The
objective of this project was to identify a set
of measures of environmental quality that would
provide a better framework for internal program
evaluation, an improved basis for decision
making by the Administrator, and a more solid
basis for explaining to the public and Congress
what the national investment in pollution
control is buying.
The work initiated independently in Region X
in 1974 had similar overall objectives. In
Region X, however, the immediate goal was to
develop an "environmental profile" for the
Northwest for public information purposes. This
profile was to include measures of air and water
quality as well as descriptions of other
environmental issues such as radiation, noise,
solid waste disposal, pesticides, drinking
water, land use, and a variety of miscellaneous
topics of interest to the public and elected
officials of the Northwest.
By mid-1975, both Region X and the Program
Evaluation Division of the Office of Planning
and Evaluation in Headquarters had reached the
end of the first phase of their efforts. The
results of the Program Evaluation Division work
were published in a document entitled Analysis
and Applications of Environmental Quality
Indicators. The report made important contribu-
tions for better understanding the problems of
establishing environmental measures. By
relating a hierarchy of types of measures
against a hierarchy of EPA goals and objectives,
it clarified the role that various types of
indicators can play in EPA's MBO and program
evaluation systems as well as clarifying crucial
distinctions between types of measures.
Region X had, by mid-1975, completed a draft
"environmental profile" for the Northwest, which
provided indices related to water quality, air
quality, and solid waste disposal, and provided
graphical characterizations of the issues and
problems associated with radiation, pesticides,
noise, land use, and some miscellaneous regional
concerns. The document was circulated to
individuals and groups in the Northwest for
-------
comment, was revised to reflect these sugges-
tions, and was published in 1976 as a
comprehensive overview of environmental quality
in the Northwest. Color graphics were
extensively used in this document.
Also by mid-1975, several other Regions had
undertaken efforts to construct profiles or
measures of environmental quality. In August of
1975, Region I published Environmental Quality
in New England, which addressed four major areas
of environmental concern for the New England
area: air quality, water quality, drinking water
quality, and solid waste management. Projects
were also underway in Regions VII and VIII, with
Region VIII publishing color graphics
illustrating the water quality of its principal
streams and rivers. Work was being performed by
the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Wildlife Federation, the National Sanitation
Foundation, the Council for Environmental
Quality, and others.
Currently there is a clear need at the
National level for improved ways of concisely
describing the state-of-the-environment. More-
over, scores of state and local governments
critically need improved measures of
environmental quality.
Even though the issues and specific needs of
users differ from locality to locality and there
are differences between local and national
governmental entities, the underlying concern is
the same everywhere, viz, the need for improved
ways of illustrating and explaining the status
of the environment and the impact of programs
intended to improve the quality of the
environment.
Principal Hypothesis Underlying the Project
Within EPA, environmental quality indicators
are needed at two levels: At the Headquarters
level they are needed to assist in broad
evaluation and for communicating with Congress
and the public. At the Regional level they are
needed for similar purposes, but with quite
different audiences. Between Regions there is
widely differing emphasis on issues, and
differing perceptions as to the utility or
meaningfulness of information. The ideal would
be to have a fixed set of indices or measures
that simultaneously satisfy both national,
Regional and local needs. However, differing
environmental priorities, data availability, and
analytical preferences, make it unlikely that a
fixed set of indices may be constructed and
applied effectively in each of the Regions and,
simultaneously, at the national level.
-------
This does not mean, however, that a national
"system" of measures cannot be constructed.
While long-term research is proceeding on the
"ultimate indicators" as recommended in the 1975
report of the Program Evaluation Division, there
is a near-term approach which can provide an
improved set of environmental quality measures
for use at the national level and simultaneously
help the Regions and local government.
This approach is based on the idea that the
most practical way of realizing a national
system is to create it as an aggregation of
systems that are realizable and meaningful at
the State and Regional level. In other words,
one first starts with a determination of what is
feasible and useful at the local and Regional
level. With this information in hand one next
deduces what can be synthesized for use at the
national level. Stated differently, the
national system would be constructed from an
aggregation of indices and measures that are
feasible and useful at the state and Regional
level.
While this approach does not guarantee that
a perfect national system can be constructed, it
has several advantages:
(1) To the extent that the national system
is an aggregation of useful Regional
systems, implementation at the national
level will be supported by the Regions
and states and be viewed as a worth-
while undertaking rather than a
reporting obligation.
(2) To be useful at the Regional level, any
national system must be disaggregated
with issues displayed in different ways
and emphasized differently. The need
to disaggregate will be avoided.
(3) The concept meets an important
objective of any effective management
information system: information
collected at a lower level of the
organization for use at a higher level
should also be useful at the level at
which it was collected.
Thus, at the beginning of 1976, it was
believed that there was a good probability that
an improved national profile could be
constructed as an aggregation of measures that
would be meaningful and useful at the Regional
and local level.
-------
How the Project Has Conducted
This belief led to a project that was
initiated in early 1976, and which is the
subject of this report. The project was a joint
effort involving personnel in all Regions and
Headquarters; staffed by personnel and
consultants to Region X and the Program
Evaluation Division of EPA; and coordinated by
the Deputy Regional Administrator of Region X.
The project was composed of several phases.
First, all Regions were visited to obtain ideas
as to the types of indices and ways of
characterizing issues that would be most
meaningful and feasible at the Regional level.
Out of these ideas, a set of draft graphical
displays of environmental quality were
constructed along with some preliminary
specifications as to how they would be prepared
in order to allow aggregation at the national
level. Through subsequent visits and review of
materials by Regional personnel throughout the
Country, these draft displays were modified and
the specifications refined.
At the end of 1976, the recommendations of
the Regional Offices along with comments by per-
sons in various EPA Headquarters Offices were
used to produce a group of 43 graphical
displays, many relied heavily on color both to
convey information and to emphasize issues.
Of the 43 graphical displays that were
formulated, about 20 were felt to be currently
feasible and useful at the national level for
purposes of a "national environmental quality
profile." Of these 20 displays, about
two-thirds required the development or inter-
pretation of data at the Regional level. The
remaining one-third could be constructed without
assistance from the Regions, i.e., they did not
require information to be developed at or
aggregated from the Regional level.
The remainder of the 43 displays were
prepared to illustrate a concept or idea that
appeared to be useful at the local or Regional
level or to illustrate displays at a national
level which would be very desirable to have, but
for one reason or another were not feasible in
the near-term.
Preliminary specifications were also
assembled for the preparation of these displays,
with emphasis on those items that required the
aggregation of data developed or interpreted at
the Regional or state level.
-------
In January 1977, all 43 displays along with
specifications for their preparation were
circulated in a report prepared by Region X
titled, Draft Displays and Specifications for a
National Environmental Quality Profile.
Comments were received from all Regions, several
interested state organizations and a number of
EPA Headquarters personnel.
The recommendations and findings which
follow are based on these comments.
All 43 displays along with their tentative
specifications were distributed in January 1977,
to all the Regional Offices and to Headquarters
through OPR. Comments received from Regional
and Headquarters personnel were reviewed,
certain specifications and formats changed, and
this report prepared.
Because of the high cost of color printing
and the marginal utility of making corrections
in the art work used in the January report, the
original color graphics as they appeared in the
January report have been retained in this
report. However, as the result of the comments
by Regional personnel, several of the displays
proposed in the January report have been
deleted, and specifications changed in a number
of places.
An attempt was made to address all
criticisms and suggestions. Nevertheless, the
recommendations in this report were strongly
influenced by several of the authors' opinions:
A priority need at both the Regional and
national level is for a better way to
communicate the state-of-the-environment, as
well as changes in it, to certain persons
and groups. Principally, these are elected
and appointed officials at all levels of
state and local government and special
interest groups.
We currently have a good idea as to what
kinds of ultimate indicators and indices of
environmental quality we would like to
have. In general, these types of indicators
are fully described in the 1975 OPR Report.
They involve meeting the high-level objec-
tives of Congress and of the American people
and deal with the degree of mortality, mor-
bidity, aesthetic degradation and property
damage due to pollution.
While substantial progress is being made in
formulating these indicators, it will be
some years before they are perfected. In
the meantime, improved measures of the
-------
ambient quality of the environment can and
should be produced for the public. This has
already been demonstrated by several
Regional Offices.
The user of the proposed profile is neither
the analyst involved in resource allocation
nor the engineer or scientist designing con-
trol strategies. Rather, the user is the
public and its elected and appointed
officials. For this reason, it is possible
to substitute the judgments of experienced
and knowledgeable people for rigorous
analytic algorithms when it can be shown
that judgments will produce information with
sufficient reliability to be helpful but not
misleading, and where the "algorithm" is
technically controversial or requires
non-existent data.
Clear and vivid synopses of the state-of-
the-environment and of changes in it can be
constructed based on current knowledge. As
data and data analyzing methods improve, the
preciseness of an environmental profile can
be improved and previous estimates revised.
In the meantime we have ample information
upon which to make judgments
where we lack precise data. These judgments
can be put in a form that will be useful and
will involve negligible risk of misinforming
the public in any substantive manner.
-------
1,2 FIllDIiJGS, CaiOJUSIQUS AND REOMCOVriONS
1.2.1
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is believed that the proposed approach
has sufficient merit for undertaking the next
steps in compiling the profile. This belief is,
for the most part, supported by comments
received from the Regions, although there are
several technical problems that will have to be
resolved (Section 1.3 provides a chart-by-chart
discussion of these problems).
It is recommended that:
The following charts be developed for each
Region (where applicable) and information
aggregated so as to produce a draft national
profile during the next 12-month period:
(1) Water Quality of Nation's Principal
River Basin (a color-coded map, cf.
RW-1): subject to definition of
segments of river basins to be
included; resolution of treatment of
flow rates; and determination if a more
precise definition of meeting water
quality goals is needed to facilitate
aggregation.
(2) River Miles Meeting National Goals by
Principal River Basin (color-coded bar
chart showing relative length of rivers
and degree of meeting goals, cf. RW-2):
subject to same considerations as item
(1).
(3) Types of River Water Standards
Violations in the Nation's Principal
Rivers (color-coded matrix showing
types and importance of violations with
trends arrows, cf. RW-4): subject to
same considerations as item (1).
(4) Lake Surface Area for Which Highest
Beneficial Use is Impaired (color-coded
bar chart showing the degree to which
use is impaired, cf. LW-1): subject to
being able to accumulate sufficient
data to make a national aggregation
meaningful.
(5) Eutrophication of Major Lakes (color-
coded bar chart showing degree of
eutrophication, cf. LW-3): subject to
same considerations as item (4).
(6) Percent of Swimming Beaches of Great
Lakes Meeting Water Quality or Health
Standards (color-coded bar chart by
lake, cf. GLW-1).
(7) Commercial Shellfish Acreage Open for
Harvesting (color-coded bar chart, cf.
MW-1).
(8) Population Served by Drinking Water
Supplies Meeting all Standards
(color-coded bar chart, cf. DW-1).
(9) Reduction in Stationary Source Emission
Attributable to Air Quality Controls
(bar chart, cf. AIR-1).
-------
(10) Number of Days of Standards Violations
by Type of Pollutant by AQCR (color-
coded bar chart, cf. AIR-2): subject to
finding satisfactory way to combine
worst case statistics with other
violation-day statistics.
(11) Trends in Air Quality by Pollutant
(matrix, cf. AIR-4): subject to same
considerations as item (10).
(12) Total Suspended Particulate Air Quality
Status (color-coded map, cf. AIR-11):
subject to improved resolution of
boundaries on map.
(13) Percent of Population Served by State
Approved Solid Waste Disposal Facili-
ties (bar charts, cf. SW-1).
(14) Numbers of Persons Served by State
Approved Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities (bar and pie charts, cf.
SW-2).
(15) Trend in Amount of Radiation in the
Environment Due to "Fall Out"
(Strontium 90 in Milk) (bar chart, cf.
RAD-1).
(16) Trend in Amount of Radioactive
Materials Escaping from Nuclear Plants
(bar chart, cf. RAD-2).
(17) Average Amount of Exposure to
Radiation, Per Person, Per Year (bar
chart, cf. RAD-3).
(18) Pesticide Usage by Year (bar chart, cf.
PEST-1).
(19) Change in Pesticide Residual Levels in
Fish (graph, cf. PEST-2).
(20) Benefits of Pesticide Usage (bar chart,
cf. PEST-3).
(21) Numbers of Persons Living in Areas with
Objective Noise Ordinances (bar and pie
charts, cf. NOISE-1).
(22) Number of Persons Exposed to Unaccept-
able Noise Levels by Source of Noise
(bar chart, cf. NOISE-2).
(23) Noise Energy by Major Source (bar
chart, cf. NOISE-2).
That the information for preparing these
displays be made an element of the MBO
system output for all Surveillance and
Analysis Divisions in the Regions for 1979.
That the possibility of using the proposed
graphics to illustrate the impact of alter-
nate policies be investigated on a pilot
basis in Region X, along with possibilities
of replacing existing surrogate measures of
program accomplishment with measures of the
ambient quality of the environment of the
type proposed in the profile.
That the existing study team and
organizational approach be continued.
That resources be provided to assist both
the Regions and the study team. It is
-------
estimated that approximately five
professional man-years of consultative
assistance ($270,000) including special
assistance to the Regional Offices will be
required to meet the objectives outlined
above.
1.2.2 OBJECTIVES FOR A 12-MONTH NEXT PHASE
It is recommended that the same general
project team be retained for the next phase of
the project, with the addition of special
consultative assistance for the Regions. The
reason for this is that the current organiza-
tional and staffing scheme seems to be working
reasonably well. This proposal was discussed at
the April 1977, DRA Meeting in Dallas and the
concensus of this group was that this would be
an acceptable approach.
There are several specific objectives
proposed for the next twelve months of the
project:
(1) Produce Regional displays as needed for
the 23 graphics listed in the preceding
section of this report, and resolve the
several technical problems discussed
above.
(2) Aggregate this information into a trial
national environmental quality profile
document.
(3) On a pilot basis, explore the
feasibility of using these same
characterizations of environmental
quality for purposes of showing the
impact of alternative policies and
allocation of resources (this is
discussed in Section 1.2.4 below).
(4) On a pilot basis, analyze the
feasibility of replacing some of the
current FPRS requirements with
information that would support the
environmental quality profile.
Items (2) and (3) would be done on a pilot
or experimental basis in Region X, and result in
recommendations for changes in the FPRS in
subsequent years on a national basis.
In order to accomplish these objectives, it
is believed that a level of effort equivalent to
approximately five professional person-years at
the project-team level will be required in
addition to between 1 and 2 professional person-
years per region. This manpower can be
assembled either by the use of EPA personnel,
through consultative assistance, or by a mixture
of the two.
-------
The resources would be distributed
approximately as follows:
Planning, Coordination,
and Direction 6 person-months
Aggregration of the national displays
after completion of the Regional
displays 4 person-months
Development of water-related information
including assistance to Regional
Offices 18 person-months
Development of air-related information
including assistance to Regional
Offices 12 person-months
Development of other information (solid
waste, drinking water, etc.) at Regional
level and refinement of information not
obtained from the Regions (radiation,
pesticides, noise) 10 person-months
Analysis of FPRS and policy illustration
implications on pilot basis
in Region X 6 person-months
Supporting art work and related editorial
tasks 6 person-months
62 person-months
or approximately 5 person-years
The first step in implementing the next
phase would be a detailed summary of the perhaps
40 individual tasks that must be accomplished to
bring the profile together along with a schedule
for their implementation.
1.2.3 OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE PREPARATION OF
THE PROFILE
The success or failure of national environ-
mental quality control efforts depends upon a
well coordinated state-federal partnership in
which Congress has cast EPA in an overview role.
During FY 77 Region X initiated a program to
integrate profiles of state environmental status
of the type proposed in this report into the
annual program planning process. The schedule
for this process is as follows:
JANUARY-MARCH
1) Monitoring and other information reduced to
graphical form.
2) EPA interpretation of graphics sent to
states for review, comments and state use.
3) Regional environmental control strategies
jointly updated to reflett a concensus of
a) Where we are
b) Reasons for non-attainment
c) Short-term goals
d) Policy issues
e) Measures of program progress
APRIL-JUNE
1) Agency directors meet to address and resolve
issues surfaced by the above process.
10
-------
2) Initiate formal program planning with prior
agreement on objectives, priorities and
policies.
3) State Environmental Measures Reports printed
and released to public.
JULY-SEPTEMBER
1) Negotiate outputs, output measures and
reporting requirements.
2) Finalize Program Plans
OCTOBER-DECEMBER
1) Commence program implementation
2) Track program progress
State reaction in Region X to this approach
has thus far been very-positive. The states
were very cooperative in updating draft strategy
documents which keyed off the environmental
assessments. In addition to facilitating
planning, the states have also found the data
displays useful to support budget requests,
technical assistance requests and public
information releases.
Additional potential benefits of an annual
National Environmental Quality Indicators Report
include the following:
1) If properly constructed such a report
could satisfy the required annual 305b
Report to Congress which addresses
water pollution abatement and problems.
2) National and regional research and
technical assistance needs could be
keyed to environmental assessments thus
improving their rationale.
3) Displays contained in the reports can
be reassembled in various ways useful
for legislative, staff and public
briefings.
4) Policy decision making can be helped by
graphically portraying anticipated
results from various abatement alter-
natives. A more detailed discussion
and illustration of this idea are
contained in the next section (1.2.4).
1.2.4 USE OF THE PROFILE FOR BETTER
ILLUSTRATING POLICY AND "RESOURCE
ALLOCATION EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
While the graphical displays discussed in
this report were proposed for the purpose of
illustrating to the public the current state of
affairs in environmental quality, it is inter-
esting to speculate on the degree to which these
same displays can be used to show the relative
benefits of alternative policies and
implications of resource allocation plans.
11
-------
The question is: If projections can be made
will these displays better illustrate the impact
of policies and expenditures to the public and
elected and appointed officials?
This question is of interest because of the
difficulty in clearly and vividly communicating
the effect of current and proposed EPA policies
to the public.
The four exhibits on the following pages
were constructed to illustrate how certain of
the displays in this report could conceivably be
used to project the effects of policy alterna-
tives. It is believed that these types of
projections could be done by some, if not all,
of the Regions in at least some areas of
concern. The information shown on the displays
is solely illustrative of the type of visual
impact that an actual detailed analysis would
produce in terms of Region X, and does not
represent an actual projection of ambient
conditions as a function of policy.
Exhibit A shows the percent of stream miles
meeting water quality goals, (a) currently; (b)
under water quality, that which would result
from achieving BPT and secondary treatment; and
(c) that which would result from BPT, secondary
treatment, and BMP on public lands.
Exhibit D is a bar chart showing future
changes in overall Regional water quality as a
function of BPT, secondary treatment, and BMP on
public lands.
Exhibit E shows the changes in days of air
quality standards violations for various
counties in Region X that would result from all
25 ton sources in compliance, continuance of the
FMVCP, and continued operation of an Inspection
and Maintenance program at all non-attainment
areas for carbon monoxide.
Exhibit F shows the changes in the severity
of air quality standards violations for various
counties in Region X under the same policy
alternatives assumed in Exhibit E.
While these types of displays in themselves
neither resolve the question of optimal alloca-
tion of resources nor present a benefit-cost
assessment of the problem, it is believed that
they have the potential to better illustrate the
impact of policies than the current methods that
are available.
The utility of the displays described in
this report is not dependent on an ability to
use the profile for purposes of projecting the
impact of policies and expenditures. On the
other hand, some of the displays could be used
for this purpose.
12
-------
EXHIBIT A PERCENT OF STREAM MILES IN REGION X MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS
PERCENT OF STREAM MILES IN REGION X MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS
KOOTENAI
CLARK FORK
SOUTHERN OREGON LAKES
PUGET SOUND
OREGON COAST
WILLAMETTE
WASHINGTON COAST
KLAMATH
LOWER SNAKE
LOWER COLUMBIA
MIDDLE SNAKE
YAK I MA
UPPER COLUMBIA
SPOKANE
UPPER SNAKE
BEAR
1977
CURRENT CONDITIONS
EXPECTED CONDITIONS EXPECTED CONDITIONS
PERCENT OF STREAM MILES
20 40 60 80 100
WITH ALL PERMITTEES IN
COMPLIANCE WITH BPT AND
SECONDARY TREATMENT
PERCENT OF STREAM MILES
20 40 60 80 100
WITH ALL PERMITTEES IN
COMPLIANCE WITH BPT AND
SECONDARY TREATMENT AND
BMP ON ALL PUBLIC LANDS
PERCENT OF STREAM MILES
20 40 60 80 100
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
FAILS TO MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS: POLLUTED
-------
EXHIBIT D PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL STREAM AND RIVER MILES MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS
PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL STREAM AND RIVER MILES
MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
WATER QUALITY
GOALS
PROVISIONALLY
MEETS FEDERAL
WATER QUALITY
GOALS
FAILS TO MEET
WATER QUALITY
GOALS: POLLUTED
UJ
LU
CC
DC
LU
I-
z
LU
O
CC
LU
0.
100
80
60
40
20
1966-1968 1969-1971 1972-1974
1982
1982*
'ALL PERMITTEES IN COMPLIANCE WITH BPT AND SECONDARY TREATMENT
"ALL PERMITTEES IN COMPLIANCE WITH BPT AND SECONDARY TREATMENT AND BPT ON PUBLIC LANDS
14
-------
EXHIBIT E TYPES AND NUMBERS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
TYPES AND NUMBERS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
TSP
PARTICULATE
MATTER
CO
CARBON
MONOXIDE
Ox
OXIDANTS SO2
SULFUR
DIOXIDE
DAYS OF STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
CURRENT 1977 CONDITIONS
cc
<
LU
>-
CC
111
CL
(/)
<
Q
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
EXPECTED CONDITIONS
WITH 25 TON PER YEAR
SOURCES IN
COMPLIANCE, FMVCP, EC
AND AN I&M PROGRAM <
FOR ALL CO
NON-ATTAINMENT
AREAS
Ul
>-
CC
LU
Q.
(/>
<
Q
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
15
-------
EXHIBIT F SEVERITY OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
SEVERITY OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
DAYS OF STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY SEVERITY
CURRENT 1977 CONDITIONS
cc
<
LU
>
cc
UJ
o.
w
<
Q
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
ABOVE
ALERT
LEVEL
ABOVE
PRIMARY
STANDARD
n
n
EXPECTED CONDITIONS
WITH 25 TON PER YEAR
SOURCES IN
COMPLIANCE, FMVCP,
AND AN I&M PROGRAM
FOR ALL CO
NON-ATTAINMENT
AREAS
CC
<
UJ
>-
DC
LU
Q.
CO
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
^
-------
1.2.5 REMARKS ON IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROFILES
During the course of the project a number of
opinions were formulated regarding the design of
useful indices and profiles. Some of these
opinions are briefly discussed below.
Agreement on What an Index Is: The terms
"indices," "indicators," and "measures" are
often used interchangeably. The term "measure"
or "indicator" can be defined to mean a single
aspect of the environment which can be measured
directly. Indices are formed by transforming
one or more measures or indicators into ratios
or other functions. In addition, we can
formulate graphical characterizations of
problems or issues which are really none of
these, but which are useful in constructing a
profile of a community or region. The term
"profile" is used to mean a group of indices,
indicators, and other characterizations of
issues which collectively portray the state-of-
the-environment.
Agreement on What is Environmental: A great
deal of psychic energy^can be expended on trying
to define what is an environmental index as
opposed to a quality-of-life index, social
index, or whatever. Attempting to rigorously
define these concepts for purposes of a regional
profile is not likely to be productive. Cer-
tainly water and air quality are environmental
in nature. Indices of land use may serve
several purposes. A profile should deal with
those issues which are popularly considered to
be "environmental" regardless of whether they
might be more appropriately described under
other categories. What is perceived as
"environmental" and how to appropriately measure
it varies significantly from region to region.
Who Uses the Information: The usefulness of
indices must be evaluated in terms of the
intended user or use of the information. Some
alternatives found in most regions include:
Public Information/Education (the
public at large).
Public Policy (elected and appointed
officials and special interest groups).
Program Policy and Broad Resource
Allocation Needs (managers, elected and
appointed officials).
Program and Project Evaluations,
including degree in meeting specific
objectives (managers).
It is absolutely critical that the user be
identified. The scientist, administrator,
17
-------
elected official, and general public cannot
usually be satisfied by the same environmental
measure. The administrator needs to see the
resource allocation implications and the
scientist needs to see the cause and effect
implications. Who the user is will also affect
geographical or political aggregation of data
and the decision to highlight or obscure inter-
jurisdictional comparisons.
Even if The Regional Profile is for public
information needs, indices which comprise the
profile may be useful in meeting needs in other
categories. In most cases, however, it is
difficult to find a single measure which will
completely satisfy all categories of needs.
Benefit/Cost Analysis: Indices may provide
the "benefit" measure in cost/benefit ratios or
the "effectiveness" measure in cost/effective-
ness studies. An index will be more valuable to
the extent that it can be formulated as a known
variable of resources spent or tactics used. It
has been amply demonstrated, however, that this
is a difficult and frustrating undertaking. The
cause and effect relationships and relationships
to cost are poorly understood. Accordingly, it
should not be expected that indices used in a
profile for public information will serve cost/
benefit analysis purposes. However, to the
extent they aid in the formation of perception
of trade-offs, they will be useful.
Data Accuracy: Useful indicators can be
constructed from existing data bases and without
new data collection efforts or elaborate
manipulation of data. To accomplish this may
mean that it will be necessary to make some
reasonable estimates of parameters rather than
precisely determining them by a special study.
The precision and accuracy of data used in
indices must be dictated by the use to which the
index will be put. For purposes of public
information the accuracy requirements are less
than for standards enforcement and other
management purposes. The principal problem with
regard to data inaccuracy lies in portraying a
trend as improving when it is actually worsening
(or vice versa) rather than in inaccuracies in
the degree of change. In certain cases the risk
may be assessed quantitatively as a probability.
Other Considerations: For public informa-
tion, education and broad policy formation
purposes, indicators fail to be useful if they
fail to meet the following requirements:
18
-------
(1) They must be easily understood or the
user must think he understands the meaning of
the index. For example, few people understand
the basis for and implication of statistics on
the gross national product. Yet, it is a useful
index from a public information standpoint as
well as for certain technical purposes.
(2) They must be credible in the sense that
what the index is showing is not at odds with
what can be observed or what is perceived to be
the situation. For example, if an air quality
index shows air quality to be improving in
general, while the air quality of a particular
locality is deteriorating, it will not be
credible to those who live in the deteriorating
area.
(3) The frequency of reporting or updating
must be such that the time series has impact.
For example, daily reporting of air pollution
levels may have little impact if there are
insignificant changes from day to day or over
short intervals of time.
(4) From a public information standpoint,
an index should be stated in terms which clearly
relate to health, lifestyle, and similar
concerns rather than to technical or program-
matic considerations. For this reason, air
quality indices or forecasts may only become of
significant interest to the public when they
approach or exceed health standards or approach
levels where counter-measures such as curtailing
playground activities or driving are required.
(5) Indices which relate to the high-level
goals and objectives of legislation and ordi-
nances are particularly needed.
(6) An index number which is a weighted
aggregation of a number of variables, e.g.,
ORAQI, may fail to be meaningful from a public
information standpoint even though the index
numbers may be interpreted and displayed as
"good," "bad," etc. Conversely, a measure which
has units in common use, e.g., Ibs. (of emis-
sions), numbers of people (affected), miles (of
river), etc., will do a better job.
-------
1.3 msajssim OF
FOR A [.'EAR-TERM flATIOflAL PfflFILE
This section discusses on a media-by-media
basis the findings of the study team with regard
to each of the 23 displays that were proposed in
the January 1977 report as a near-term national
profile.
The section also includes a synopsis of
comments and problems raised by Regions in
connection with each of the displays. A
complete summary of these comments is provided
in Section 2.4.
Specifications for the development and
interpretation of needed data is provided in
Section 2.2.
There were several comments that occurred
frequently and applied to the displays in
general:
A version of the displays that is not
so dependent on color should be
constructed so as to allow reproduction
and use in a variety of documents.
It is important that the sources of
data be clearly indicated on the
display or highlighted in text
accompanying the display.
Narrative descriptions of the meaning
of the display along with a discussion
of issues is needed to supplement the
graphics in most cases. As pointed out
by Region VIII:
"Many pages in the draft are
devoted to explaining the displays
themselves, but there is no mention of
how much of that kind of explanatory
material will accompany these displays
once they are included in a final
document. Many of the displays,
standing alone, fail to convey the
total intended information. If a page
of descriptive text were placed on the
facing page, the whole would be more
useful."
"Cross-media" charts should be
considered to help clarify which
geographical areas have what types of
problems.
These recommendations could be readily
implemented in a final "profile document" which
would include text describing the meaning of the
graphics, sources of data, and special issues.
A non-color version of most of the graphics can
be constructed although quality reproduction
would still be required. Cross-media charts can
be developed, although this would be of greatest
interest in Regional or local versions of the
profiles.
20
-------
1.3.1 RIVER WATER QUALITY
In the materials reviewed by the Regions,
three displays were believed to be useful and
feasible for characterizing the river water
quality of the nation. These were in the
following formats:
A map of the United States on which the
principal rivers are color-coded
according to the degree to which they
meet water quality goals (Chart RW-1);
A bar chart, also listing the principal
rivers of the nation, on which the
height of the bars denotes the length
of the rivers, and where the bar is
color-coded to show the degree to which
the river miles are meeting water
quality goals (Chart RW-2);
A matrix of principal rivers arrayed
against causes of standards violations
and showing the degree to which a
particular type of violation is contri-
buting to the river failing to meet
water quality goals, and indicating by
arrows whether conditions are improving
or worsening (RW-4).
The detailed specifications proposed for the
preparation of these displays are given in
Section 2.2 of this report. However, there are
several concepts underlying these displays that
should be highlighted.
It is believed that the units of measure-
ments (river miles) used in RW-2 is preferable
to a water quality index number for the river,
even though the use of a water quality index
number may be the best way to arrive at the
information shown in the displays for certain
Regions. The concept of "miles of river meeting
water quality goals" is more understandable by
the public and provides a clearer link of the
national goal of "swimmable and fishable water."
While the quality of much of the nation's
rivers may be successfully described by an index
number, there are cases in which such an
approach fails because of lack of data or
unusual local conditions. In order to overcome
this problem it was proposed that each Region,
along with the states, make the best possible
judgment on the degree to which water quality
goals are being attained. This judgment may be
based wholly or in part on a water quality index
or by whatever method is most appropriate. This
decision would be made by each Region in collab-
oration with the states, taking into account the
availability and accuracy of data on the river.
21
-------
There is no index method which in itself,
and in relation to data availability, will
accurately characterize all river waters
throughout the nation. Moreover, since it now
appears that most of the popular water quality
indices have strikingly high correlations, the
adoption of a uniform index may have little
practical significance.
For these reasons it is believed that the
adoption of a particular national water quality
index method is neither necessary nor desirable
at this time for characterizing river water
quality.
Comments received from the Regions and other
persons regarding displays RW-1, RW-2, and RW-4,
were favorable in an overall sense and indicated
that, for the most part, the preparation of the
charts was feasible and the resulting informa-
tion would be useful at the Regional level.
Specifications criticisms and problems
included the following:
The Need to Adopt a Uniform Water Quality
Index Method for Specifying Water Quality: The
adoption of various water quality indices was
proposed by several Regions. For example,
comments received from Region V were as follows:
"For the water media, Region V has been
investigating an objective water quality
index method, based on Dr. Ralph D. Harkins1
modification of the cluster analysis
method. The advantages of this method are:
(1) It is not subject to differences of
opinion as when weight factors are used
for calculating the index number.
(2) The number of parameters used in
calculating the index is not fixed.
(3) The interpretation of cluster analysis
index values are subject to statistical
tests to determine if changes or trends
are significant.
(4) These index values are amenable to
averaging and other mathematical
calculations which allow the calculat-
ing of quarterly averages by station,
basin, time intervals, setting of
confidence intervals and statistical
tests of confidence.
(5) Stations can be compared with one
another at the same time or at
different time periods."
The Need to Adopt Consistent Methods for
Judging the Degree to Which Water Quality Goals
are Being Met: In addition to consistencies
between Regions, a need for consistency between
the states within Regions was stressed. For
example, Region II commented that, "There should
-------
be a standard system against which all Regions
determine whether or not water quality meets
fishable-swimmable standards. This would allow
uniformity in reporting the river conditions."
Need to Agree on the "Representative
Network" of Rivers: In addition to establishing
the representative network that would be used
for the national profile, river segments need to
be defined in more detail.
Taking Into Account Flow: Several Regions
indicated that river flow needed to be taken in-
to account, or alternatively, a moving average
used to smooth differences in water quality due
to flow differences between years.
The Effectiveness of the Grant Programs
Should Be Included in Near-Term Displays: One
or more displays should be included that
illustrate the effectiveness of national
programs for improving water quality. Comments
by Reigon VII included the following:
"One of the Agency's main goals has
been to reduce water loads to receiving
waters through the permit and construction
grant program. It would seem, therefore,
appropriate to display such information as
trends (in loads) in a river basin. This
information would also be necessary for
development of a display describing the
relative contributions from point and non-
point sources.
A number of displays could be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the grant
program, for example, a survey of BOD/TSS
removal per $1000 of grant money and/or a
chart showing numbers of people on no sewage
treatment, primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment."
Specific comments on the three displays that
were proposed for use in a near-term profile
included the following:
RW-1: It was pointed out that this display,
"at a much greater level of detail, would be
more useful for managers."
RW-2: Comments by Region VIII on this
display included the following:
"Color doesn't particularly help this
graphic which is really an extension of
RW-1. Skillfully done, this could be merged
into RW-1. In fact, if actual river miles
were shown alongside each segment, it should
enhance the usefulness of this graphic.
Either way little or no additional time
would be required in Region VIII to work
this up, once the desired level of detail
23
-------
for RW-1 is developed. Together, RW-1 and
RW-2, if developed in sufficient detail,
would be good for both public information
and as a tool for basic management purposes."
RW-4: Several Regions felt a significant
effort would be required to produce this
graphic, but that it was also very
valuable. "River" should be changed to
"River Basin" in the title.
Finally, it was recommended that a special
section be devoted to particular problems such
as the Colorado River salinity, oil spills, and
so forth.
Additional comments may be found in Section
2.4.2 of this report.
In order to develop displays RW-1, RW-2, and
RW-4, it will be necessary to define nationally
the river segments that will be included. Along
with this it will also be necessary to agree on
the extent to which year-by-year changes will be
smoothed. It is believed that each Region, in
cooperation with the states, can make reasonably
accurate judgments on the percent of the river
basin meeting water quality goals, although
there will be missing data or places where "no
judgment" can be made.
As discussed above, it is not believed that
it is necessary to adopt a uniform water quality
index method to produce reasonably accurate
statements of the degree to which the principal
river basins are meeting water quality goals.
It is proposed that an attempt be made to
construct draft versions of RW-1, RW-2, and RW-4
for each Region. When this has been partially
accomplished, a trial aggregation at the nation-
al level would be attempted and consistency and
comparability problems addressed using the real
data. It is believed that most of the potential
problems can be resolved, and that this can be
most effectively accomplished with real data in
hand. In other words, formulating a more
precise definition of what constitutes meeting
water quality goals would be deferred until a
clearer understanding of the need for
preciseness is obtained.
1.3.2 LAKE AND GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
Graphics for displaying the quality of lake
water were separated into two categories: the
Great lakes and all other lakes.
For the Great Lakes, one display, GLW-1,
appears to be feasible in the near-term. This
is a bar chart showing the percent of swimming
beaches of the Great Lakes meeting water quality.
-------
WATER QUALITY OF NATION'S PRINCIPAL RIVER BASINS
RW-1
Y
\HUDSON
SUSQUEHANNA/ I
DETROIT 1 ) /
DELAWARE
D
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
MEETS FISHABLE & SWIMMABLE GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FISHABLE
& SWIMMABLE GOALS
DOES NOT MEET GOALS
UNKNOWN
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
PniTION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. ?
-------
RW-2
RIVER MILES MEETING NATIONAL GOALS BY PRINCIPAL RIVER BASIN
2000
1800
1600
SUMMARY OF ALL MAJOR RIVER
BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES
73%
^B MEETS FISH ABLE & SWIMMABLE GOALS
D PROVISIONALLY MEETS FISHABLE
& SWIMMABLE GOALS
| DOES NOT MEET GOALS
| UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
26
-------
RW-4
TYPES OF RIVER WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
IN THE NATION'S PRINCIPAL RIVERS
DELAWARE RIVER
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVERS
OHIO RIVER
TENNESSEE RIVER
UPPER MISSOURI RIVER
LOWER MISSOURI RIVER I
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER I
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER I
I I
• D
ARKANSAS RIVER
RED RIVER
BRAZOS RIVER I
RIO GRANDE RIVER I
COLORADO RIVER I
SACRAMENTO RIVER I
COLUMBIA RIVER!
SNAKE RIVER I
WILLAMETTE RIVERJ
YUKON RIVERJ
CHICAGO AREA-TRIBUTARIES! fl
DETROIT RIVER)
ODD D
QD ID
I DO
D ID
D DD
D D
I ID
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
LEGEND
H NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
D
MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
INSUFFICIENT DATA, UNKNOWN
NUMBERS OF VIOLATIONS
lOUA
J DETERIORATING
m QUALITY 111 QUALITY
IMPROVING
NOTE: NO ARROW MEANS
NO CHANGE
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
r>F THF NATIONAL PROFILE. 0-7
-------
or health standards. The data necessary to
formulate this display would be assembled from
information available from the International
Joint Commission and from local public health
agencies. The display is color coded according
to the degree of impairment, and an evaluation
scheme was proposed in the specifications
accompanying this display in Section 2.2 of the
report.
The evaluation scheme identifies three
principal uses (swimming, fishing, and drinking)
arrayed against criteria as to the degree of
impairment associated with fecal coliform
concentrations, total phosphoros, etc.
For other lakes, two displays were believed
to be feasible in the near-term. These were:
The percent of lake surface area for
which the highest beneficial use is
impaired—divided by Region and color
coded as to the degree of impairment
(see display LW-1).
Eutrophication of major lakes expressed
in square miles of lakes by Region and
color coded as to the degree of
eutrophication (see LW-4).
It was proposed that only major lakes be
included, and that they be defined as lakes and
reservoirs with surface areas of 10 square miles
(64,000 acres) or greater. A scheme similar to
that proposed for the Great Lakes for evaluating
the degree of impairment was proposed and is
outlined in Section 2.2. This scheme identified
four uses—swimming, fishing, boating, and
aesthetics—along with criteria for classifying
the surface area as to whether there is no
impairment, moderate impairment, or significant
impairment.
In the case of trophic conditions, it was
proposed that data be obtained from the National
Eutrophication Survey and from local and
regional university and state agency surveys.
The degree of eutrophication was color coded
according to whether or not the lake was
perceived to be non-eutrophic (blue), moderately
eutrophic (yellow), and eutrophic (red).
Comments received from Region VIII on the
two proposed graphics for lake water quality
included the following:
LW-1: "To date practically no data is
available in STORET or is otherwise
available to aid this kind of an assessment
for the 2300+ Region VIII (significant)
lakes identified in 106 plans. With the NES
and some other fragmented information we
were able to do a trophic assessment only
-------
LW-1
LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR WHICH HIGHEST BENEFICIAL USE IS IMPAIRED
(PRINCIPAL LAKES EXCLUDING GREAT LAKES)
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
QUALITY OF MAJOR LAKES WITH
PERCENTAGE OF SURFACE AREA
IMPAIRED.
70%
30% IMPAIRED
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
j | MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
30
-------
LW-3
EUTROPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES (EXCEPT GREAT LAKES)
160r
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
EUTROPHICATION STATUS OF
MAJOR LAKES BY REGION
29%
D
NON-EUTROPHIC
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
GLW-1
PERCENT OF SWIMMING BEACHES ON GREAT LAKES MEETING WATER
QUALITY OR HEALTH STANDARDS
100%
60%
40%
20%
53%
21%
26%
SUMMARY OF SWIMMING BEACH
STATUS FOR THE FIVE GREAT LAKES
D
MEETS STANDARDS
RELATIVELY MINOR VIOLATIONS
RELATIVELY MAJOR VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
32
-------
It is not clear whether judgments on a
sufficient number of lakes can be made to make a
national aggregation meaningful. It is proposed
to proceed with this display with the under-
standing that the "unknown" category may be
substantial.
1.3.3
MARINE WATER
Only one display was believed to be feasible
in the near-term in this subject area. This
display (see MW-1) shows the percent of commer-
cial shellfish acreage open for harvesting by
Region, with the percentages divided into three
categories: open for harvesting (color coded
blue), limited usage due to pollution (yellow),
and closed due to pollution (red).
The data necessary to construct this display
was believed to be available from existing
reports, including the National Shellfish
Register of Classified Estuarine Water. How-
ever, it would be necessary for each Region to
review and update the NEIC reports before the
final information could be aggregated into the
proposed national display.
Supplemental information, which would
enhance the meaningfulness of the proposed
displays, includes "types of marine water quality
violations" (see MW-2 in Section 2.2), "trends
in commercial shellfish harvesting areas" (see
MW-3), as well as other displays that would be
meaningful at the local level (cf. MW-4, "status
of shellfish harvesting areas," a map).
However, it appears that sufficient
information is not available, nor will it be
available in the near-term to construct these
displays for most Regions.
Other concepts, such as the miles of beach
open for recreation or the percentage of marine
recreational areas impaired due to water pol-
lution, were considered. Initial attempts to
construct graphical displays around these
concepts failed due to either the minute per-
centages involved or the inability to accurately
portray the degree of impairment. Further
consideration to these concepts may be appro-
priate in the future to the extent that the
proposed "shellfish harvesting area" measure is
not completely effective. In addition, they may
be useful at the local level.
Comments by Region II indicated that MW-1
and MW-3 could be readily constructed.
It is proposed to proceed with MW-1 at this
time and make a determination as to the current
feasibility of combining MW-3 with MW-1.
-------
MW-1
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH ACREAGE OPEN FOR HARVESTING
LU
a.
100%
80%
LU ta
cc ui
o >
^ <
•J t)
UJ £
i III
w is
5 cc
O O
QC "•
60%
40%
20%
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF THE
NATION'S ACTIVE SHELL
FISH AREAS THAT ARE
OPEN FOR HARVESTING
79%
13%
X ,^v>*
OPEN FOR
HARVESTING
D
CLOSED DUE TO
POLLUTION
LIMITED USAGE DUE
TO POLLUTION
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
1.3.4
DRINKING WATER
One display was proposed for drinking
water. This chart shows the population of each
of the ten Regions served by water supplies
meeting all standards, water supplies with
relatively minor standards violations, and water
supplies with relatively major violations (see
DW-1).
The basis for this chart would be state-
supplied information on standards violation in
community water supplies. The determination of
whether the violations are minor or major would
be left up to the Regional offices. However,
general specifications for reaching these
judgments must be formulated.
Variations on this display may be created by
manipulation of the basic data. These would
include percentage of people served by a drink-
ing water supply meeting standards, and so forth.
Displays indicating the "number of drinking
water supplies meeting standards" (see DW-3 in
Section 2.2) may be useful at the local and
Regional level, but were not perceived as being
useful at the national level. In addition, a
matrix-type chart providing an overview of the
causes of drinking water standards violations by
Region or state would be desirable, but is
probably not feasible in the immediate future.
While it was believed that associating
population statistics with water supplies could
be done with reasonable accuracy and fairly
easily, Region VIII felt otherwise:
Information needed to put this profile
together will not be easily obtainable.
While the water supply inventory will be a
part of the MSIS System, and data on systems
with violations will be recorded in the ADP
system, there is no program at this time to
produce a data output that shows the popu-
lation served by supplies meeting all
standards. Also, it will be difficult to
show trends with this type of bar graph
because of the difficulty in showing
differences in small population changes. If
used, this profile should be limited to
people served by community systems.
However, it will not be possible to evaluate
all community supplies for all standards
until 1980."
In addition, several reviewers felt that the
displays should indicate the source (rivers,
lakes, etc.) of the drinking water supplies
being described. See Section 2.4.5 for
additional comments.
-------
DW-1
POPULATION SERVED BY DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES MEETING ALL STANDARDS
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION SERVED BY
WATER SUPPLIES THAT MEET STANDARDS
(BLUE), WITH MINOR VIOLATIONS (YELLOW),
WITH MAJOR VIOLATIONS (RED).
85%
D
I SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY THAT
MEETS ALL STANDARDS
SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY WITH
RELATIVELY MINOR VIOLATIONS
I SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY WITH
RELATIVELY MAJOR VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
36
-------
It is proposed to proceed with DW-1 with the
belief that a reasonably accurate, if not
precise, estimate of the population served can
be made.
1.3.5 AIR QUALITY
Four charts were proposed for the air
quality area. These were:
A bar chart showing the reduction in
stationary source emissions attri-
butable to air quality controls (see
AIR-1).
A bar chart showing for each non-
attainment AQCR the days of standards
violations (see AIR-2). This chart is
arrayed by state rather than AQCR--this
was a mistake, and the names of the
AQCR's rather than the states should be
shown.
A chart in matrix form that arrays the
principal air pollutants against all
AQCR's, showing the degree to which the
pollutant is a contributor to standards
violations and whether the conditions
are improving or worsening (see AIR-4).
A map of the United States showing the
areas in which standards are violated
(see AIR-11).
In Section 2.2, a number of other displays
are shown that either were believed to be
desirable but infeasible in the near-term, or
were believed to be useful at the local or
Regional level rather than at the national level.
The data for the chart illustrating the
reduction in emissions from stationary sources
due to controls, AIR-1, would be produced from
OAQPS information, and there would be no
Regional involvement in the preparation of this
display.
For AIR-2, data for the days of standards
violations for each non-attainment air quality
control region would be calculated in the
Regions, and the national display would simply
be an aggregation of this information. In order
to accomplish this, it would be necessary for
each Region to determine the site in each ACQR
for each pollutant that represents the worst
case for the ACQR for that pollutant. The days
of standards violations are then counted and
color coded as shown in the chart. Severity of
standards violations may be shown by varying the
density of the color in the bar (see AIR-3 in
37
-------
Section 2), or by providing a companion chart on
which the total days of standards violations for
the worst case sites in the ACQR are color coded
according to whether the violations were above
the alert level or just above the primary
standard level.
The matrix in AIR-4, showing the degree to
which the different air pollutants are contri-
butors to standards violations, uses the same
data as required for the preceding chart, except
that a judgment as to whether the trend is
improving or worsening would have to be made.
In addition, this chart, by color coding,
suggests the degree to which the pollutant is a
major or minor contributor to the standards
violations. The rule for making this decision
has not been formulated, although it is believed
that such a rule can be formulated when data for
the nation's non-attainment AQCR's is
consolidated.
The last display that is proposed (AIR-11)
is based on existing OAQPS data. However, as
drafted the display does not provide sufficient
resolution of the actual geographical areas
affected by the pollutant to be useful, even at
the national level. In order to correct this
problem, and as noted in the specifications, it
would be necessary for each Region to
reconstruct the boundaries of the areas affected
to provide better resolution. In other words,
boundaries of the area affected need not be
exact, but substantially greater resolution than
that shown in the chart must be attained. It is
believed that a color-coded map can be prepared
which conveys the proper ideas as to the
location and extent of problems.
Some of the comments received were as
follows:
Use of Worst Case Approach: Comments by
Region VI on this issue included the following:
"The graphs labeled AIR-2 and AIR-3 use the
"worst case" approach to depict general air
quality for an entire state or AQCR. The
use of this approach will be misleading to
the general public. To offset this,
information depicting the "average" number
of violation days in a state or AQCR should
be displayed. This information could be
something like the number of violation days
exceeded by 50% of the AQCR's in a state.
Similar information could be given for
multiple-site AQCR's."
38
-------
"Overall the series of graphs presented will
provide a good general description of the
status of air quality in the nation and in
each of the Regions."
"One possible addition to the Regional
presentation would be to display pollution/
wind roses for each pollutant for the major
metropolitan areas in the Region."
Near exclusive use of bar graphs is
monotonous. Were other types of graphs
considered?"
Chart Format: Region VIII offered the
following suggestions for better visualization
of the relative differences between pollutants:
"Each pollutant should be separated with its
own bar chart. That way, the worst case for
each pollutant can be distinguished and the
bias associated with the lack of any data
will not be as misleading."
Region II also recommended, "separating the
types of pollutants, one per national display."
Trend Information As Shown In AIR-4:
Several Regions expressed uneasiness with how
trends would be calculated. Other Regions felt
the display was the best from among those
proposed for the air quality area.
Data Processing Procedures: Region V
offered the following comments regarding changes
in data processing procedures:
"The air media presentations could be
implemented easily if current data processing
procedures were modified and enhanced."
"We believe that standardization of these
capabilities is most important to be cost
effective. We realize each Region will have a
variety of needs, some unique because of popu-
lation, geography, meteorology, hydrology, and
industry. However, once some of these displays
have national acceptance, they should be
available centrally (i.e., Headquarters, RTP).
This effort should fit in with the final
Standing Air Monitoring Work Group plan. We
note that the Monitoring and Data Analysis
Division is proposing new air data graphical
displays (isopleth mapping, for instance) which
is one of the FY 77-78 SAMW6 goals."
"Finally, we desire this capability to be
technically sound and capable of going the long
haul, and that any display be clearly annotated."
Additional comments on the use of "worst
case" data and on other points are included in
Section 2.4.6 of this report.
In order to deal with the problems of the
"worst case" approach it is proposed that other
-------
AIR-1
REDUCTION IN STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO AIR QUALITY CONTROLS
125 i-
113.2
1970 1974 1975
NATIONAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
UJ
M
o
50
40
2 30
Z 20
v>
O
1 10
in
44.3
46.2
39.6
1970 1974 1975
NATIONAL SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS
POTENTIAL EMISSIONS
ACTUAL EMISSIONS (SO2)
ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TSP)
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
PROFILE
-------
AIR QUALITY
NUMBER OF DAYS WITH STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
AIR-2
45
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AMD IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TOTAL SUSPENDED PAHTICULATE ITSP)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2 )
OXIDANTS (Ox I
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX )
NO VIOLATIONS
TYPE N-1- THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
41
-------
AIR-4
TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY BY POLLUTANT
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
ALASKA
ANCHORAGE
FAIRBANKS
ALABAMA
NO VIOLATIONS OF STANDARDS
D
EXCEEDS PRIMARY STANDARD
EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED IN COMPLIANCE
ARIZONA
INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED EXCEEDING
PRIMARY LEVEL
QUALITY IMPROVING
QUALITY DETERIORATING
CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND/
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES -
SO. COAST
SAN DIEGO
NOTE: NO CHANGE IN QUALITY INDICATED
BY NO ARROW.
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
42
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE AIR QUALITY STATUS
AIR-11
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
I I REGIONS NOT MEETING PRIMARY ANNUAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
[ | | STATE - AMBIENT LEVELS AT MORE MONITORS IN STATE IMPROVING THAN DETERIORATING 1970 - 1975
| | | STATE - AMBIENT LEVELS AT MORE MONITORS IN STATE DETERIORATING THAN IMPROVING 1970 - 1975
SOURCE. OAQPS. EPA DATA
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
f\C TUC MATiniMAI PRnPM P
-------
statistics as to days of standards violations be
combined on one chart with a separate chart for
each pollutant. The other statistics could
include "average days of standards violations,"
"days exceeded by 50% of sites," and so forth.
Before proceeding with these graphics, these
concepts should be explored further. It is
believed, however, that a satisfactory
exposition of information can be obtained.
1.3.6
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Two charts were proposed for inclusion in a
near-term national profile for the area of solid
waste disposal. These were:
Percent of population served by a
state-approved solid waste disposal
facility by year, further color coded
as to whether the violations are
relatively major or minor (see SW-1).
Number of persons served by state-
approved solid waste disposal
facilities by Region, and color coded
as to whether the violations are
relatively major or minor (see SW-2).
The data for these two displays can be
constructed from data reported by the states
along with census information. A rule for
distinguishing between "major" and "minor"
violations was not proposed in the specifi-
cations, but it is believed that one can be
formulated. Accordingly, it is proposed to
proceed with these displays.
Several other displays were considered in
the solid waste disposal area. These included
"tons of hazardous waste disposed of by state-
approved methods in relation to tons generated"
(see SW-3 in Section 2.2), and population served
by acceptable sludge disposal systems (see SW-4
in Section 2.2). Neither of these displays were
believed possible for the near-term on a
national basis because of lack of data.
1.3.7
RADIATION
The three displays proposed for use in a
national profile in the area of radiation may be
constructed using existing data. The three
graphics were:
trend in the amount of radiation in the
environment due to fallout (RAD-1);
trend in the amount of radiation
escaping from nuclear plants (RAD-2);
Average amount of exposure to radiation
per person per year (RAD-3).
44
-------
SW-1
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE APPROVED
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
100% r
80% -
o
<
Q.
2
LU
O
cc
LU
C.
60% -
40% -
20% -
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
D
MEETS STATE STANDARDS
RELATIVELY MINOR
VIOLATIONS
RELATIVELY MAJOR
VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
45
-------
o
3)
m
O
3>
6
Z
w
D
<
m
O
31
o
00
m
m -1
D I
H co
z! o
o «"
5 m
^ O
-o
X
O
m
T;
30
co
CO
CO
m
DO
CO
O O
2s
^ 30
> CO
co O
H -2.
m co
O co
o
I- C30
m •<
> CO
O H
m
co
m
33
O
m
a
-------
RAD-1
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIATION IN THE
ENVIRONMENT DUE TO "FALL-OUT"
(STRONTIUM 90 IN MILK)
90
cc
111
cc
UJ
a. 60
vt
UJ
8
30
MAXIMUM LEVEL RECORDED IN THE U.S. WAS
32 PICO-CURIES PER LITER
70
76
YEAR
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
47
-------
RAD-2
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ESCAPING FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS
{KRYPTON 85 IN AIR)
(NO STANDARD ESTABLISHED)
I8r
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE IM-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
RAD-3
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE TO RADIATION, PER PERSON,
PER YEAR
3251-
295
LLJ
CC
250
111
cc
D
CO
O
Q.
X
LLJ
Z
z
CO
z 127
u.125
E 105
o
co
D
HI
Sg 60
cc
MAXIMUM EXPOSURE NOT TO EXCEED
170 MILLIREMS OVER AND ABOVE
NATURAL BACKGROUND AND
NECESSARY MEDICAL EXPOSURE.
OCCUPATIONAL
HAZARD ONLY .
AVERAGE
MILLIREMS
PER PERSON
SOURCE OF
RADIATION
INDUSTRIAL
NUCLEAR POWER
PRODUCTS
FALL-OUT
MEDICAL/DENTAL
NATURAL,
COSMIC
NATURAL,
TERRESTRIAL
1976
FALL-OUT & NUCLEAR
POWER
| j MEDICAL/DENTAL
NATURAL BACKGROUND
TYPE N - 1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
49
-------
Radiation due to fallout would be measured
by the trends in Strontium 90 in milk. In the
case of radiation associated with nuclear
plants, the average amount of Krypton 85 in the
air would be used.
The purpose of the chart illustrating the
sources and amount of radiation per person per
year is to help put in perspective the relative
exposure to radiation from controllable and non-
controllable sources, as well as to put the
impact of various sources of radiation in
perspective. The graphics shown in R-3 are not
entirely adequate for this task, but something
similar to this is probably needed.
No Regional input would be required for
these types of displays, and improved
alternatives to those illustrated may very well
exist.
A number of revisions in these displays were
proposed by the Office of Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Radiation Programs and are
shown in Section 2.4.8. In particular the
feasibility of RAD-3 was questioned.
1.3.8
PESTICIDES
The three displays proposed for the
pesticide area were addressed to three issues:
(1) trends in the usage of pesticides; (2)
changes in the residual levels of pesticides;
and (3) the benefits of pesticide usage.
The charts identified as PEST-1, PEST-2, and
PEST-3 are illustrative of the type of material
that could be presented in connection with these
issues. No Regional support would be required
for these or similar displays.
1.3.9
NOISE
Three displays were proposed for the noise
area of the profile. These are:
Numbers of persons living in areas with
objective noise ordinances (see
NOISE-1);
Numbers of persons exposed to unaccept-
able noise levels (see NOISE-2);
Noise energy by major source (see
NOISE-3).
The first of these charts will require that
the Regions match community populations with
noise ordinances.
The two remaining charts may be prepared
without Regional assistance based on existing
estimates of the parameters involved.
-------
PEST-1
PESTICIDE USAGE, BY YEAR
ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL USES OF PESTICIDES IN THE U.S.
700
600 -
NON-PERSISTENT PESTICIDES
I PERSISTENT PESTICIDES
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE IMATIOIMAL
-------
PEST-2
CHANGE IN PESTICIDE RESIDUAL LEVELS IN FISH
(SPECIES MENHADEN) SINCE DDT
WAS BANNED
| BAN ON USE OF DDT
8 9 10
SOURCE: PHI LIP A. BUTLER, PROJECT OFFICER, GULF BREEZE (FLORIDA) LABORATORY
NOTE: PESTICIDES ARE DEFINED IN P.L. 92-516 TO INCLUDE RODENTICIDES, HERBICIDES, FUNGICIDES
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1- THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
52
-------
30
if
HUNDRED MILLIONS
i!
On
Z m
HUNDRED MILLIONS
-» M W * Ol O> -M
o
o
O
•o
O
5
m
HUNDRED MILLIONS
M CJ *> Ul OvJOO
—i
•o
m
Z
I
-O -n H
m
CD
m
Z
m
CO
O
•n
•o
m
v>
O
5
m
c
CO
>
O
m
?
Z CO
m
-p
S
S
•o
m
r
CO
-------
NOISE-1
NUMBERS OF PERSONS LIVING IN AREAS WITH
OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCES
45 M r
33.5 M -
z
O
22.5 M -
11.5 M -
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. POPULATION
LIVING IN AN AREA PROTECTED BY
A MODERN NOISE ORDINANCE IS
SHOWN BY THE BLUE WEDGE.
% / \
IN AREAS WITH AN OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCE
|~~] AREAS WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCE
METROPOLITAN AREA WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCE
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
-------
NOISE-2
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO UNACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVELS-
GREATER THAN 55 L(dn)-BY SOURCE OF NOISE
200
150
5
z
O
CL
O
a.
100
50
SOURCE: EPA REPORT, 39FR 121
PAGE 22297, 21JUNE 1974
URBAN
TRAFFIC
AIRPORT CONSTRUC-
NOISE TION NOISE
RESIDENTIAL AREAS, 65 L(dn) & OVER
SAFE, UNDER 55 L
-------
NOISE-3
NOISE ENERGY BY MAJOR SOURCE
KILOWATT HOURS OF NOISE ENERGY GENERATED - DAILY
1000 2000 3000 4000
5000
6000 Kwh/DAY
I
TRUCKS OF 10,000 GVWR (LOADED WEIGHT)
5800
1150
SPORT & COMPACT AUTOS
800
OTHER PASSENGER AUTOS
570
LIGHT TRUCKS
500
SNOWMOBILES
325
MOTORCYCLE NOISE
ESTIMATED TOTAL SOUND ENERGY IN KILOWATT
HOURS PER DAY, GENERATED BY MAJOR NOISE
SOURCES.
(THESE SOURCES ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEW EPA
REGULATIONS, AND THEIR NOISE LEVELS WILL
BE REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY).
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
PROFILE.
cc
-------
1.3.10 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DISPLAYS
The Table below summarized our findings with regard to each of the 43 displays presented in the
January 1977 document. Illustrations of the displays not included above may be found in Section 2.2.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Chart
Number
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
RW-5
LW-1
Title
Water Quality of Nation's River Basins
River Miles Meeting National Goals By
Principal River Basin
Trend in Percent of River Miles Meeting
Goals
Types of River Water Standards Viola-
tions in the Nation's Principal Rivers
Point vs. Non-Point Source Contribu-
tions to River Water Pollution
Lake Surface Area for Which Highest
Beneficial Use is Impaired (Principal
Format
Map
Bar & Pie
Chart
Bar
Chart
Matrix
Bar
Chart
Bar & Pie
Chart
Conclusions and Recommendations
Proceed with this display resolv-
ing problems in definitions, flow
rates, etc., after some real data
aggregated.
(Same as RW-1)
Further information on feasibili-
ty needed.
(Same as RW-1)
Do not pursue at this time at
national level.
Attempt this display in next
phase subject to being able to
Lakes Excluding Great Lakes)
LW-2 Causes of Impairment of Principal Lake
Water Quality
LW-3 Eutrophication of Major Lakes (Except
Great Lakes)
Matrix
Bar & Pie
Chart
get enough lakes included to
make national aggregation
meaningful.
Consider for future.
(Same as LW-1)
57
-------
Chart
Number
Title
Format
Conclusions & Recommendations
LW-4 Trend in Eutrophication of Major Lakes Bar
of the United States (Except Great Chart
Lakes)
LW-5 Miles of Lake Shoreline Acceptable for Bar & Pie
Swimming Chart
Consider for future.
For regional or local use only.
LW-1 Percent of Swimming Beaches of Great
Lakes Meeting Water Quality or Health
Standards
GLW-2 "Problem Areas" in Great Lakes
MW-1 Commercial Shellfish Acreage Open for
Harvesting
MW-2 Types of Marine Water Standards
Violations
MW-3 Trend in Commercial Shellfish Areas
Open for Harvesting
MW-4 Status of Shellfish Harvesting Areas
DW-1 Population Served by Drinking Water
Supplies Meeting All Standards
DW-2 Types of Drinking Water Standards
Violations
DW-3 Number of Drinking Water Supplies
Meeting Standards
Bar & Pie Proceed with this display at this
Chart time.
Map
Bar & Pie
Chart
Matrix
Bar
Chart
Map
Bar & Pie
Chart
Matrix
Proceed with this display at this
time.
Proceed with this display at this
time.
Consider for future.
This may be feasible now and
could be combined with MW-1.
Further study needed.
For regional or local use only.
Proceed at this time.
Consider for future.
Bar & Pie For regional or local use.
Chart
58
-------
Chart
Number
Title
Format
Conclusions & Recommendations
AIR-1 Reduction in Stationary Source
Emissions Attributable to Air Quality
Controls
AIR-2 Number of Days with Standards Viola-
tions by Type of Pollutant
AIR-3 Days of Standards Violations by Type
of pollutant and Severity of Violation
for Non-Attainment Air Quality Control
Regions
AIR-4 Trends in Air Quality by Pollutant
AIR-5 Types & Trends in Number of Days of
Air Quality Standards Violations by
State
AIR-6 Number of Persons Exposed to Air
Quality Standards Violations
AIR-7 Cost of Air Pollution
AIR-8 Numbers of Persons Exposed to Air
Quality Standards Violations, by Year
AIR-9 Maximum One-Hour Oxidant Concentration
for "Your City" by Year
AIR-10 Days of Air Quality Standards Viola-
tions, by City & by Month of Year
for All Pollutants
Bar
Chart
Bar
Chart
Bar
Chart
Matrix
Matrix
Bar & Pie
Chart
Bar Chart
Bar Chart
Proceed with this display.
Combine with other violation-day
statistics to get satisfactory
display concept before proceeding.
For regional or local use only
Proceed with this display at this
time.
Drop this display.
Consider for future.
Consider for future.
Consider for future.
Bar Chart For regional or local use.
Bar & Pie For regional or local use.
Chart
59
-------
Chart
Number
AIR-11
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
RAD-1
Title
Total Suspended Parti cul ate Air
Quality Status
Percent of Population Served by State
Approved Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Numbers of Persons Served by State
Approved Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Tons of Hazardous Waste Disposed of
by State Approved Methods
Population Served by Acceptable Sludge
Disposal System
Implementation Status of Full -Scale
Resource Recovery Systems
Trend in Amount of Radiation in the
Format
Map
Bar Chart
Bar & Pie
Chart
Bar & Pie
Chart
Bar & Pie
Chart
Map & Pie
Chart
Bar Chart
Conclusions & Recommendations
Do example with improved reso-
lution before proceeding.
Proceed with data collection for
this display at this time.
Proceed with data collection for
this display at this time.
Consider for future.
Consider for future.
For regional or local use.
All right for inclusion in
Environment Due to "Fall Out"
(Strontium 90 in Milk)
RAD-2 Trend in Amount of Radioactive Bar Chart
Materials Escaping from Nuclear Plants
(KRYP.85 in Air)
RAD-3 Average Amount of Exposure to Radia- Bar Chart
tion, Per Person, Per Year
PEST-1 Pesticide Usage, by Year Bar Chart
PEST-2 Changes in Pesticide Residual Levels Graph
in Fish (Species Menhaden) Since DDT
Was Banned
national profile with revi
visions.
(Same as RAD-1)
Consider for future.
All right for inclusion in
national profile with revi-
sions.
(Same as PEST-1)
60
-------
Chart
Number
PEST-3
NOISE-1
Title
Benefits of Pesticide Usage
Numbers of Persons Living in Areas
With Objective Noise Ordinances
Format
Bar Chart
Bar & Pie
Chart
Conclusions & Recommendations
(Same as PEST-1 )
Proceed with data
at this time.
collection
NOISE-2 Number of Persons Exposed to Unaccep-
table Noise Levels (Greater Than
55 Ldn) by Source of Noise
Bar Chart
Alright for inclusion
NOISE-3 Noise Energy by Major Source
Bar Chart
Alright for inclusion
-------
SECTION 2
This section of the report presents the materials that were circulated for
comment in January 1977, and the comments that were received. It is composed
of four items.
Section 2.1:
Section 2.2:
Section 2.3:
An index to the displays.
The complete group of 43 displays along with the specifica-
tions for their preparation as originally proposed.
A summary of the format and content of the displays which
summarize the degree to which causes of problems and trend
information has been covered.
Section 2.4: All comments made by reviewers prior to publication
deadline.
-------
2.1. INDEX TO DISPLAYS IN THE JANUARY 1977 REPORT
The following lists the 43 displays that were circulated for review in January 1977
INDEX TO DISPLAYS IN THE JANUARY 1977 REPORT
DISPLAY
1
2
"3
4
5
5
7
0
•j
10
11
12
13
AREA
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
RW-5
LW--1
LW-2
LW-3
LW-4
LW-5
GLW-1
GLW-2
MW-1
TYPE"
N-1
N-1
N-2
N-1
R-2
IVI--1
N-2
N-1
N--2
R- 2
N ~1
R 1
N-1
TITLE
WATER QUALITY OF NATION'S RIVER BASINS
RIVER MILES MEETING NATIONAL GOALS BY
PRINCIPAL RIVER BASIN
TREND IN PERCENT OF RIVER MILES MEETING
GOALS
TYPES OF RIVER WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
IN THE NA 1 ION'S PRINCIPAL RIVERS
POINT VS PlON-'-OINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO KIVE" WATER rOLLUTION
LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR WHICH HIGHEST
BENEFICIAL USF IS IMPAIRED iPRlNC. LAKES E.XCL
•TREAT LAKES)
CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT OF PRINCIPAL LAKE
WATER QUALITY.
EUTHPOPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES (EXCEPT
GRFAT LAKES)
TREND iN EU!HROPHICATIv_M OF MAJOR 1 AKE.S
OF THE UNITED STATES IE
-------
DISPLAY
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21 M
21 R
22
23
?4
25
26
27
AREA
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
DW-1
DW-2
DW-3
AIR-1
AIR-2
AIR-3
A1R-4
AIR-5
AIR-6
AIR-7
AIR-8
AIR-9
TYPE
N-3
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-1
R-1
N-1
N-2
N-2
N-3
N-3
R-1
TITLE
TYPES OF MARINE WATER STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS.
TREND IN COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH AREAS OPEN
FOR HARVESTING
3TATUS OF SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREAS
POPULATION SERVED BY DRINKING WATER
SUPPLIES MEETING ALL STANDARDS
TYPES OF DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS.
NUMBER OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES MEETING
STANDARDS.
REDUCTION IN STATIONARY SOURCE EM'SSIONS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO AIR QUALITY CONTROLS
NUMBER OF DAYS WITH STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
DAVS OF STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY TYPE OF
POLLUTANT AND SEVERITY OF VIOLATION FOR
NO.M-ATTAINMENT AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS.
TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY BY POLLUTANT
TYPES & TRENDS IN NUMBER OF DAYS OF AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY STATE
NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
COST OF AIR POLLUTION.
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS, BY YEAR
MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR OXIDANT CONCENTRATION
FOR "YOUR CITY" BY YEAR
FORMAT
MATRIX
BAR
CHART
MAP
BAR&PIE
CHART
MATRIX
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
MATRIX
MATRIX
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
64
-------
DISPLAY
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
AREA
AIR-10
AIR-11
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
RAD-1
RAD-2
RAD-3
PEST-1
PEST-2
PEST-3
NOISE-1
NOISE-2
NOISE-3
TYPE
R- 1
N-1
IM-1
N-1
N-2
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
TITLE
DAYS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS,
BY CITY & BY MONTH OF YEAR, FOR ALL
POLLUTANTS.
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTIC.ULATE AIR QUALITY
STATUS.
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE
APPROVED SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
NUMBERS OF PERSONS SERVED BY STATE
APPROVED SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSED OF BY
STATE APPROVED METHODS.
POPULATION SERVED BY ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF FULL-SCALE
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS.
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIATION IN THF
ENVIRONMENT DUE TO "FALL OUT"
(STRONTIUM 90 IN MILK).
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ESCAPING FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS (KRYP. 85
IN AIR) (NOSTD ESTAB.l.
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE TO RADIATION,
PER PERSON, PER YEAR.
PESTICIDE USAGE, BY YEAR.
CHANGE IN PESTICIDE RESIDUAL LEVELS IN FISH
(SPECIES MENHADEN) SINCE DDT WAS BANNED.
BENEFITS OF PESTICIDE USAGE.
NUMBERS OF PERSONS LIVING IN AREAS WITH
OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCES.
NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO UNACCEPTABLE
NOISE LEVELS (GREATER THAN 55Ldn) BY SOURCE
OF NOISE.
NOISE ENERGY BY MAJOR SOURCE.
FORMAT
BAR&PIE
CHART
MAP
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR&PIE .
BAR&PIE
CHART
MAP&
PIE
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
GRAPH
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
65
-------
THE DISPLAYS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THEIR PREPARATION
The tables below provide the original specifications proposed for developing the displays as they
appear in the January 1977 report along with all original art-work.
66
-------
bKbUFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
2.2.1
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEAI
REQUIRED REPORT
ENVIRONMENT FROM INTEGRATION- PER
MEDIA REF - TYPE TITLE - DESCRIPTION APPROACH REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS OTHERS EPA. D C. REGION OTHEF
RIVER
WATER
RIVER
WATER
1
RW-1
2
RW-2
N-1
N-1
WATER QUALITY OF NA-
TION'S PRINCIPAL RIVER
BASINS. This map shows
22 major river basins
in the Nation, color
coded to denote water
quality. Blue denotes
those segments of the
rivers which meet na-
tional goals of being
fishable £ swimmable
Yellow denotes those
segments which provi-
sionally meet goals &
red denotes segments
which currently fail
to meet goals. Green
is used where water
quality cannot be esti-
mated .
RIVER MILES MEETING
NATIONAL GOALS BY PRIN-
CIPAL RIVER BASIN. This
bar chart display shows
by region the mainstem
STORET £ minor basin
river miles which meet
yk 1: FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \J^ 2- CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3: FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R- REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPniSE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Aggrega-
tion of
maps
suppl ied
by
Reg ions .
Aggre-
gat ion
of re-
giona 1
di splays.
The Regions will need to color code
a regional river basin map of all
STORET major and minor mainstem
rivers, ind icat ing whether or not
water quality meets Federal goals.
The regional maps would be aggre-
gated together to produce the na-
tional map. Each Region must:
(1) Adopt and document a system for
determining whether or not water
quality meets f i shable-swimmable
goals consistent with available
data and generally accepted profes-
sional procedures. Adopted pro-
cedures will be evaluated for suit-
ability £ comparability prior to
aggregat ion .
(2) Segment by segment, determine
if water quality meets fishable-
swimmable goals (blue), provision-
ally meets goals (yellow) or
plainly does not meet goals (red).
(3) Color code the river basin map
as determined above.
See note (1) below for additional
comments .
To produce the regional displays,
the Regional Offices would be re-
qu i red to :
(1) Determine the length of each
segment color coded on the river
basin maps as discussed under dis-
play #1 . (Continued. . .)
None
1 .0
1 nc 1 uded
in d i s-
play #1
• 5
(.2)
1 ncl ud-
ed i n
d isplay
#1
None
Likel
!
'•
•
None
Likel
NOTES: (l) The following is a brief synopsis of the manner in which three
Regions are currently approaching the problem of determining relative river
water qual i ty .
Region X: The Region X approach is to use STORET data to calculate a water
67
-------
NOTES ON
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
NOTE (i) Continued:
quality index for various segments of the river. If the index value is below a particular level, it is assumed
that the river segment is fishable & swimmable unless there is other evidence that a healthy biota does not exist.
Conversely, a segment may also be considered fishable & swimmable, even though it does not have the required index-
number, if there is evidence that the segment has a healthy biota. In short, the index number, based upon STORET
data, is used as a general guide to whether the water in a particular segment is fishable & swimmable, but final
conclusions are subject to other evidence and judgments, apart from the index number itself.
The index is based on eleven parameters (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, total dissolved gases, total dissolved
solids, bacteria, radioactivity, organic toxicants, inorganic toxicants plus two categories of aesthetics). In order
to interpret the index, index numbers for various segments were compared with the perceived water quality of those
segments, taking into account the types of violations, their severity, and any other available information. As a
result of this analysis, it was decided that a segment with an index number less than 3-0 was likely to be "fishable
&swimmable" unless there was other evidence that a healthy biota did not exist. Similarly, it was concluded that a
segment with an index number in excess of 8.0 was the result of "significant violations."
The final results of this process are presented in bar chart form in which the "bar" for a particular segment of the
river is color-coded blue, yellow, and red with the following interpretations: BLUE: fishable & swimmable or equiva-
lent, or "essentially meets water quality standards"; RED: relatively severe violations (corresponding to an index
number in excess of 8.0); and YELLOW: for the remaining percentage of the river, suggest!ng less than severe viola-
tions but not considered "fishable 5 swimmable" In each case, the conclusion based on the index number can be pre-
empted by any other tangible evidence that contradicted the STORET data.
Percent of river miles was calculated by taking the known lengths of the segments in the three color-coded categor-
ies and finding the percentage of total river miles that each represented.
Region VIM: The approach used in Region VIII is similar to that of Region X, except that the state water quality
index,as computed, was based on four parameter groupings: (1) DO and BOD, (2) bacteria, (3) nitrogen and phosphorous,
and CO a grouping of other aesthetic and physical considerations. Each of the parameter groupings was weighted
equally and the index number was calculated as the percent of violations observed. Thus, the index for a particular
river segment could range from 0 to 100 where "0" would mean that there were no violations in any of the four group-
ings, and "100" means that all groupings were violated at all of the observations made.
A "severe events approach" was used to augment the index numbers that were calculated for each of the river segments.
Seven categories were considered under "severe events": pesticides toxic to fish, pesticides non-toxic to fish,
public drinking water standards, temperature in excess of state standards, pH outside the 6-9 range, fish kills,
and high salinity. No attempt was made to numerically combine these "severe events" with the index and they are
treated separately in Region Vlll's reporting system.
Using the index numbers computed from the STORET data, a color-coded map of the principal rivers in Region VIM was
prepared and published, which is similar to chart RW-1.
68
-------
NOTE (1) Continued: Region VIII uses the following color code:
Color Index Number Interpretat ion
Blue 0-5 Water has infrequent water quality problems.
Yellow 5-15 Water with intermittent water quality problems.
Red above 15 Water with significant water quality problems.
Green -- Insufficient data.
The range of index numbers associated with each water quality classification was based on general perceptions of the
relationship between the various index numbers, and water quality in Region VIII.
The lines on the map were drawn as dotted lines when there was a strong belief as to the condition of the water but
insufficient data to calculate an index value. Where there was other evidence that contradicted the index values,
the river segment was changed to reflect this evidence and the index value was not used. Those portions of the
river which were coded "blue" (index number of 0-5) could also be stated in words such as "essentially fishable & ,
swimmable.11 |
;
Thus, as with Region X, the Region VIM index serves the purpose of providing a current indication of the probable j
quality, which would only be accepted in the absence of contradictory perceptions or knowledge of other physical !
or biological factors that are not included in the computation of the formal index.
Region I: The approach used by Region I does not involve the computation of an index number. In order to estimate
the number of river miles that are not meeting Class B standards, State 305 (b) reports are used as a point of
departure. These reports provide estimates, on a water body by water body basis, of the miles (or surface acres)
not meeting Class B standards, as established by the States. Where there are doubts as to the sufficiency or
validity of data, Region I personnel, in collaboration with State personnel, take additional samples or make
judgments based upon other available evidence, as to the probable water quality. Predictions as to meeting the
1983 water quality goals are based on composite judgments of State & Regional personnel.
The number of river miles meeting Class B standards is considered to be roughly equivalent to the number of river
miles that are "fishable & swimmable." The reporting format used for public information purposes, reports the
number of river miles not meeting standards. The reciprocal can easily be calculated for use in a National Profile
of Environmental Quality.
NOTE (1) Continued...
69
-------
NOTES ON
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
NOTE (1) Continued:
DEFINITION OF "MAIN STEM" OR MAJOR RIVER & TRIBUTARIES THAT QUALIFY AS "MAIN STEM"
1. "Main Stem" rivers should be selected using any one of the following criteria:
a. Greater than 100,000 square miles drainage area.
b. Greater than 50,000 cfs average annual discharge at the mouth.
c. Has a length of 200 miles or more.
d. Major cities of 100,000 or more people or has major industrial complexes along it.
e. Be interstate or international on terminal streams with a length of 200 miles or more.
2. Tributaries will qualify as "Main Stem" rivers if they meet one or more of the following criteria;
a. The flow of the tributary is 10% or more of the major river (measured downstream
of the tri butary).
b. River Basin population per square mile of drainage area is 70 people/mile.
c. Population of any single community is 200,000 people or more.
d. Industrial loading adversely affects stream quality and when drainage area exceeds
1000 square miles.
e. Amount of irrigated land per square mile of drainage area is 0.5 or 50% or more and
when drainage area exceeds 1000 square miles.
f. Amount of forest land per square mile of drainage area is 0.5 or 50% or greater when
drainage area exceeds 1000 square miles.
70
-------
WATER QUALITY OF NATION'S PRINCIPAL RIVER BASINS
RW-1
- MERRIMAC
MEETS FISHABLE & SWIMMABLE GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FISHABLE
& SWIMMABLE GOALS
DOES NOT MEET GOALS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
UNKNOWN
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
RW-2
RIVER MILES MEETING NATIONAL GOALS BY PRINCIPAL RIVER BASIN
2000
1800
SUMMARY OF ALL MAJOR RIVER
BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES:
10%
MEETS FISHABLE & SWIMMABLE GOALS
D
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FISHABLE
& SWIMMABLE GOALS
| DOES NOT MEET GOALS
I UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
79
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF -"
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED REPORT
FROM INTEGRATION - PER
OTHERS EPA. DC. REGION
OTHERS
RIVER
WATER
Cont 'd
RIVER
WATER
2
RW-2
3
RW-3
N-2
Federal fishable-
swimmable water quality
goals (bl ue) , provi -
sionally meet Federal
goal s (yel low) , and
fai 1 to meet Federal
water quality goals
(red). The pie chart
represents the national
summary of these re-
gional evaluations.
TREND IN PERCENT OF
RIVER MILES MEETING
GOALS. This chart shows
trend in percent of
river miles meeting
standards by year,
A 1- FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f- 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R- REGIONAL OPTION "N-V DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Aggrega-
tion of
regional
d isplays
as fea-
sible in
(2) By state, determine the total
length of all segments of the same
color and the total length of all
rivers included in each state eval-
uat ion.
(3) Calculate for each state the
percent of total river miles deter-
mined to be blue, yellow, and red.
Aggregate all states to determine
the regional summary percentage for
each category.
(k) Prepare a three color bar chart
summarizing the individual state
evaluations showing, by state, the
percent of river miles judged to be
blue, yellow, and red.
(5) On the above bar chart, con-
struct a three color pie diagram
showing the regional summary; per-
centage river miles judged to be
blue, yellow, and red. Each color
sector should be labeled with its
respective numerical value. List
the total river miles included
in the evaluation to allow national
aggregation of regional evalua-
t ions .
This display is the aggregation of
all river miles, color coded as
described above for various points
in time, e.g. , 1965, 1970, 1975,
or, if possible, for each year
since 1965, by interpolation. This
None
TBD
TBD
None
Li kely
NOTES:
73
-------
RW-3
TREND IN PERCENT OF RIVER MILES MEETING GOALS
100%
80% —
CO
ai
cc
UJ
UJ
v>
LL
O
t-
z
UJ
O
oc
UJ
a.
60% —
40% —
20% —
MEETS FISHABLE & SWIMMABLE GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FISHABLE &
SWIMMABLE GOALS
DOES NOT MEET GOALS
UNKNOWN
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
IMCnDMATIAM IS AX/AII ARI F
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA REF.
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION- PER
EPA, DC. REGION OTHERS
RIVER
WATER
Cont'd
RIVER
WATER
RIVER
WATER
3
RW-3
k
RW-^4
5
RW-5
N-1
R-2
color-coded as in dis-
play #2.
TYPES OF RIVER WATER
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS IN
NATION'S PRINCIPAL
RIVERS. This chart
shows the causes of
river water standards
violations and trend
in frequency of viola-
tions, by principal
river basin in the
Nat ion.
POINT VS. NON-POINT
SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO RIVER WATER POLLU-
TION. This bar chart
illustrates the rela-
tive point vs. non-
point contributions to
river water standards
violations, by river
bas in.
yk 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f- 2' CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
n= REGIONAL OPTION "N - V DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
the
future.
(Not
proposed
for Na-
t ional
Profile.
Approach
will
vary
from re-
gion to
region. )
Not
proposed
for Na-
t ional
Prof i le.
(Ap-
proach
to be
deter-
mi ned . )
display is not proposed for near-
term implementation at national
level, but is feasible in some of
the Regions.
None relative to National Profile
at this time. (Feasibility and
format will vary from region to
region.) The upward and downward
pointing arrows reflect changes
in the number of observed viola-
tions between reporting periods.
None relative to National Profile.
(Feasibility and format will vary
from Region to Region.) This dis-
play indicates the increment of
pollution that is controllable by
NPDES and is perceived as being
very important in certain regions.
It can be shown as a bar chart
with percent of river not meeting
goals, or alternatively included
as an additional column in dis-
play #*».
See Note (2) for additional
comments .
None
None
TBD
N.A.
TBD
Varies
None
Likely
None
L i kely
NOTES. (2) Point vs. non-point contributions would attempt to show the
potential of the NPDES program to make a significant impact on water
quality. In some reaches of major rivers, the non-point contribution may
be so great that the NPDES will have little effect. No attempt will be
75
-------
TYPES OF RIVER WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
IN THE NATION'S PRINCIPAL RIVERS
RW-4
MERRIMAC RIVER
HUDSON RIVER
DELAWARE RIVER
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER
ALABAMA-COOSA RIVERS
OHIO RIVER
TENNESSEE RIVER
UPPER MISSOURI RIVER
LOWER MISSOURI RIVER
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
cTlo'V x*° ^^^
LEGEND
^1 NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
D
MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
INSUFFICIENT DATA, UNKNOWN
NUMBERS OF VIOLATIONS
1 QUALITY
I IMPROVING
1 QUALITY NOTE: NO ARROW MEANS
I DETERIORATING NO CHANGE
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
er»i-ri/-»M nc TUC MATIDMAI PRncil P
-------
POINT VS. NON-POINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO
RIVER WATER POLLUTION
100% I—
80% -
1
(-
_J
2
60% -
UJ
O
oc
40% —
20% —
D
PERCENTAGE ATTRIBUTED TO
MUNICIPAL SOURCES
PERCENTAGE ATTRIBUTED TO
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
PERCENTAGE ATTRIBUTED TO
NON-POINT SOURCES
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. -,-,
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
2.2.2
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF. -
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA, D C. REGION OTHERS
LAKE
WATER
6
LW-1
N-1
LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR
WHICH HIGHEST BENEFI-
CIAL USE IS IMPAIRED
(PRINCIPAL LAKES EX-
CLUDING GREAT LAKES).
This chart shows for
each of the ten regions
in the Nat ion the sq.
mi. of principal lake
surface area (excluding
Great Lakes) which is
impaired and not im-
paired in terms of
swimming, fishing,
boating, and aesthe-
tics. The chart is
color-coded to denote
the severity of im-
pa i rment .
yk 1: FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND •{/• 2- CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3: FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N - NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N-V DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Aggre-
gation
of re-
giona 1
dis-
plays.
The national display would be
produced by aggregation of ten
regional displays evaluating
principal lake & reservoir water
quality in each state within the
region. Production of regional
displays would require each Re-
gional Office to:
(l) Produce and maintain a list-
ing of all lakes and reservoirs
within the region which the
states feel have significant re-
creational value. The criteria
for selection would be left to
Regional Office-State discretion.
(2) Obtain the surface area
measurements of all such water
bodies. (State Fish and Game,
Natural Resource Departments.)
(3) Adopt and document a method
for judging which portions of
principal lakes £ reservoirs are
or are not impaired. Adopted
methods for determining water
quality status would be reviewed
for sui tab! 1 i ty .
(k) Determine for each state the
square miles of principal lake-
reservoir surface area which are
or are not impaired.
(5) Produce a bar chart which rank
orders, by state, the total num-
ber of sq. miles of principal
lake-reservoirs within each state.
None
.75
.50
None
Likely
NOTES (2) Continued: made to estimate industrial contributions to
municipa sewers, and we will only estimate direct industrial discharges
(from NPDES data) .
78
-------
LW-1
LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR WHICH HIGHEST BENEFICIAL USE IS IMPAIRED
(PRINCIPAL LAKES EXCLUDING GREAT LAKES)
1001-
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
QUALITY OF MAJOR LAKES WITH
PERCENTAGE OF SURFACE AREA
IMPAIRED.
70%
30% IMPAIRED
LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT
|""| MODERATE IMPAIRMENT
SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. 79
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA RET.
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA. D.C. REGION OTHERS
LAKE
WATER
Cont'd
LAKE
WATER
LAKE
WATER
6
LW-1
7
LW-2
8
LW-3
N-2
N-1
Cont'd
CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT
OF PRINCIPAL LAKE
WATER QUALITY. Color
coded matrix showing
causes of impairment
in lake water quality
and trend.
EUTROPHICATION OF
MAJOR LAKES (EXCEPT
GREAT LAKES). Eutro-
phication of major
lakes by region; the
proposed display shows,
by region, the trophic
condition of all na-
tional major lakes &
reservoirs. The Regions
are presented according
to rank order of total
sq. miles of major lake
& reservoir surface
area existing within
A 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f> 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R = REGIONAL OPTION "N~1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Aggre-
gat ion
of re-
gional
data as
feas ible
Aggre-
gat ion
of re-
gional
dis-
plays .
(Lakes & reservoirs on state
boundaries should be divided to
avoid double counting.)
(6) Color code the above chart
showing how much lake-reservoir
surface area is non- impaired
(blue), moderately impaired
(yellow) or significantly im-
pa i red (red) .
See Note (3) below.
To be specified. (Feasibility and
format may vary from Region to
Region making completeness
difficult.)
Regional Offices would be re-
quired to:
(l) Identify all lakes and reser-
voirs which have a surface area
of 10 sq. miles (6,400 acres) or
greater. See references in Note 3-
(2) Determine the trophic con-
dition of each of the above lakes
£ reservoirs. (Trophic conditions
data should be available from
the National Eutrophicat ion Sur-
vey, universities or state agen-
cies.)
(3) Prepare a rank order bar
chart showing by state the total
None
uses
Infor-
mat ion.
TBD
.10
TBD
.25
None
Li kely
NOTES: (3) Each lake would be evaluated by completing the following evalua-
tion matrix. The appropriate column for each use is checked in accordance
with the listed evaluation criteria. An overall rating is then established
by summing the weighted use impairment ratings and comparing that sum with
-------
NOT
E (3) Continued: the interpretation criteria.
EVALUATION MATRIX
Recreational Use
Swimming
Fishing"
Boat ing
Aesthetics **
TOTALS
None (Blue)
Fecal Col i forms/100 ML
Geometric Mean <50
No conditions impaired
Surface area affected
by macrophytes
<10$
a) Secchi Disc:
>10' Mean Transparency
b) Chlorophyl 1 a: 0-3 mg/M^
c) Total P (Phosphorous):
>10 yg/1 i ter
Moderate (Yellow)
Fecal Col i forms/100 ML
Geometric Mean 50-200
No more than one condi-
tion impaired
Surface area affected
by macrophytes
>10% - <30%
a) Secchi Disc: 1 l/2'-10'
Mean Transparency
b) Chlorophyll a: 3-20 mg/M3
c) P = 10-20 yg/1 iter
Significant (Red)
Fecal Col i forms/100 ML
Geometric Mean >200
More than one condi-
tion impaired
Surface area affected
by macrophytes
>30%
OSecchi Disc: <1 1/2'
Mean Transparency
})Chlorophyl 1 a:>20 mg/M3
p)P = >20 ug/1 iter
i
!
j
?
••'Fishing impairment judgments to be. made by State Fish and Game Departments, etc. based solely upon water quality
effects on the following conditions: growth, propagation, diversity £ numbers of native species, and edibility.
"-Region may select any of the 3 suggested criteria for aesthetics
INTERPRETATION: 1. Sum the number of checks in each degree of impairment column
2.
3-
Compute a weighted sum as follows: (# None x 1) + (# Moderate x 2) + (# Significant x 3)
Determine the overall impairment rating by comparing the computed weighted sum with the
following criteria:
Degree of Impairment
None
Moderate
S ign i f icant
Weighted Sum
k
5 - 8
9-12
If certain recreational uses are prohibited by regulation (e.g., swimming in water supply
reservoirs), rate use impairment as None.
Major lakes, by state, are described in U.S. Geological Survey Circular M?6 (by C. D. Bue, 1963).
Reservoirs are described in U.S. Geological Survey - Water Supply Paper #1360-A (by Thomas & Harbeck, 1956).
81
-------
LW-2
CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT OF PRINCIPAL LAKE WATER QUALITY
REGIONS
NEW ENGLAND | I
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY & PUERTO RICO
MIDDLE-ATLANTIC
SOUTH EASTERN I 'V
NORTH CENTRAL
SOUTH WEST I Vl
MIDDLE-WEST I VII
ROCKY MOUNTAINS
& DAKOTAS
PACIFIC SOUTHWEST I IX
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
QUALITY
IMPROVING
DETERIORATING
NO ARROW INDICATES NO
CHANGE IN QUALITY
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF. =
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES.
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA, D.C REGION OTHERS
LAKE
WATER
Cont'd
LAKE
WATER
LAKE
WATER
8
LW-3
9
LW-i*
10
LW-5
N-2
R-2
within the Region. Tro-
phic conditions are in-
dicated by color code:
Non-eutrophic (blue),
moderately eutrophic
(yellow), and eutroph-
ic (red). A summariza-
tion of the national
status is presented in
the pie chart in the
upper right-hand corner
of the display. "Major
lakes and reservoirs"
are defined as those
with 10 sq. mi les
(6,^400 acres) or
greater surface area.
TREND IN EUTROPHICATION
OF MAJOR LAKES OF THE
UNITED STATES (EXCEPT
GREAT LAKES). Bar
chart showing sq. miles
of eutrophicat ion of
lakes by year.
MILES OF LAKE SHORELINE
ACCEPTABLE FOR SWIM-
MING. Bar chart showing
percentage of lake
shoreline open for
swimming, by state.
>k 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND •\jf 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3. FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N - NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N-l" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Aggre-
gation
of re-
g iona 1
data .
Would
vary
from
reg ion
to
reg ion.
sq. miles of major lake and reser-
voir surface area within each
state, color coding the bars to
show the number of square miles
non-eutrophi c (blue), moderately
eutrophic (yellow), and eutrophic
(red).
(*») Prepare a pie diagram summar-
izing the trophic status for
all regional major lakes and
reservoirs color coded consistent
with the bar chart. Each sector
should be labeled with its res-
pective numerical value.
Feasibility and specifications
uncertain at this time. Degree of
change over time is unknown but
would be slow.
Not proposed for National Profile
at this t ime .
None
None
TBD
N.A.
TBD
Varied
•
TBD
if
any
TBD
if
any
NOTES:
-------
LW-3
EUTROPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES (EXCEPT GREAT LAKES)
160r
NON-EUTROPHIC
j J MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
EUTROPHICATION STATUS OF
MAJOR LAKES BY REGION
29%
X .X
, **•
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
LW-4
TREND IN EUTROPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES OF THE UNITED STATES
(EXCEPT GREAT LAKES)
700 r-
1965
NON-EUTROPHIC
1970
1975
D
MODERATELY EUTROPHIC
EUTROPHIC
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
-------
LW-5
MILES OF LAKE SHORELINE ACCEPTABLE FOR SWIMMING
UJ
cc
o
CO
UJ
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
REGIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGES OF LAKE SHORE-
LINE MILES THAT ARE OPEN
TO SWIMMING IS SHOWN BY
THE BLUE WEDGE
49%
FLA
ALA
KY
SC
MISS
ACCEPTABLE
INTERMITTENT
CLOSED
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
Qfi
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
2.2.3
MVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF =
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA, D.C. REGION OTHERS
GREAT
LAKES
GREAT
LAKES
MARINE
WATER
MARINE
WATER
11
GLW-1
12
GLW-2
13
MW-1
^k
MW-2
N-1
R-1
N-1
N-3
PERCENT OF SWIMMING
BEACHES ON GREAT LAKES
MEETING WATER QUALITY
OR HEALTH STANDARDS.
Bar chart showing per-
centage of swimming
beaches of Great Lakes
meeting stds. by lake
with pie chart summary.
"PROBLEM AREAS" IN
GREAT LAKES. Map
showing problem areas
in Great Lakes.
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH
ACREAGE OPEN FOR
HARVESTING. Bar chart
showing percentage of
shellfish area open
for harvest ing, by
Reg ion.
TYPES OF MARINE WATER
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS.
Matrix showing types of
marine water standards
violations and trend in
frequency of violations
by year.
A 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N ' NATIONAL L-VEL
H- HEGIONAL )PTION "N -1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NfcAR- TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Use of
ex i st i ng
data.
Not
proposed
for
Nat ional
Prof i le.
Aggrega-
tion of
reg ional
data
after
reg ional
update
of NEIC
reports.
(M
Aggrega-
tion of
reg iona 1
data .
None other than to review existing
data collected by local public
health agencies.
See Note (k) regarding method of
computat ion.
Review I.J.C. and other data
sources to produce map showing
location of problems.
i
Review NEIC data. National Shell-
fish Register of Classified Es-
tuarine Water, 197^4 (EPA-330/1 -75-
002).
To be determined. Feasibility
uncerta i n.
I .J.C.
data .
I .J.C.
data
NEIC
Denver
data
None
.1
N.A.
.25
TBD
TBD
TBD
Less
Than
.1
TBD
Neg 1 i -
g i bl e
None
L i kely
None
L i ke 1 y
TBD
NOTES CO SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY.
Beaches are evaluated by completing the following evaluation matrix for
selected areas. The appropriate column for each use is checked in
accordance with the listed p\/a 1 n^t ''^ cr'teria. An overall ratinq
87
-------
IMA I IUIMAL PROFILE
NOTE (4) Continued:
is then established by summing the weighted use Impairment ratings and comparing that sum with the interpretation
cri teria.
EVALUATION MATRIX
Use
Swimming
Fishing-
Growth
Propagation
Native Species
Edibility
Drinking**
Bacteria
Toxic & Hazardous
Materials
Turbid i ty
Aesthet ics-Choose
ei ther a), b) or c):
a) Se10' Mean Transparency
b) Chlorophyll a_: 0-3 mg/M3
c) Phosphorous (total P):
5-10 yg/1i ter
Moderate (Yellow)
Fecal Coliforms/100 ML
Geometric Mean 50-200
One condition impaired
a)
b)
c)
One criteria
exceeded
Secchi Disc:
1.5'-10' Mean Transparen
Chlorophyl1 a_: 3-20 mg/M
Phosphorous (total P):
10-15 yg/iiter
Significant (Red)
Fecal Coliforms/100 ML
Geometric Mean >200
More than one condition
impai red
More than one
criteria exceeded
a) Secchi Disc-'
<1.5' Mean Transparency
b) Chlorophyll a_:>20 mn/MJ
c) Phosphorous (total
>15 yg/1i ter
P):
* Fishing impairment judgments to be made by State Fish and Gams Departments, etc. based solely upon water
quality effects on: growth, propagation, and edibility of species that the Apartment biologist would
expect to find in the waters.
'•'* Criteria for drinking water is given in kO CFR Section
•* *40 CFR No. 248 Subpart B - Maximum Contaminant Levels.
, Part B.
88
-------
NOTES ON
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
NOTE (k) Continued:
INTERPRETATION: 1.
2.
Sum the number of checks in each "Degree of Impairment" column.
Compute a weighted sum as follows:
(# None x 1) + (# Moderate x 2) + (# Significant x 3)
Determine the overall impairment rating by comparing the computed weighted sum with
the following criteria:
Degree of Impairment
None
Moderate
Significant
Weighted Sum
k
5 - 8
9 - 12
-------
GLW-1
PERCENT OF SWIMMING BEACHES ON GREAT LAKES MEETING WATER
QUALITY OR HEALTH STANDARDS
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
53%
21%
26%
SUMMARY OF SWIMMING BEACH
STATUS FOR THE FIVE GREAT LAKES
D
MEETS STANDARDS
RELATIVELY MINOR VIOLATIONS
RELATIVELY MAJOR VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
90
-------
'PROBLEM AREAS" IN GREAT LAKES
GLW-2
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS IN THE BOUNDARY WATERS WHERE ONE
OR MORE OF THE IJC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ARE NOT BEING MET.
STARS INDICATE WATER QUALITY PROBLEM AREA
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE
-------
MW-1
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH ACREAGE OPEN FOR HARVESTING
100%
z
111
a.
m C3
O *
< I-
ui co
cc LU
o >
U.
o O
"-
oc
80%
60%
40%
20%
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF THE
NATION'S ACTIVE SHELL
FISH AREAS THAT ARE
OPEN FOR HARVESTING
79%
13%
-------
MW-2
TYPES OF MARINE WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
SHORELINE
ALASKA SOUTH COAST
PUGETSOUND
NORTH WEST COAST
OF WASHINGTON
GRAYS HARBOR
WILLAPABAY
COLUMBIA RIVER EST.
NORTH COAST OF OREGON
(ASTORIA TO TILLAMOOK BAY)
NEWPORT SOUTH TO
COOS BAY
COOS BAY TO
BROOKINGS HARBOR
TILLAMOOK SOUTH
TO NEWPORT
D
NONE
MINOR
MAJOR
NO DATA
QUALITY
IMPROVING
• I QUALITY
" I DETERIORATING
NOTE: NO ARROW DENOTES NO
CHANGE IN QUALITY
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-3 - THIS CHART IS PRESENTED ONLY TO
ILLUSTRATE A CONCEPT. FEASIBILITY
IS UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME.
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH MOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
2.2.4
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REF -
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED REPORT
FROM INTEGRATION - PER
OTHERS EPA, DC. REGION
OTHERS
MARINE
WATER
MARINE
WATER
2.2.5
DRINK-
ING
WATER
15
MW-3
16
MW-l*
17
DW-1
N-2
R-1
N-1
TREND IN COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH AREAS OPEN
FOR HARVESTING. Bar
chart showing percen-
tage of shel 1 f i sh
areas open for har-
vesting by year and
closed due to pollu-
tion or proximi ty of
outfal 1 .
STATUS OF SHELLFISH
HARVESTING AREAS. Map
showing the shellfish
areas which are not
open for harvesting.
POPULATION SERVED BY
DRINKING WATER SUP-
PLIES MEETING ALL
STANDARDS. Bar chart
showing population in
each Region that is
served by a drinking
water supply that
meets all standards.
A pie chart summarizes
the percentage of the
total U.S. population
served by supplies
that meet standards.
yk 1: FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f- 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N> NATIONAL LEVEL
B= REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR TERM NATIONAL PROFILF
To be
deter-
mined.
Not
proposed
for
Nat ional
Prof i le.
Aggre-
gat ion
of Re-
gional
D i splays
To be determined in future and
not proposed for near-term dis-
play. 1971 vs. 197*» available
from NEIC - Denver report.
None relative to National Profile
at this time. National map is
perhaps feasible in future.
Each state will supply a summary
of violations, for all community
water supplies, for turbidity and
bacteria, by September of 1977-
Inorganic and organic toxicant
violations will be reported by
September 1978. Regions will
receive interim reports of viola-
tions from state drinking water
officials and the Regions will be
obliged to make a judgment as to
whether these violations are
"Minor" or "Major."
NEIC -
Denver
None
TBD
N.A.
TBD
TBD
Varies
TBD
TBD
None
None
NOTES.
94
-------
MW-3
TREND IN COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH AREAS
OPEN FOR HARVESTING
o
5 100%
CO
cc
<
80%
o
cc
Ul
s
o
u
cc
o
u.
z
UJ
Q.
o
UJ
oc
u
<
X
CO
X
CO
z
UJ
o
cc
60%
40%
20%
1960
1965
1970
1975
D
OPEN FOR
HARVESTING
CLOSED DUE TO
POLLUTION
LIMITED USAGE DUE
TO POLLUTION
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.
-------
MW-4
STATUS OF SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREAS
ORGANIC
TOXICANTS
INORGANIC
TOXICANTS
A T L A N T I C
UNSAFE FOR PLANTING
OR HARVESTING
OK FOR PLANTING AND TRANSFER
BUT UNSAFE FOR HARVESTING
OK TO HARVEST
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE.
96
-------
DW-1
POPULATION SERVED BY DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES MEETING ALL STANDARDS
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION SERVED BY
WATER SUPPLIES THAT MEET STANDARDS
(BLUE), WITH MINOR VIOLATIONS (YELLOW),
WITH MAJOR VIOLATIONS (RED).
85%
I SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY THAT
MEETS ALL STANDARDS
I SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY WITH
I RELATIVELY MINOR VIOLATIONS
I SERVED BY WATER SUPPLY WITH
RELATIVELY MAJOR VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. 97
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REQUIRED REPORT
ENVIRONMENT FROM INTEGRATION- PER
MEDIA REF. - TYPE TITLE - DESCRIPTION APPROACH REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS OTHERS EPA. D C REGION OTHERS
DRINK-
ING
WATER
DRINK-
ING
WATER
2.2.6
AIR
18
DW-2
19
DW-3
20
AIR-1
N-2
R-1
N-1
TYPES OF DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS VIOLA-
TIONS. This is a
matrix type of display
that illustrates the
degree of severity of
standards violations
for 5 parameters of
drinking water
qual i ty.
NUMBER OF DRINKING
WATER SUPPLIES MEETING
STANDARDS. This is a
bar chart showing the
number of drinking
water supplies meeting
standards, by state,
with a pie chart show-
ing the percentage of
all systems in the re-
gion that meet stds.
REDUCTION IN STATION-
ARY SOURCE EMISSIONS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO AIR
QUALITY CONTROLS. Con-
trol led vs. actual
emissions per year
for Nation (bar
chart) .
A 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3- FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N-l" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROflLE
Aggre-
gation
of Re-
gional
Dis-
plays.
Reg ional
d i splay .
Not
proposed
for Na-
t ional
Prof i le.
To be
suppl i ed
from
exi sting
data
from
DSSE.
Violation data would be reported
for turbidity and bacteria viola-
tions on a monthly basis, by
state officials. Information on
ITOX and OTOX will not be avail-
able from the states until Sept.
1978 and data on radiological
characteristics will not be
available until 1980, or later.
Basic information will be suppl iec
by states to the regional offices.
Regional Drinking Water Office
will have to make judgment on
severity of violation. Chart may
also be drawn in terms of percent
of total supply systems in each
state, or with separate bars for
underground vs. surface water
supplies, for each state.
Some Regions have enforcement
data for the states and could
produce a regional display of
this type.
OAQPS
supp 1 i ed
data .
TBD
None
Less
than
. 1
TBD
Varies
(Op-
t ional )
None
None
None
Negl i -
gi ble
NOTES
98
-------
TYPES OF DRINKING WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
DW-2
INORGANIC
TOXICANTS, e.g. LEA
ORGANIC
TOXICANTS, e.g. DDT
LEGEND
NOT A CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO VIOLATIONS
D
INSUFFICIENT DATA, UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
QUALITY
IMPROVING
QUALITY
DETERIORATING
NOTE: NO ARROW MEANS
NO CHANGE
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE EDITIONS
OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE AND WILL BE
INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED INFORMATION IS 99
At/All ADI C
-------
;§
90
NUMBERS OF SUPPLIES IN THOUSANDS
ft O) 05
D
cz
UMBER OF '
NACCEPTAB
!n|
H
m
3)
<30
ELATIVELY
IOLATIONS
5
z
0
3)
CO 2
IEETS ALL
TANDARDS
CO
m
3D
I
v> m-i
_, -JW
m O O
DO
m
73
O
•n
m
33
V*
C
•o
•o
m
GO
m
m
H
CO
O
CO
I-1
-
m
-n 30
o
CO
§
-------
AIR-1
REDUCTION IN STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO AIR QUALITY CONTROLS
UJ
CO
I
O
125
100
75
- 50
LU
25
89.5
107.6
113.2
1970 1974 1975
NATIONAL PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
111
O
2
ui
50
40
3 3°
? 20
C/9
O
10
44.3
46.2
39.6
1970 1974 1975
NATIONAL SULFUR OXIDE EMISSIONS
POTENTIAL EMISSIONS
ACTUAL EMISSIONS (SO2)
ACTUAL EMISSIONS (TSP)
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
PROFILE im
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL 8.
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES.
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA REF = TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED REPORT
FROM INTEGRATION - PER
OTHERS EPA. D C RFGION
OTHERS
AIR
AIR
21N
AIR-2
21R
AIR-3
N-1
R-1
NUMBER OF DAYS WITH
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT.
Bar chart with a
single bar for each
state, showing, by a
separate color, the
number of days in
which the primary
standards are exceeded
at the worst location
in each state.
DAYS OF STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS BY TYPE
OF POLLUTANT AND
SEVERITY OF VIOLATION
FOR NON-ATTAINMENT AIR
QUALITY CONTROL RE-
GIONS. Bar chart
showing days of stan-
dards violations by
type of pollutant for
each non-attainment
AQCR in Region with
a separate bar for
each pollutant and 2
shades of color cod-
ing. Light color is
used to designate the
number of days during
which the primary
standard was violated
6 the dark shade of
A 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N- V DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR- 1FRM NATIONAL PROFILE
To be
suppl ied
by re-
t ions
from
best
data
ava i 1 -
able.
To be
suppl ied
di rect 1 y
by the
Regions .
For each state, select the AQCR
that has the poorest air quality,
and for that AQCR only, estimate
the number of days per year in
which the primary standards are
being violated for TSP, S02 , Ox,
CO and N02 . Notes on estimating
contained in next chart descrip-
tion (AIR-3) apply also to this
di splay.
For each AQCR in non-attainment
status, the best current estimate
of the number of days per year in
which standards are being viola-
ted at the primary and alert
levels on a "worst case basis" by
type of pollutant (TSP, S02 , QX ,
CO £ N02) . "Worst case basis"
means that if any monitoring site
in the AQCR shows a violation,
then the entire AQCR records a
violation for that day. Projec-
tions from limited sample quan-
tities to "days per year" shall
be based on the most reliable
statistical technique in the
judgment of the Region. Best
judgments shall be used where
data is not definitive. Situation;
where there is absolutely no
basis for a judgment or estimate
None
None
Comb i ned
wi th
AIR-5
Comb i ned
wi th
AIR-^4
Com-
bined
wi th
AIR-5
Com-
b i ned
wi th
AIR-*»
None
None
NOTES:
-------
AIR-2
AIR QUALITY
NUMBER OF DAYS WITH STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
45
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE (TSP)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02 )
OXIDANTS (Ox I
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
NITROGEN OXIDES WOy )
X
NO VIOLATIONS
TYPE N-1- THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. ] 03
-------
AIR-3
DAYS OF STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
AND SEVERITY OF VIOLATION FOR NON-ATTAINMENT
AIR QUALITY CONTROL REGIONS
REGIONAL
158
134
n
n
TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE (TSP)
SULFUR
DIOXIDE (SO2)
OXIDANTS
I CARBON
MONOXIDE (CO)
NOTE: LIGHT COLOR INDICATES VIOLATION OF PRIMARY STANDARD.
DARK COLOR (TOP PORTION OF BAR) INDICATES NO. OF DAYS
THAT AIR QUALITY REACHED THE ALERT LEVEL FOR THAT
POLLUTANT.
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE. 104
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA REF = TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA. D C REGION OTHERS
AIR
Cont'd
AIR
21R
AIR-3
22
AIR-4
1
N-1
LEGEND -^X
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
same color is used
to designate the num-
ber of days in which
the alert level was
exceeded .
TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY
BY POLLUTANT. Color
coded matrix arraying
al 1 AQCRs against
types of air pol 1 u-
tants with cells color
coded to denote degree
to which pol lutant is
a contributor to stan-
dards violations &
with arrows denoting
current trend, mea-
sured by comparing
number of days of
standards violations
this year, with the
number last year.
V FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
R = REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NFAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
To be
suppl ied
di rectly
by Re-
gions in
connec-
t ion
wi th
Di splay
AIR-3
data .
shall be so indicated. Each re-
gion shall provide description of
technique used for estimating
from 1 imi ted data .
For all AQCRs in the Region, and
for each type of pollutant (TSP,
S02, Ox, CO & N02) whether the
pollutant is not a contributor
to days of violations, a "minor"
contributor, or a "major" contri-
butor & whether the number of
days of standards violations is
increasing, decreasing or remain-
ing relatively unchanged. In
order for a pollutant to be a
major contributor, it must be
estimated that there is at least
one day of a standard violation
at or above the alert level, or
25% of the possible days above
the primary standard level. Best
judgments shall be used where
data is not definitive. Situ-
ations where there is absolutely
no basis for a judgment or esti-
mate shall be so indicated. Rule
for "major" vs. "minor" contri-
butor subject to modification
after all data collected and a
trial display drawn.
None
0.25(7)
(0.25)
0.5
(0.25)
None
NOTES:
-------
AIR-4
TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY BY POLLUTANT
AIR QUALITY
CONTROL REGION
ALASKA
ALABAMA
NO VIOLATIONS OF STANDARDS
EXCEEDS PRIMARY STANDARD
EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED IN COMPLIANCE
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND/
SAN FRANCISCO
LOS ANGELES -
SO. COAST
SAN DIEGO
m
INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED EXCEEDING
PRIMARY LEVEL
I QUALITY IMPROVING
QUALITY DETERIORATING
NOTE: NO CHANGE IN QUALITY INDICATED
BY NO ARROW.
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
IDfi
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA REF - TYPE TITLE - DESCRIPTION APPROACH REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
AIR
AIR
AIR
23
AIR-5
2k
AIR-6
25
AIR- 7
N-2
N-2
N-3
TYPES AND TRENDS IN
NUMBER OF DAYS OF AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS BY STATE.
Same as AIR-4, except
aggregated by State to
reduce s ize of d i s-
piay and provide
state-by-state corn-
par i son.
NUMBER OF PERSONS EX-
POSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS.
Numbers of persons ex-
posed to standards
violations of TSP and
SOo bv Region (bar
c.
chart) and for Nation
(pie chart) .
COST OF AIR POLLUTION.
Bar charts of various
health and/or econom-
ic impacts as func-
tion of t ime
yk 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR TERM
LEGEND \/ 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURC
3 I'EASIBILITY UNKNOWN
1 ISI - NATIONAL LEVEl
R- REGIONAL OPTION "N 1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
1 NEAR IFRM NATIONAL PROflLF
Uses
data in
Exhibit
AIR-**
sat i s-
factory
aggrega-
t ion
method
can be
found .
Est imate
to be
provided
by RTP &
mod i f i ed
as ap-
propr i -
ate by
Reg ion .
Long-
term re-
search
•o ad-
ci r e ' s
these is
sues , as
front 1
No additional data required.
Problem is lack of discrimination
as AQCRs are combi ned--"Worst
case approach" does not work well,
but possibly can be made to be
representat i ve .
Where the Region has developed a
technique for making an estimate
of numbers of persons exposed to
standards violations, this tech-
nique shall be used for TSP and
S02 . Otherwise, estimate shall
be supplied by RTP and reviewed
by the Regions. Feasibility of
this display depends in part on
EPA-Durham ability to apply the
current population at risk model.
It is expected that estimates
will be routinely made for major
population centers in the future.
None at present. Bar chart drawn
to suggest format and content of
such a display on 1 y .
REOUIRFD
FROM
OTHERS
None
RTP
None
at
present .
REPORT
INTEGRATION -
EPA, DC
-3
N.A.
N.A.
PER
REGION
.25
N.A.
None
OTHERS
None
Li kel y
N.A.
NOTES
-------
AIR-5
TYPES & TRENDS IN NUMBER OF DAYS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS BY STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
NO VIOLATIONS OF STANDARDS
EXCEEDS PRIMARY STANDARD
EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED IN COMPLIANCE
H INSUFFICIENT DATA BUT PRESUMED EXCEEDING
PRIMARY LEVEL
QUALITY IMPROVING
QUALITY DETERIORATING
NOTE: NO CHANGE IN QUALITY INDICATED
BY NO ARROWS.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE EDITIONS
OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE AND WILL BE
INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED INFORMATION IS
AVAILABLE.
-------
AIR-6
NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
45 M
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. POPULATION
EXPOSED TO SO2 LEVELS ABOVE U.S.
STANDARDS.
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION
EXPOSED TO PARTICULATE MATTER,
ABOVE U.S. STANDARDS.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE (TSP)
NO VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
TYPE IM-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE EDITIONS
OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE AND WILL BE
INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED INFORMATION
!S AVAILABLE. 109
-------
AIR-7
COST OF AIR POLLUTION
cc
LU
CO
O^ 10
1 = 8
Q o
O o
oc 2 R
e\ O O
Q. CO
O LU
CC CO
51
LU
o
I
CO
Z
O
o 10
o
o~
o
cc
LU
Q.
co
I
LU
Q
Q
LU
co
LU
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
D
ILLNESS DUE TO AIR POLLUTION
DEATHS DUE TO AIR POLLUTION
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-3 - THIS CHART IS PRESENTED ONLY TO
ILLUSTRATE A CONCEPT. FEASIBILITY
IS UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME. -|-| Q
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL 8.
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA REF. = TYPE
TITLE- DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED REPORT
FROM INTEGRATION- PER
OTHERS EPA. D.C. REGION
OTHERS
AIR
AIR
AIR
26
AIR-8
27
AIR-9
28
AIR-
10
N-3
R-1
R-1
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EX-
POSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY YEAR. Population
exposed to standards
violations by year by
type of pol 1 utant
(bar chart) .
MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR OX-
IDANT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR "YOUR CITY" BY
YEAR. Maximum oxidant
concentrations by
year by locality (bar
chart) .
DAYS OF AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY CITY & BY MONTH OF
YEAR FOR ALL POLLU-
TANTS. Days of stan-
dards violations by
city by month of year
(bar chart) .
A 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \^ 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
proposed
in pre-
vious
EPA
docu-
ments.
Similar
to AIR-6
Reg iona 1
(not
part of
proposed
Nat ional
Profile).
Reg ional
(not
part of
proposed
Nat ional
Profile)
None at present, as work would be
done by EPA-RTP, and reviewed by
Regions .
See Note (5) .
Optional at regional level.
Optional at regional level.
None
None
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Varies
Varies
N.A.
None
Likely
None
Likely
NOTES: (5) The top and bottom charts are optional methods of displaying
the "Population at Risk" data and one of these will be recommended,
based upon comments received from Regions.
111
-------
AIR-8
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY YEAR
2
X 200
% 175
LU
5 150
V)
O
5
z
O
Q.
2
Q
HI
CO
2
O
P
<
D
Q.
O
a.
LU
u
cc
LU
Q.
100
50
25
12.5
0
YEARS
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
YEARS
D
TSP (TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE)
SO2 (SULFUR DIOXIDE)
Ox (OXIDANTS)
[""""I CO (CARBON MONOXIDE)
(NO VIOLATIONS)
65- 70- 75-
69 74 76
65- 70- 75-
69 74 76
65- 70- 75-
69 74 76
65- 70- 75-
69 74 76
TYPE N-3
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
- THIS CHART IS PRESENTED ONLY TO
ILLUSTRATE A CONCEPT. FEASIBILITY
-------
AIR-9
MAXIMUM ONE HOUR OXIDANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR
"YOUR CITY" BY YEAR
1.00
.80
2
2 .60
2
CC
UJ
a.
a .40
a.
.20
PRIMARY HEALTH STANDARD .08
-
-
_
m
-
mmmmm
— •—
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974 1975 1976
1977
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
PniTION OF THF REGIONAL PROFILE. .,-
-------
AIR-10
DAYS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS, BY CITY, BY MONTH OF YEAR
FOR ALL POLLUTANTS
100
H 90
O
^ 80
o
SS 70
O
LU
O
CC
LU
CL
60
Z 50
40
30
20
10
79% OF DAYS HAD
NO VIOLATIONS
13%
PERCENTAGE OF DAYS PER YEAR
IN WHICH SHORT TERM STANDARDS
WERE VIOLATED FOR SO2, QX, CO,
ANDNO2.
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
D
ABOVE ALERT
ABOVE PRIMARY STANDARD
NO VIOLATIONS
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE REGIONAL PROFILE.
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
114
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REQUIRED REPORT
ENVIRONMENT FRQM INTEGRATION - PER
MEDIA REF. = TYPE TITLE - DESCRIPTION APPROACH REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS OTHERS EPA. D C. REGION OTHERS
AIR
SOLID
WASTE
SOLID
WASTE
29
AIR-
11
30
SW-1
31
SW-2
N-1
N-1
N-1
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTI-
CULATE AIR QUALITY
STATUS. Map of U.S.
showing non-attainment
area for various
pollutants. This chart
shows TSP only.
PERCENT OF POPULATION
SERVED BY STATE AP-
PROVED SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
Percent of population
served by state ap-
proved sol id waste
disposal facility by
year. This is a bar
chart in blue, yellow
6 red.
NUMBERS OF PERSONS
SERVED BY STATE AP-
PROVED SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
Pie chart summary of
U.S. plus bar chart
showing population in
each Region served by
d i sposal faci 1 i t ies
meeting state stds.
in 1976.
yk 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N= NATIONAL LEVEL
R = REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR-TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Use
existing
OAQPS
data
after
mod i f i -
cation
by re-
gions .
National
d i splay
con-
structed
as ag-
grega-
tion of
regional
d i splays
Nat iona 1
d i spl ay
con-
structed
as ag-
grega-
tion of
regional
di splays
The map shown does not have suf-
ficient resolution to be useful.
Regions would be required to re-
draw boundaries to better illus-
trate area not in attainment.
However, precise boundaries not
needed .
Data for recent years is avail-
able from state and is reported
to EPA Regional Office. This
data is reported at least an-
nually by the state health or
solid waste agency and can be
aggregated to a percentage of
total regional population, with
little effort. The trend may
move down for some years due to
the fact that states might de-
certify a facility that had
previously been approved.
State data is reported to EPA Re-
gions who will aggregate. The
statewide population measure
will be sensitive to compliance
by large metropolitan areas but
will not show the number of
cities or towns th'at are not in
compl i ance.
WHTF^-
OAQPS
None
TBD
Less
than
.1
.1
TBD
Less
than
.1
Less
than
.1
.1
Less
than
.1
None
Neg 1 i -
g ible
None
None
invj f co
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE AIR QUALITY STATUS
AIR-11
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
I I REGIONS NOT MEETING PRIMARY ANNUAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
[T] STATE - AMBIENT LEVELS AT MORE MONITORS IN STATE IMPROVING THAN DETERIORATING 1970 - 1975
| f | STATE - AMBIENT LEVELS AT MORE MONITORS IN STATE DETERIORATING THAN IMPROVING 1970 - 1975
SOURCE: OAQPS, EPA DATA
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE 11
-------
SW-1
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE APPROVED
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
100% r
80%
o
.
2
u.
O
I-
iii
u
IT
40%
20%
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
D
MEETS STATE STANDARDS
RELATIVELY MINOR
VIOLATIONS
RELATIVELY MAJOR
VIOLATIONS
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
117
-------
SW-2
NUMBERS OF PERSONS SERVED BY STATE APPROVED
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
45 M t~
D
MEETS ALL STANDARDS
RELATIVELY MINOR VIOLATIONS
RELATIVELY MAJOR VIOLATIONS
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
79%
13%
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. POPULATION
SERVED BY FACILITIES MEETING
STATE STANDARDS.
riATA niSPI iVFn ON CHART IS NOT REAL
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL 8.
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF. = TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED REPORT
FROM INTEGRATION - PER
OTHERS EPA, DC REGION
OTHERS
SOLID
WASTE
SOLID
WASTE
32
SW-3
33
SW-*»
N-2
N-2
TONS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSED OF BY
STATE APPROVED
METHODS. Two color
bar chart with status
of each Region plus
pie chart summary of
the U.S. showing esti-
mated tonnage of
hazardous waste that
is generated and ton-
nage that is disposed
of in a manner ap-
proved by the States.
See Note (6) .
POPULATION SERVED BY
ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM. Four
color bar chart
showing percentage of
population in each
Region that is served
by a state approved
sludge disposal or
utilization system,
plus pie chart sum-
mary of U.S. popu-
lation so served.
See Note (6) .
yk 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f- 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
n nprinwAi m>Tinu "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
H - HbUJUIMAL l)t 1 lUnl
NEAR- TERM NATIONAL PROFIt E
Nat ional
d i splay
con-
structed
as ag-
gregate
of re-
g ional
d i splays
Nat ional
d i splay
con-
structed
as ag-
gregate
of re-
gional
d isplays
Data to be obtained by Regions
from the States. This information
is not currently reported, but
could be estimated, using the
classes of wastes generated per
million dollars of product ship-
ped by each SIC, and then countinc
the generators in each state that
fall within each SIC code. The
states are able to estimate the
amount of hazardous waste being
disposed of in approved facili-
ties, so the difference between
estimated tons generated, and
tons going to approved facility,
is being dumped promiscuously,
unless there is evidence that it
is being taken to an approved
site in another state.
Section 208 (Area-wide Planning)
requires that an assessment be
made of the adequacy of sludge
disposal procedures, from a water
& air quality standpoint, and
this data will support this dis-
play in one or two years from
now. Only a few states have cri-
teria for an acceptable sludge
disposal facility, but EPA has a
draft of recommended criteria
that can be used by state water
quality or health officials in
gauging the progress made by
None
None
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
None
Li kely
None
Li kel y
NOTES- (6) Public Law 9^"580 brings hazardous wastes and sludge under
the regu atory authority of the EPA and new rules wi 1 soon require
that states control these substances in accordance with Federal
standards .
119
-------
SW-3
TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSED OF BY STATE APPROVED METHOD
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE THAT IS DISPOSED OF BY A STATE
APPROVED METHOD, IS SHOWN BY THE
GREEN WEDGE.
DISPOSED OF BY
APPROVED METHOD
I DISPOSED OF BY
NON-APPROVED METHOD
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ^ 2Q
-------
SW-4
POPULATION SERVED BY ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
45 M|-
33.5 M -
22.5 M -
NATIONAL SUMMARY:
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION SERVED
BY ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
METHOD (BLUE), BY MARGINALLY
ACCEPTABLE (YELLOW), UNACCEPTABLE
(RED) AND WHERE METHOD IS
UNKNOWN, THE CHART IS GREEN
50%
29%
13%
n
DISPOSED OF BY AN
ACCEPTED METHOD
MARGINALLY
ACCEPTABLE
DISPOSAL METHOD
UNACCEPTABLE
UNKNOWN
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-2 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR FUTURE
EDITIONS OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE
AND WILL BE INCLUDED WHEN REQUIRED
IMCClDMATinM
AX/AII ARI P
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF -
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEAHS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA. D C REGION OTHERS
SOLID
WASTE
2.2.8
RADIA-
TION
34
SW-5
35
RAD-1
R-1
N-1
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS
OF FULL-SCALE RESOURCE
RECOVERY SYSTEMS. Four
color map of Region
showing location and
status of resource re-
covery activities, by
state, along with a
pie chart summary of
percentage of popu-
lation served.
TREND IN AMOUNT OF
RADIATION IN THE EN-
VIRONMENT DUE TO
"FALL-OUT" (STRONTIUM
90 IN MILK). Bar chart
showing year to year
levels of strontium
90 in mi Ik.
y» 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR TERM
LEGEND \f- 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N ' NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N- V DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR TFRM NATIONAL PROFII E
OSWMP
(EPA-DC)
ma in-
ta i ns
such a
status 6
can sup-
ply list
of re-
source
recovery
facili-
ties.
Data
will be
suppl ied
by EPA
Head-
quarters
their state. This display is not
proposed for near-term.
Regional Office will compute
percentage of population served
by such facilities. This display
is not proposed for national pro-
file but would be useful at
reg iona 1 1 evel .
None
OSWMP
list of
facil i-
t ies
Uti 1 ize
data
from
EPA-
Off ice
of Rad-
iation
Programs
Annua 1
Report ,
EPA-520
/1-76-
010.
N.A.
Less
than
. 1
Less
than
. 1
None
NOTES
122
-------
SW-5
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF FULL-SCALE
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
17%
PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL
POPULATION SERVED BY
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
11%
14%
D
FULLY OPERATIONAL
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
PLANNING COMPLETED
(COMMITTED TO CONSTRUCTION)
(AREA SERVED BY SYSTEM IS SHOWN IN COLOR)
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE R-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
cniTinM nc THF RFRIONAI PROFILE. -.
-------
RAD-1
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIATION IN THE
ENVIRONMENT DUE TO "FALL-OUT"
(STRONTIUM 90 IN MILK)
90
a. 60
ffi
E
u
8
30
MAXIMUM LEVEL RECORDED IN THE U.S. WAS
32 PICO-CURIES PER LITER
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
124
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL &
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES.
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA, DC. REGION OTHERS
RAD 1 A-
TION
RAD 1 A-
TION
2.2.9
PESTI-
CIDE
36
RAD-2
37
RAD -3
38
PEST-
1
N-1
N-1
N-1
TREND IN AMOUNT OF
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ESCAPING FROM NUCLEAR
PLANTS (KRYPTON 85 IN
AIR) (NO STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED). Bar
chart of Krypton 85 in
air, average for the
entire nation, related
to nuclear power
plants .
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF
EXPOSURE TO RADIATION,
PER YEAR. 1976 chart,
in 3 colors showing
total dose rate to
which average person
is exposed along with
amount of radiation
contributed by each
natural and manmade
source of this con-
taminant .
PESTICIDE USAGE, BY
YEAR. Bar chart of
persistent vs. non-
persistent pesticide
usage by year.
.* 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \_f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R= REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR TERM NATIONAL PROFILE
Data
will be
suppl ied
by EPA
Head-
quarters
Data
will be
suppl ied
by EPA
Head-
quarters
Use data
from
U.S.
Dept. of
Agri. &
EPA Den-
ver Labs
None
None
None
Uti 1 ize
from
EPA-
Office
of Rad-
iation
Programs
Annual
Report ,
EPA-520
/1-76-
010.
Util ize
data
from
EPA-
Off ice
of Rad-
iation
Programs
Annua 1
Report ,
EPA-520
/1-76-
010.
USDA,
etc.
Less
than
.1
Less
than
.1
Less
than
.1
None
None
None
None I
Li kely
None
Likely
None
L i kely
NOTES'
-------
RAD-2
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ESCAPING FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS
(KRYPTON 85 IN AIR)
(NO STANDARD ESTABLISHED)
18
16
14
IL
o
cc
12
u
OQ
D
O
CC
UJ
o.
CO
UJ
cc
D
u
6
u
10
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. 126
-------
RAD-3
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE TO RADIATION, PER PERSON,
PER YEAR
325 r-
295
LLJ
CC
Z 250
iu
CC
CO
2
X
111
D
z
CO
-•Z 127
^125
t 105
o
co
D
60
cc
LLI
MAXIMUM EXPOSURE NOT TO EXCEED
170 MILLIREMS OVER AND ABOVE
NATURAL BACKGROUND AND
NECESSARY MEDICAL EXPOSURE.
OCCUPATIONAL
HAZARD ONLY .
AVERAGE
MILLIREMS
PER PERSON
SOURCE OF
RADIATION
INDUSTRIAL
NUCLEAR POWER
PRODUCTS
FALL-OUT
MEDICAL/DENTAL
NATURAL,
COSMIC
NATURAL,
TERRESTRIAL
1976
FALL-OUT & NUCLEAR
POWER
| j MEDICAL/DENTAL
NATURAL BACKGROUND
TYPE N - 1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE.
127
-------
PEST-1
PESTICIDE USAGE, BY YEAR
ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL USES OF PESTICIDES IN THE U.S.
[ NON-PERSISTENT PESTICIDES
PERSISTENT PESTICIDES
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPOSED NATIONAL PROFILE
WITH NOTES ON SELECTED REGIONAL 8,
SUPPLEMENTAL DISPLAYS
ENVIRONMENT
MEDIA
REF. -
TYPE
TITLE - DESCRIPTION
APPROACH
REQUIREMENTS OF REGIONS
REQUIRED
FROM
OTHERS
NEAR TERM RESOURCES,
IN PROFESSIONAL PERSON YEARS
REPORT
INTEGRATION - PER
EPA. D C. REGION OTHERS
PESTI-
CIDES
PESTI-
CIDES
2.2.10
NOISE
39
PEST-
2
i»0
PEST-
3
41
NOISE
1
N-1
N-1
N-1
CHANGE IN PESTICIDE
RESIDUAL LEVELS IN
FISH (SPECIES MENHADEN)
SINCE DDT WAS BANNED.
Graph showing selected
pesticide residua)
level s.
BENEFITS OF PESTICIDE
USAGE. Series of
charts showing dollar
savings due to use of
pesticides plus other
issues as appropriate.
NUMBERS OF PERSONS
LIVING IN AREAS WITH
OBJECTIVE NOISE OR-
DINANCES. Bar chart
of number of persons
living in metropolitan
areas protected by a
modern noise ordinance
with specific decibel
limits, with pie
chart summary for the
entire U.S.
yk 1 FEASIBLE IN NEAR-TERM
LEGEND \f 2 CONSIDER FOR FUTURE
3 FEASIBILITY UNKNOWN
N = NATIONAL LEVEL
R^ REGIONAL OPTION "N-1" DISPLAYS COMPRISE
NEAR- TFRM NATIONAL PROFII F
Exi st i ng
data.
Use data
from
Center
for Com-
munic-
ble Dis-
ease
(USPHS)
Atlanta
Aggre-
gat ion
of re-
g i ona 1
d i splays
None
None
To be developed by Noise Program
Specialist at each Region. Many
already have much of this data.
EPA is sponsoring a model ordin-
ance in which the dBA limits are
blank (to be established by city
councils) and the number of
cities with such ordinances can
be obtained by a telephone
survey.
Use dat;
from
Center
for Com-
munic-
able
Di sease
(USPHS)
Atlanta
None
Less
than
.1
TBD
Less
than
.1
TBD
Less
than
. 1
None
None
. 1
None
L i kely
None
Li kely
None
Li kely
NOTES.
-------
PEST-2
CHANGE IN PESTICIDE RESIDUAL LEVELS IN FISH
(SPECIES MENHADEN) SINCE DDT
WAS BANNED
1 BAN ON USE OF DDT
10 11 23 4 56 789 10 11 12 1 23 4 5689 10
SOURCE: PHI LIP A. BUTLER, PROJECT OFFICER, GULF BREEZE (FLORIDA) LABORATORY
NOTE: PESTICIDES ARE DEFINED IN P.L. 92-516 TO INCLUDE RODENTICIDES, HERBICIDES, FUNGICIDES
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1- THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE FIRST
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL PROFILE. , ,
-------
PEST-3
BENEFITS OF PESTICIDE USAGE
EST. ANNUAL DAMAGE ($) TO
STRUCTURES (TERMITES)
EST. ANNUAL DESTRUCTION OF
ALREADY HARVESTED CROPS ($)
60
70
76
O
EST. ANNUAL DAMAGE ($) TO HOMEOWNERS'
LAWNS, ORNAMENTAL AND FRUIT TREES
75
WITHOUT PESTICIDE
WITH PESTICIDE
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
PROFILE.
1 T1
-------
II
o o
32
i
3-i
>55
ll
POPULATION IN MILLIONS
D
•o
m
m H
O I
O
S
31
m
O
o
2
m
O
<
O
3)
O
O
m
>
3)
O
c
>
z
o
m
3
<
m
Z
g
35
m
O
3>
O
I
O
00
m
O
< DO
m co
o <
3) Z
O O
O DO
m m
co >
m -o
2 30
i§
»
O H
•n x
F m
m TI
O
CO
m
I
-------
NOISE-2
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO UNACCEPTABLE NOISE LEVELS-
GREATER THAN 55 L(dn)-BY SOURCE OF NOISE
200
150
CO
O
Ij
_i
i
z
O
I
Q.
100
50
SOURCE: EPA REPORT, 39FR 121
PAGE 22297, 21 JUNE 1974
URBAN AIRPORT CONSTRUC-
TRAFFIC NOISE TION NOISE
RESIDENTIAL AREAS, 65 L(dn) & OVER
SAFE, UNDER 55 L
-------
NOISE-3
NOISE ENERGY BY MAJOR SOURCE
KILOWATT HOURS OF NOISE ENERGY GENERATED - DAILY
1000 2000 3000 4000
5000
6000 Kwh/DAY
I
TRUCKS OF 10,000 GVWR (LOADED WEIGHT)
5800
1150
SPORT & COMPACT AUTOS
800
OTHER PASSENGER AUTOS
570
LIGHT TRUCKS
500
SNOWMOBILES
325
MOTORCYCLE NOISE
ESTIMATED TOTAL SOUND ENERGY IN KILOWATT
HOURS PER DAY. GENERATED BY MAJOR NOISE
SOURCES.
(THESE SOURCES ARE THE SUBJECT OF NEW EPA
REGULATIONS, AND THEIR NOISE LEVELS WILL
BE REDUCED SIGNIFICANTLY).
DATA DISPLAYED ON CHART IS NOT REAL
AND IS USED FOR DEMONSTRATION ONLY.
TYPE N-1 - THIS CHART IS PROPOSED FOR THE
FIRST EDITION OF THE NATIONAL
PROFILE. i^
-------
2.3
SUHV\RY OF CQiITHIT OF DISPLAYS
The table below summarized the content of the displays prepared in the January 1 977 report
and provides an overview of the extent to which trends, causes of problems, and geographical or
political aggregation of data was proposed.
DISPLAY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
> 15
16
17
18
19
20
21 N
21 R
AREA
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
RW-5
LW-1
LW-2
LW-3
LW-4
LW-5
GLW-1
GLW-2
MW- 1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
DW-1
OW-2
DW-3
AIR-1
AIR-2
AIR-3
TYPE'
N-1
N-1
N-2
N-1
H-2
N-1
N-2
N-1
N-2
R-2
N-1
R- 1
N-1
N-3
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-1
R-1
TITLE
WATER QUALITY OF NATION'S RIVER BASINS
RIVER MILES MEETING NATIONAL GOALS BY
PRINCIPAL RIVER BASIN
TREND IN PERCENT OF RIVER MILES MEETING
GOALS
TYPES OF RIVER WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
IN THE NATION'S PRINCIPAL RIVERS
POINT VS NON-POINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO RIVER WATER POLLUTION
LAKE SURFACE AREA FOR WHICH HIGHEST
BENEFICIAL USE IS IMPAIRED IPRINC LAKES EXCL
GREAT LAKES)
CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT OF PRINCIPAL LAKE
WATER QUALITY
EUTHROPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES (EXCEPT
GREAT LAKES)
TREND IN EUTHROPHICATION OF MAJOR LAKES
OF THE UNITED STATES (EXCEPT GREAT LAKES!
MILES OF LAKE SHORELINE ACCEPTABLE FOR
SWIMMING
PERCENT OF SWIMMING BEACHES OF GREAT
LAKES MEETING WATER QUALITY OR HEALTH
STANDARDS
PROBLEM AREAS IN GREAT LAKES
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH ACREAGE OPEN FOR
HARVESTING
TYPES OF MARfNE WATER STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS
TREND IN COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH AREAS OPEN
FOR HARVESTING
STATUS Of SHELLFISH HARVESTING AREAS
POPULATION SERVED BY DRINKING WATER
SUPPLIES MEETING ALL STANDARDS
TYPES OF DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
VIOLATIONS
NUMBER OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES MEETING
STANDARDS
REDUCTION IN STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO AIR QUALITY CONTROLS
NUMBER OF DAYS WITH STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY TYPE OF POLLUTANT
DAYS OF STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY TYPE OF
POLLUTANT AND SEVERITY OF VIOLATION FOR
NON-ATTAINMENT AIR QUALITY CONTROL
REGIONS
FORMAT
MAP
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
MATRIX
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
MATRIX
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
MAP
BAR&PIE
CHART
MATRIX
BAR
CHART
MAP
BAR&PIE
CHART
MATRIX
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
S4R
CHART
LOCATION OF PROBLEM
AREA
MAP NAMED
US
' GREAT
LAKES
LOCAL
BY RIVER
BASIN
BY RIVER
BASIN
BY RIVER
BASIN
BY
1 REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
i REGION
BY
LAKE
"TV
LAKE
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
STATE
LOCAL NAME
OF AQCR
EMIS-
SIONS
YES
WAY IN WHICH DEGREE OF PROBLEM MEASURED
POP- ECONO/
CONCEN- STOS ULATION HEALTH
TRATION VIOLATIONS EXPOSED EFFECTS OTHER
YES
YES IW/2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY)
YES (W/2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY)
YES IW/2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY)
YES IW/2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY!
YES
YES (WITH
SEVERITY)
YES
YES
YES
YES IW/2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY)
YES
%OF TOTAL
POLLUTANTS
USE IM-
PAIRMENT
MILESOF
SHORELINE
TYPE PROBLEM
'NAMED ON MAP
ACRES
ACRES
UNSAFE AREA
CAUSES
OF PROBLEM
IDENTIFIED
YES
YES POINT VS
NON-POINT
YES
LEVEL OF
6UTROPHICATION
YES
YES
TREND IN
SEVERITY
SHOWN
BY YEAH
ARROW SHOWING
CURRENT TREND
ARROW SHOWING
CURRENT TREND
BY YEAH
ARROW SHOWING
CURRENT TREND
BY YEAR
BY YEAR
136
-------
SUMMARY OF CONTENT OF DISPLAYS (CONT'D)
DISPLAY
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
AREA
AIR-4
AIR-5
AIR-6
AIR-7
AIR-8
AIR-9
AIR-10
AIR-11
SW-1
PW-2
5W-3
5W~4
W-5
RAD-1
RAD-2
RAD-3
EST-1
EST-2
EST-3
NOISE -1
NOISE -2
NGISE-3
TYPE
N-1
N-2
N-2
N-3
N-3
R-1
R-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-2
N-2
R-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
N-1
TITLE
TRENDS IN AIR QUALITY BY POLLUTANT
TYPES & TRENDS IN NUMBER OF DAYS Of AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY STATE
NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
COST OF AIR POLLUTION
NUMBERS OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS BY YEAR
MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR OXIDANT CONCENTRATION
FOR YOUR CITY BY YEAR
DAYS OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
BY CITY & BY MONTH OF YEAR FOR ALL
POLLUTANTS
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE AIR QUALITY
STATUS
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE
NUMBERS OF PERSONS SERVED BY STATE
TONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSED OF BY
STATE APPROVED METHODS
POPULATION SERVED BY ACCEPTABLE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF FULL-SCALE
RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIATION IN THE
ENVIRONMENT DUE TO FALLOUT
[STRONTIUM 90 IN MILK!
TREND IN AMOUNT OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
ESCAPING FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS (KRYP 85
IN AIRI (NO STD ESTA8 )
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE TO RADIATION
PER PERSON PER YEAR
PESTICIDE USAGE BY YEAR
CHANGE IN PESTICIDE RESIDUAL LEVELS IN FISH
(SPECIES MENHADEN) SINCE DDT WAS BANNED
BENEFITS OF PESTICIDE USAGE
NUMBERS OF PERSONS LIVING IN AREAS WITH
OBJECTIVE NOISE ORDINANCES
NUMBER OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO UNACCEPTABLE
NOISE LEVEIS (GREATER THAN 55Ldn> BY SOURCE
OF NOISE
NOISE ENERGY BY MAJOR SOURCF
FORMAT
MATRIX
MATRIX
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
MAP
BAR
BAR&PIE
BAR&PIE
BAR&PIE
CHART
MAP&
PIE
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
GRAPH
BAR
CHART
BAR&PIE
CHART
BAR
CHART
BAR
CHART
LOCATION OF PROBLEM
MAP AREA NAMED
U S
REG
LOCAL NAME
OF AQCR
BY
STATE
BY
REGION
METROPO-
LITAN AREA
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
BY
REGION
EMIS-
SIONS
YES
YES
WAY IN WHICH DEGREE OF PROBLEM MEASURED
POPU- ECONO/
CONCEN- STDS LATION HEALTH
TRATION VIOLATIONS EXPOSED EFFECTS OTHER
YES
YES
YES
YeSIW/J LEVELS
OF SEVERITY)
YES (W'2 LEVELS
OF SEVERITY
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
AREAS SHOWN
ON MAP
CAUSES OF
PROBLEM
IDENTIFIED
YES
TREND IN
SEVERITY
SHOWN
ARROWS SHOWING'
ARROWS SHOWING
CURRENT TREND
BY YEAR
BY YEAR
BY YEAR
BY YEAR
BY YEAR
BY YEAH
BY YEAR
YES
BY YEAR
137
-------
SUTARY OF CQfTeJTS fV\DE RY
This section provides a summary of comments
made by Regional and Headquarters personnel in
response to the January 1977 Draft. The section
begins with general comments on the proposed
approach and usefulness of the profile. This is
followed by comments relating to each of the
topical areas presented in the Draft Report.
2.4.1
GENERAL COMMENTS
D.A.A. for Water Planning and Standards:
"Publishing the measures and formats forwarded
in your March 4 memo can embrace public
awareness and understanding of the Nation's
pollution problems and, when aggregated on a
national level, the data would meet many other
reporting needs, such as those of the Council on
Environmental Quality. Fruition of this pro-
ject, a national environmental profile, will
benefit all who are concerned with the quality
of the environment."
"However, I have reservations about
proposing this reporting system to the Adminis-
trator until both the practicality of consistent
data acquisition and the cost/manpower require-
ments receive careful consideration. In
addition, Regions should focus initially on
those displays which are most readily available
from STORET and other ongoing data sources."
"There are too many figures. For the
purpose of public reporting, the color-coded
matrix formats and the color-coded maps are
preferred as providing the most precise
information on the nature, extent and location
of water quality problems."
"Bar graphs which compare actual river
miles, surface area or numbers of people, are
preferred to displays which compare percentages,
because of the additional information made
available. For example the display, which
depicts by Region the percentage contributions
of point vs. non-point sources to river water
pollution, could present (1) color-coded
pollutant loadings, or (2) pollutant loadings
along with the color-coded percentages."
Program Integration Branch: "A national
environmental profile will be of benefit to all
who are concerned with the quality of our
environment, and we would certainly like to see
fruition of this project."
Region V; "This project is a useful and
positive step towards compiling visual overviews
for public information."
-------
Region VIII: "The kind of generalized
portrayals which are submitted in your report
are needed to allow the agency, legislators and
the general public to intelligently assess
programs and overall progress pertinent to the
attainment of environmental goals."
"The presentations should stay away from
percentage descriptions especially when looking
at trends, since the base line data (i.e. total
river miles in a basin, total lake surface,
etc.) may change from year to year."
"There should be a version of these displays
which are not so dependent on color, so that
they can be used for newspapers and photocopy-
ing."
"The majority of the displays convey a great
deal of information in a single display and are
sometimes misleading. It should be recognized
that by condensing so much material into a
simple graphic, there is a tendancy to sacrifice
accuracy and exactness."
"A number of displays could be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program,
for example, a survey of BOD/TSS removal per
$1000 of grant money and/or a chart showing
numbers of people on no sewage treatment,
primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment."
"Consideration should be given to cross-
media charts. As it presently stands we look at
each media individually. One may want to see at
a glance that an area has air, water, etc.,
pollution problems."
"Many pages in the draft are devoted to
explaining the displays themselves, but there is
no mention of how much of that kind of explana-
tory material will accompany these displays once
they are included in a final document. Many of
the displays, standing alone, fail to convey the
total intended information. If a page of
descriptive text were placed on the facing page,
the whole would be more useful."
"Certain delay provoking concerns contin-
ually arise which question such things as cost
effectiveness, unique regional reporting and
informational requirements, data availability
and the optimal level of technical detail.
However, this Region recognizes an immediacy to
analyze, qualify and display those environmental
measures of progress which can be supported
through the utilization of the information and
resources which are presently available."
"In summary, Region VIII feels that the
establishment of a 'National Profile' is a
necessary and desirable goal."
139
-------
Program Reporting Division, OPE: "The
proposed profile is very comprehensive, well
thought out, and the charts make excellent
visual aids. The displays delineate yearly
comparisons through which visual trend analysis
can be made to approximate a time frame when
certain environmental goals, such as fishable
and swimmable waters, smog-free areas, and safe
drinking waters, will be attained. Other charts
display problem pollutant discharges, such as
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in air emissions
and hazardous substances in water discharges.
Thus, a person can obtain a good idea of various
environmental quality indicators by reviewing
the charts at a glance. This approach can be
very effective if the presentations are
qualified properly. My concern would be that in
the early stages of this development effort,
every effort be made not to mislead the ultimate
consumers of the information being presented."
"If, on the one hand, the intended use of
the proposed displays and specifications is for
the preparation of an Agency annual report for
public relations purposes, the format in its
entirety is probably a bit too comprehensive and
graphical for the average citizen to comprehend
statistics displayed. Also, the cost of
printing and distributing could be prohibitive
considering the high production costs. You might
reconsider shaping this material along the lines
of a large industrial firm's annual report to
its stockholders."
"However, if the intended use of the profile
is to serve as a framework for other Regions to
follow in preparing their public relations
Regional reports, similar to the ones prepared
by Region X for its Region and Oregon, the
proposed chart displays would serve a very
useful purpose in bringing homogeneity to the
type of environmental quality indicators
displayed and to the format of the displays
themselves. I would strongly endorse and
support such an effort. Regions I's annual
report would be very similar to that of Region
X's and, in fact, the Agency's annual report.
The similarities would not only make for easy
reading and continuity, but the successive
annual reports will also provide case histories
of environmental improvements in the States and
Regions, as well as in the Nation. Region X's
environmental quality profile, 1976, for its
Region and the technical supplement for Oregon
are excellent examples of good public relations
pamphlets, which include discussions of problem
areas as well as accomplishments."
-------
"It should be noted that the chartbook is
designed to depict environmental quality; it is
not designed to show any effort made by EPA
programs nor the compliance status of any class
or type of polluters regarding compliance with
EPA regulations. The package includes 43
graphic displays and none of the displays are
based upon data which is collected through the
Formal Planning and Reporting System (FPRS).
The FPRS by necessity and state-of-the-art has
tended to focus on day-to-day work load measures
(i.e., permits issued, construction grants
awarded, etc.) and has not been able to track or
measure more sophisticated environmental indica-
tors. This effort is fully supported by this
Division. Perhaps for the FY-79 guidance, we
could include some basic environmental
indicators in our management-by-objectives (MBO)
outputs tracked in the FPRS, assuming we've
developed the integration techniques necessary
to make the interface between program outputs
and the direct environmental impact."
2.4.2
RIVER WATER
D.A.A. for Water Planning and Standards:
"Our experience with 1975 and 1976 Section
305(b) reports indicates that unless the data
requirements and anaylses are made rigorously
consistent, comparisons between Regions result
in erroneous conclusions. Areas where specific
guidance is required are suggested by such
questions as: How many and which miles of
stream (miles of beach, square miles of lake,
etc.) can be represented by a single monitoring
station? How will 'contradictory information'
be factored into the index violation rates?
When is water quality 'unknown'? Consistent
well-documented data handling techniques can
dispel concern about publishing water quality
data developed using methodologies which cannot
be replicated."
"States are required under CFR 130/131 to
designate reach use classifications and devi-
ations from the standards. Without too great an
additional burden to the Regions, displays RW-1
and RW-2, which depict water quality for river
miles, might be made required Regional outputs.
Although this data is sometimes difficult to
develop, I believe it would be well worth the
effort. We will need to develop detailed
guidance, however, since the States' response to
the 1976 305(b) guidance request for stream
miles meeting goals was highly inconsistent."
141
-------
"STORE! can provide data for near-term
national profiles RW-4 and LW-2, and
supplementary data for displays RW-1, RW-2,
RW-3, LW-1, LW-3, LW-4".
Program Integration Branch: "How will
improvement or deterioration be calculated?
River Miles Charts should be normalized for
varying lengths of rivers."
Criteria and Standards Division: "Overall,
the types of reporting items and formats pro-
posed here could be extremely useful as a
measure of where we are in environmental
quality. On a year-to-year or longer basis the
information also could be of great value in
measuring improvement or degradation."
"Following a full evaluation of feasi-
bility /cost/manpower requirements such a system
might be proposed to the Administrator as a
useful policy guidance tool. The specific
information on water quality would be of special
interest and use to the Criteria and Standards
Division. However, both the practicality of
consistent data acquisition and the cost/man-
power requirements need careful quantification.
In addition, the organizational and management
implications of such a system—based on specific
uses—need careful development."
Region II: "RW-1, Water Quality of Nation's
Principal River Basins:
1. There should be a standard system
against which all Regions determine whether
or not water quality meets fishable-
swimmable standards. This would allow
uniformity in reporting the river conditions.
2. No definition for segment; this
should also be standard for all Regions.
3. Would have to set up certain
ambient fixed stations to gather required
data.
4. Think that State would have to
provide help."
"RW-2, River Miles Meeting National
Goals by Principal River Basin:
•3$
1. No problem as long as we could get
information for RW-1."
"RW-3, Trend in Percent of River Miles
Meeting Goals:
1. Would require State help to get
information on past dates."
"RW-4, Types of River Water Standards
Violations in Nation's Principal Rivers:
1. Title should be '. . . Principal
River Basins.'
2. Believe chart would be useful and
should be part of profile.
-------
3. This should be the crux for the
other parts of the profile dealing with
water quality."
"RW-5, Point vs. Non-Point Source
Contributions to River Water Pollution:
1. State would have to provide most of
information—but it might come through 208."
Region V: "Region V has been investigating
an objective water quality index method, based
on Dr. Ralph D. Harkins1 modification of the
cluster analysis method.
The advantages of this method are:
1) It is not subject to differences of
opinion as when weight factors are used for
calculating the index number.
2) The number of parameters used in
calculating the index is not fixed.
3) The interpretation of cluster
analysis index values are subject to
statistical tests to determine if changes or
trends are significant.
4) These index values are amenable to
averaging and other mathematical calcula-
tions which allow the calculating of
quarterly averages by station, basin, time
intervals, setting of confidence intervals
and statistical tests of confidence.
5) Stations can be compared with one
another at the same time or at different
time periods.
The project's usefulness will be greatly
enhanced if there is agreement on the repre-
sentative network of rivers and stations.
Region V is willing to consider implementing
this project in the water media after the Basic
Water Monitoring Program is in place. This
program will provide a network of stations, and
regular parametric data."
Region VI; "The aggregation of state and
regional results into one national composite
implies that the state and regional methods
(indices, standards, etc.) should be consistent
(see page 1 of January report).
What is done with data concerning other
parameters? How are fixed-station ambient data
related to river miles?
'208' areas and high quality/recreation/
'aesthetic1 type streams might be included.
It is not clear whether basins or streams
are indicated.
On pages 9 and 16, the two graphs (Types of
Standard Violations) would require very large
efforts or many generalized assumptions.
143
-------
Since the Basic Water Monitoring Program
will emphasize the intensive surveys as the
major input to state 305(b) reports, and 305(b)
reports are to report information depicted in
these graphics, these state reports should be
mentioned as a primary source for regional and
national aggregation.
If toxic substances are to be evaluated,
either stream-specific 96LC50 type criteria will
have to be used or generalized assumptions will
have to be made.
Some statements about data sources, study
methods, and assumptions should accompany
generalized graphics of this type.
The use of printed color on the graphics
produces excellent readability; however, on a
regional and state level, color graphics and
printing/reproduction present many logistical
and cost problems. Without the color printing,
the graphs will be much less readable."
Region VIII: "One of the agency's main
goals has been to reduce waste loads to
receiving waters through the permit and
construction grant program. It would seem,
therefore, appropriate to display such
information as trends in a river basin. This
information would also be necessary for
development of a display describing the relative
contributions from point and non-point sources.
Speaking of non-point sources, RW-5 is not
feasible to produce nor is it meaningful. The
whole area of how to display anything related to
non-point sources needs much more consideration.
All assessments of water quality must be
flow weighted (see 1972 CEQ Annual Report, pages
44-46).
Special conditions, e.g., Colorado River
salinity, should be treated in special sections
of the 'National Profile'.
Another display that could be considered
would be 'Quality of Oil Spilled' to the waters
of the U.S. over a certain period of time.
These statistics are available and could be
graphed readily."
"RW-1 - As is, this graph is primarily for
broad public information purposes. Among these
22 major river basins, we, in Region VIII, have
headwaters for 5. If we use our Water Quality
Index for color coding, we can provide this
information with very little additional man-
power. To do this on a broader regional basis
going into greater detail, say for a regional
administrators report, we would need about two
man months, including graphics, to do this for
-------
all the 'main stems' (according to the criteria
on page 4 of the January report). With greater
detail this graphic becomes progressively more
useful for water quality managers."
"RW-2 - Color doesn't particularly help this
graphic which is really an extension of RW-1.
Skillfully done, this could be merged into
RW-1. In fact if actual river miles were shown
alongside each segment it whould enhance the
usefulness of this graphic. Either way little
or no additional time would be required in
Region VIII to work this up once the desired
level of detail for RW-1 is developed. Together
RW-1 and RW-2, if developed in sufficient
detail, would be good for both public
information and as a tool for basic management
purposes."
"RW-3 - This graphic is feasible with
minimal resources right now in Region VIII since
our Water Quality Index is fully computerized.
This would be a very powerful tool for
evaluating state program effectiveness, if, and
only if, the data are flow normalized—which is
really a major complication. With longer
periods, say 3 years, this could be a reasonably
good comparison for Region VIII. (Provided flow
did not vary more than 25% from the mean in the
three year period.) You might be able to do
without flow normalization. Ideally, the
assessment should have a frequency distribution
weighting factor, for example, fractional
departure from median conditions for different
three-year periods at varying flow frequencies
(1972 CEQ Annual Report)."
"RW-4 - This is a cluttered presentation
which is not amenable to our Index. This workup
could be done using STORET without a big
commitment of resources. Again, the direction
of violations must be flow factored so as not to
be misleading. Data gaps, I believe, would be
striking, especially for radioactivity, organic
and inorganic toxicants. With bigger scale,
like LW-2, this would be a lot easier to read.
Also, it would be more useful if it were on a
segment-by-segment basis. Really, a short
narrative accompanying RW-1 could eliminate this
display and should be adequate for management
use for which it seems intended, and since this
display is not especially good for general
information purposes. The color maps in RW-1
could also show both miles and reasons for
violations, thereby consolidating RW-2 and RW-4
into RW-1."
145
-------
"RW-5 - While it may be feasible to
aggregate all pollutants responsible for point
and NPS pollution on a single display, it is
kind of misleading. Assuming that TSS,
Nutrients, Total Coliform and BOD are part of
the aggregate each will have vastly different
impact, for example, Region X notes that point
sources account for 0.1% of TSS, 5% of phos-
phorous, and 15% of BOD loadings at the mouths
of their 'main stems.1 Each parameter must be
sorted out with its share graphically indicated.
At this point we are not in a very good
position to do even a river 'mouth1 analysis and
would need a major emphasis on these kind of
data collection. Much of the needed data are
not in STORET or available in recent years from
the USGS, or other Federal agencies. If the
areawide 208's do a good job, some of these data
may emerge from their studies, but to provide
this information on an ongoing basis the state-
wide 208's will need to add this as a basic part
of their monitoring programs. Although it will
require a 'large' commitment of resources it
could be a useful tool in balancing NPS vs.
point source efforts and in tracking the success
of the NPS efforts."
"RW-1, RW-2, RW-3 - For these profiles to be
accurate and meaningful, we need to develop
adequate criteria to be used in evaluating
stream conformance to fishable and swimmable
goals. In addition, the adequacy of water
quality monitoring data needs to be evaluated
against the criteria."
Region VII: Water Programs - "We believe
the concept to be good; however, the regional
resources are very limited at this time. Much
of our data have not been analyzed and
classified in the manner necessary for this
effort. At the state level, resources are even
more restrictive and just time or resources to
review an effort by regional staff might not be
available. If this region is to participate in
such an effort, resources must be made
available."
2.4.3
LAKE WATER
-Region II: "LW-1 - Lake Surface Area for Which
Highest Beneficial Use is Impaired: This would
require State input. There should be some
uniform standard for all the Regions against
which to compare lakes.
146
-------
LW-2 - Causes of Impairment of Principal
Lake Water Quality: This is an important area
and should receive a higher status.
LW-3 - Eutrophication of Major Lakes (Except
Great Lakes): Will require State input. Data
could be hard to obtain.
LW-4 - Trend in Eutrophication of Major
Lakes of the U.S.: Need some sort of monitoring
on a regular time frame.
LW-5 - Miles of Lake Shoreline Acceptable
for Swimming: Information should come from
LW-l--is this chart really necessary?
GLW-1 - Percent of Swimming Beaches on Great
Lakes Meeting Water Quality or Health
Standards: State and County input."
Region VIII; "LW-1 - To date, practically
no data are available in STORET or otherwise
available to aid this kind of an assessment for
the 2300+ Region VIII (significant) lakes
identified in 106 plans. With the NES and some
other fragmented information we were able to do
a trophic assessment only of 185 lakes. Since
the NES was a one-shot deal and provided
coverage for 115 of these lakes, it will take a
significant commitment to simply match the NES.
Data on bacteria is nil and practically non-
existent for organic and inorganic toxicants.
Since our focus has not been on lakes, we need a
major commitment of resources to get a good data
base for a representative cross-section of
Region VIII's significant lakes.
Done right, this could be a worthwhile tool
in following the ability of our programs to make
assessments and to pinpoint high priority lakes
for clean up. The lake 'Evaluation Matrix1 is
not especially profound, since impairment may be
due to natural causes. To me, it appears essen-
tial to sort out natural from man-related
causes. Also, Secchi disc values are too
lenient since a reading of less than 5 feet (not
1 1/2 feet) is normally viewed as a signifi-
cantly poor condition. In addition, a
chlorophyll of 10mg/m3 (not 20 mg/m3) is
considered poor. By contrast a total P of
25ug/l (not 20ug/l) is considered a significant
symptom of impairment through eutrophication.
Aesthetically though P by itself is not a good
indicator but rather algae cell count; a more
direct measure should be considered at 10,000
cells/ml as a bad aesthetic indicator.
Macrophytes can also be a significant deterrent
to swimming, as can poor clarity. A lake index
like our Water Quality Index could be developed
using the same basic structure as used for
147
-------
stream assessments, but with adjustments to
'violation' levels. Really though, until we get
a data base it is purely academic to develop a
lake index at this point. To do any quantita-
tive assessment for this display it will not be
feasible in Region VIII in the near term. Long
term feasibility depends on near-term inclusion
of lakes in basic monitoring programs."
"LW-3 - A good concept for a display. Our
data base needs substantial improvement for us
to begin thinking about an assessment of this
sort. Several major lakes could be sorted out
by name just like the major river basins are,
for example, Oahe, Sakakawea, Flaming Gorge,
Lake Powell, Bear Lake, etc. Dissolved oxygen
and nutrients could be lumped into a eutro-
phication category. Sediment (suspended), as
opposed to turbidity, should be considered an
impairment only if, after settling, it
significantly shortens the life of a lake or
eliminates intended spawning, otherwise curtails
benthic productivity, and/or significantly
contributes to DO depletion, heavy metal
dissolution, or introduction of pesticides.
Standing along sediment (suspended) is a rather
nebulous impairment. Much of the substance of
this graphic will be lost on the general reader,
and its usefulness to its prime audience, namely
water quality managers, should be enhanced with
actual information on which heavy metals,
pesticides, etc., are causing impairment."
"LW-3 - This is a good idea and will be
feasible only _if_ the ongoing monitoring data are
made available in the state programs (see
LW-1). Rather than use only large lakes
(greater than 10 square miles) a list of
criteria as used for the river mainstems should
be used—including high recreation uses, miles
of shoreline access, proximity to population
centers, clean lake grantee, pristine state
and/or other unique features. This display is
feasible to a limited extent in Region VIII only
because the NES (now complete) was conducted.
Continuing feasibility depends on ongoing 106
programs and the possibility of another NES
effort."
"LW-4 - Again, to be meaningful, natural
from man-caused eutrophication must be sorted
out—a very difficult and expensive process.
Use of Vollenweider loading rates might be used
to show trends on a phosphorous loading per acre
basis. Without too much, if any, problem, LW-4
could be consolidated into LW-3."
-------
"LW-5 - There is little to fault with this
graphic and it should be considered for future
use as supported by an adequate monitoring
program."
"LW-1 through LW-5 - It seems questionable
if these profiles could be developed without a
considerable Regional and/or state effort."
2.4.5
DRINKING WATER
2.4.4
MARINE WATER
- Region II: "MW-1 - Commercial Shellfish
Acreage Open for Harvesting: States could
provide all the information.
MW-2 - Types of Marine Water Standards
Violations: Would require State and County
input. If information is available, this task
should not be too difficult.
MW-3 - Trend in Commercial Shellfish Areas
Open for Harvesting: This should be combined
with MW-1. Would require State input, but
should not be too difficult.
MW-4 - Status of Shellfish Harvesting
Areas: Is this necessary? MW-1 and MW-3 should
say it all. As a generalized map it may be O.K."
D.A.A. for Water Planning and Standards, and
Others: "Drinking water charts should be broken
down by sources of water (e.g., rivers, lakes,
etc.)."
Region II: "DW-1 - Population Served by
Drinking Water Supplies Meeting All Standards:
Need some standard for making 'minor1 or 'major'
violation judgments. State input required.
DW-2 - Types of Drinking Water Standards
Violations: Need State input.
DW-3 - Number of Drinking Water Supplies
Meeting Standards: With DW-1 no need for this."
Region VIII: "DW-1 - Information needed to
put this profile together will not be easily
obtainable. While the water supply inventory
will be a part of the MSIS System, and data on
systems with violations will be recorded in the
ADP system, there is no program at this time to
produce a data output that shows the population
served by supplies meeting all standards. Also,
it will be difficult to show trends with this
type of bar graph because of the difficulty in
showing differences in small population
changes. If used, this profile should be
limited to people served by community systems.
149
-------
However, it will not be possible to evaluate all
community supplies for all standards until 1980."
"DW-2 - It is indicated that the data to
develop this profile will be available on a
monthly basis. This is incorrect, as the states
are only required to submit this kind of data on
an annual basis. Also, without very good
guidelines on whether violations are major,
minor or not a contributor to violations, there
will probably be a considerable difference in
interpretation from Region to Region, which
could be misleading on a national basis."
"DW-3 - Data to put this profile together
should be available for community systems, but
not until 1980 when data on radioactive quality
becomes available. The profile should be done
on an annual basis because the data will not be
available on a monthly basis."
2.4.6
AIR QUALITY
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division: "We
have seen Region X's earlier multi-colored
report and thought they had many excellent ideas
on displaying air quality data. The use of
color in their report and in this present study
is very effective. For example, the AIR-1
display is basically similar to a black and
white presentation used in DSSE's reports, but
the latter does not have nearly the same visual
impact. The same is true for many of our
graphs. In fact, Region X's previous report is
one of the reasons we are publishing a
multi-color lay-public version of our trends
report this year. This pamphlet is presently
being printed and will be available in a few
weeks.
One of the goals of our most recent report,
'National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Report, 1975,' has been to indicate trends in
pollutant exposure. Our past experience with
presentations such as AIR-2 and AIR-4 from a
national viewpoint has indicated many potential
problems. In our 1973 report (Figures 3.1, 3.2,
3.3 and 3.4), we used an AQCR type summarization
on maps and received many negative comments. We
have since dropped this approach because a
single monitor around an isolated point source
can easily mask the genuine progress being made
in our highly populated areas. The same type of
problem occurs with the AIR-11 type of presenta-
tion. One approach that we are presently using
is based upon population distorted maps so that
the size of each state is proportional to its
i en
-------
population. We are using this technique for
displaying TSP trends and feel that it minimized
many of our earlier problems. At the present
time, only TSP has sufficient data nationwide
for such a presentation. As indicated in your
report, the feasibility of presentations such as
AIR-8 is uncertain at this time, although we can
do it for TSP as shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 of
our 1975 report.
We are also currently trying different
techniques to increase the amount of information
on each graph. In our 1975 report, we used Box
Plots (Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3-10) to display the
type of information given in AIR-9. We simpli-
fied this techique somewhat for the lay-public
version of our trends report, but it still
enables us to display more than just the
maximum. Based upon past data, the influence of
meteorology and the erratic behavior of the
maximum may mask genuine improvements being made
by control programs. The most recent CEQ report
also discussed this potential pitfall.
We like the use of the number of days of air
quality violations such as in AIR-5. We have
gone to this type of approach more and more. In
our 1975 report (Figure 3-5) we used this to
show nationwide improvement in peak value TSP.
Another type of presentation that you may
want to consider is the standard type of iso-
pleth display for a particular area. We used
several of these in section 2 of our 1975
report. Such maps are essentially an inter-
mediate step in our population exposure
analyses, but the response we have received
indicates that they are useful in themselves.
Many of the comments received by SAMWG favored
such presentations, and it does appear to be a
convenient and informative data display.
The positive response we have received on
our population exposure analysis from several
Regions has encouraged us to expand this type of
effort. Currently, we plan to provide assist-
ance to interested Regions to do 1-2 cities per
Region.
The data limitations are an obvious concern,
but we hope to investigate the use of modeling
results to supplement the actual air quality
data. Although this is intuitively appealing,
we still need to examine the feasibility in
terms of required resources."
Region V: "AIR-1 - The source of this
information would be the National Emissions Data
System (NEDS). Unfortunately this trend summary
would not necessarily be accurate since emission
151
-------
inventories are not presently archived by NADB.
Better information on sources and increase in
the number of sources on the data file over the
years may reflect a false increase or decrease
in emission totals."
"AIR-2 - The plot of number of days with
standards violations is to be developed by
choosing the worst AQCR in the state. This
could easily be done for the entire state with
total days computed for all AQCR's in the
state. We recommend separating the types of
pollutants one per national display. This could
be a useful display at the regional level."
"AIR-3 - As with AIR-2, each pollutant
should be separated. This could be generated
for any AQCR's, AQMA's or county."
"AIR-4 - This exhibit is one of the best.
This can be implemented on a county, AQCR, AQMA,
or state basis. This should be utilized at the
regional level. This display is also open to
the most debate, depending on what statistics
are used for trend determination.
The number of days monitored for partic-
ulates is approximately 1/6 of the total
possible per year, with most sites monitoring
the same day; however, the approach used here,
days rather than total violations or total sites
in violation, is more equitable. Perhaps index
sites monitoring every day (as in Ohio) or
staggered sampling could be established in every
state to determine these trends."
"AIR-5 - In using this display on a national
basis, we emphasize that monitoring methods and
siting in all states are assumed to be fairly
standardized with enough sites to discriminate
days exceeding of air quality standards. We
agree that the data may not be currently
available in all Regions."
"AIR-6 - Population exposure graphs for
large geographic areas could be implemented on a
worst case basis or limited number of AQCR's
within a Region at first using the population at
risk model. We wish to apply the model in
certain selected urban areas (Chicago,
Cleveland, and Detroit) with adequate data basis
to refine the standardized air quality
gridding. Perhaps another, simpler technique
can be applied for yearly trends over these
larger areas."
"AIR-7 - Some health and welfare information
may be available for research organizations to
present number of days illness and property
damage. We assume data on mortalities due to
air pollution may be available on a very limited
scale both in years and geography."
-------
"AIR-8 - Comments on AIR-6 are applicable
here.
"AIR-9 - Maximum concentration bar graphs
have already been utilized in Region V for
selected pollutants and areas (Enclosure 0).
This is one of the more useful displays too,
regionally as well as publicly."
"AIR-10 - This is also a very good exhibit
for worst case AQCR's."
"AIR-11 - We assume this statue chart of the
Nation is operational presently at Headquarters.
The air media presentations could be imple-
mented easily if current data processing
procedures were modified and enhanced.
Further, Region V has information summarized
as in the Region X report, page 10, 'Trends in
Air Pollutants in Primary Abatement Area1 on a
state, AQCR, and county basis.
. ._ . The Region V Air Quality Tracking
System (UNIVAC-1110) . . documentation will be
available to all Regional offices within a few
weeks. Plotting of air quality data is a fairly
new concept in our Region and we hope to imple-
ment more trend analysis features this year.
In summary, we believe that standardization
of these capabilities is most important to be
cost-effective. We realize each Region will
have a variety of needs, some unique because of
population, geography, meteorology, hydrology,
and industry. However, once some of these
displays have national acceptance, they should
be available centrally (i.e., Headquarters,
RTP). This effort should fit in with the final
Standing Air Monitoring Work Group plan. We
note that the Monitoring and Data Analysis
Division is proposing new air data graphical
displays (isopleth mapping, for instance), which
is one of the FY-77-78 SAMWG goals.
Finally, we desire this capability to be
technically sound and capable of going the long
haul, and that any display be clearly annotated."
Region VI; "The graphs labeled AIR-2 and
AIR-3 use the 'worst case1 approach to depict
general air quality for an entire site or AQCR.
The use of this approach will be misleading to
the general public. To offset this, information
depicting the 'average1 number of violation days
in a state or AQCR should be displayed. This
information could be something like the number
of violation days exceeded by 50% of the AQCR's
in a state. Similar information could be given
for multiple-site AQCR's.
Overall, the series of graphs presented will
provide a good general description of the status
of air quality in the nation and in each of the
Regions.
153
-------
One possible addition to the Regional
presentation would be to display pollution/wind
roses for each pollutant for the major metro-
politan areas in the Region.
Near exclusive use of bar graphs is
monotonous. Were other types of graphs
considered?"
Region VIII: "Charts such as AIR-3 may have
too much information on it to be very useful to
general public.
The TSP Air Quality Status would need to be
smaller than AQCR's; otherwise National Parks,
etc. in West would be indicated nonattainment.
For nonattainment AQCR's, it may be useful
to consider a pie chart with emission source
types.
Trends approach is good for AQCR, question
use on statewide basis.
Would seem appropriate to use readings
identified in regulations, e.g., second max for
AIR-9.
AIR-6 (persons exposed) seems of question-
able value on regional basis—perhaps should
consider nonattainment AQCR's.
AIR-8 seems to have minimal applicability.
Top chart hard to read.
For AIR-10, there would be a question of the
value used. Consideration of sampling accuracy
3
must be included. If reading 1 ug/m above or
below standard, how is it handled? Once this
issue handled, display is good.
As PSD areas redesignated, by land managers
or Congress, it would be well to have regional
maps depicting these areas."
"AIR-1 - Good concept. Is it really
possible to compare years, since the emissions
data base may have substantial changes in
quantity and quality over the years? Has some
merit."
"AIR-2 - Each pollutant should be separate
with its own bar chart. That way the worst case
for each pollutant can be distinguished and the
bias associated with the lack of any data will
not be as misleading."
"AIR-3 - Again, pollutants should be
separated onto district pollutant specific
charts. Also, the alert level is reached so
infrequently in Region VIII, that the solid
colors would be insignificant."
"AIR-4 - Trend arrows are misleading if
based on year-to-year variations. Regional
resources needed are overestimated."
"AIR-5 - Not very meaningful.
-------
"AIR-6 - Good concept. Should be developed
and implemented."
"AIR-7 - The ultimate graphic, however, are
we even close to being able to correlate these
costs to air pollution? The development of the
graphic should be low priority."
"AIR-8 - Good concept. Should be followed
through."
"AIR-9 - A chart of 2nd high values would be
more appropriate."
"AIR-10 - Again, separation by pollutant is
essential."
"AIR-11 - Totally misleading, particularly
in Region VIII. The AQCR's are so large that
problem areas are not highlighted. One site
over the Standard in Wyoming turns 2/3 of the
State into a yellow region. Recommended this
graphic be dropped from the list."
Department of Environmental Quality, State
of Wyoming:
"We have concerns over two of the proposed
displays: AIR-2 and AIR-11. We strongly believe
that the AIR-2 chart would be misinterpreted by
the general public since"it would reflect the
data from the worst site in a state without
regard to the situation of that site or how
wide-spread the problem is. For example, we
have one site in the state (Lyman Sampler at
Rock Springs) which reported an annual geometric
3
mean of 90 ug/m in 1975 with 11 samples in
3
excess of 150 ug/m . At the same time, two
other sites in Rock Springs reported correspond-
3 3
ing values of 44 ug/m and 40 ug/m for 1975
3
with only two values in excess of 150 ug/m .
Therefore, the State of Wyoming would be
reported as having 13 days in excess of the
standard with the possible interpretation that
this was a statewide experience rather than a
problem that existed over an area of maybe 10
square miles. This type of chart would not
reflect the data showing good air quality as
measured by some 30 to 35 other samplers in the
state.
This same line of thought applies to the map
shown on AIR-11. We do not think that AQCR
boundaries should be used to show the status as
indicated. Refer to the map (AIR-11) and note
that the Wyoming Interstate AQCR is a large area
and could be included as an "area" not meeting
the NAAQS. However, to be more precise, an area
of a very few square miles in the southwest
corner in and around Rock Springs is the problem
area. A layman might draw the conclusion from
155
-------
the suggested map that Yellowstone Park and
Sundance, Wyoming were experiencing violation of
the standards.
We recognize the difficulty in putting
together a summary for general distribution, but
feel that the above comments indicate areas were
the general public might be presented with
information more to his understanding."
2.4.7
SOLID WASTE
- Region VIII: "SW-4 - This profile would
need considerably more definition before being
used. Presumably it refers to municipal or
publicly owned wastewater treatment plant
sludges; however, it does not say so in the
specifications. Also, there is not yet at this
time any national set of criteria on which to
judge sludge disposal systems on a national
basis. Is it true that Section 208 requires
that an assessment be made of the adequacy of
sludge disposal procedures in 208 study areas
from a water and air quality standpoint?"
- Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid
Waste: Charts 30 and 31 —"Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities" is too broad a term; for practical
use in reporting data, it should be defined."
Chart 32 -- We have data only on tons of
hazardous wastes generated in each State. No
data is available on how much hazardous waste is
disposed of in each State, let alone whether it
is disposed of in an approved manner. We doubt
that this data is obtainable from the States."
Chart 33 — It is not reasonable to report
such data at the present time, since there are
no criteria currently under development for
judging acceptable sludge disposal, except those
planned under P.L. 94-580."
"Chart 34 — This chart is acceptable."
2.4.8
RADIATION
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation
Programs: "The draft displays and specifica-
tions on radiation topics for a national
environmental quality profile have been reviewed
as you requested. In general, the proposed
reporting formats appear good for presenting
environmental data to the general public.
Specific comments on the radiation items follow."
"35 RAD-1
This chart on strontium-90 in milk is appro-
priate. It is suggested that the title be
revised to, "Trend in Environmental Radioacti-
vity Concentrations due to 'Fallout1 from
-------
Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Testing (Strontium-
90 in Pasteurized Milk.)" This chart would also
be more informative with data for each one or
two years instead of five-year intervals.
Another approach would be a series on
"Trends in Environmental Radioactivity
Concentrations in Pasteurized Milk." Three
charts could then show data for strontium-90,
cesium-137, and carbon-14, all of which provide
indications of nuclear weapons testing or other
nuclear operations such as fuel reprocessing.
Other indicators of fallout or nuclear fuel
cycle operations include airborne particulates
containing uranium-234,-235,-238 or plutonium
-238,-239; or tritium in precipitation, surface
water, and drinking water."
"36 RAD-2
The idea behind this chart is good but some
revisions are suggested. The title should
indicate, "Trend in Environmental Radioactivity
Concentrations Resulting from the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle. (Krypton-85 in Air)." The reason for
this change is to recognize that krypton-85 is
one of the major waste products of nuclear fuel
reprocessing. Also, much of the krypton-85 in
the environment may originate outside the United
States. EPA has promulgated an environmental
standard for krypton-85 which will become
effective in 1983."
"37 RAD-3
The concept behind this chart is also good,
but our information is not adequate to complete
such a chart. The ideal would be to present a
pie chart showing the proportional dose
equivalent to the U.S. population from each
source of ionizing radiation. However, we do
not yet have population dose data for many
categories. There is also a problem with this
chart in that individual dose equivalents should
not be added. Our survey of radiation source
categories provides some individual dose data
but no one group of individuals is going to be
exposed to all source categories. Also, you
will note in the EPA report, EPA-520/1-76-010,
that the summary table on dose data contains
many footnotes which are necessary for inter-
pretation of these data. The kind of chart
proposed tends to leave out such footnotes, and
consequently, the chart could be very
misleading."
"Conclusions
Charts 35 and 36 could be useful with the
revisions suggested. Chart 37 should not be
157
-------
attempted at this time. It is understood that
the data for preparing charts of type 35 and 36
would be provided by the Office of Radiation
Programs. ORP will be pleased to provide such
assistance towards preparing the overall
national environmental quality profile."
2.4.9
NOISE
Region VII: "Noise - It seems logical that
this might be done at the state level. Funding
would be needed by the states, but actually the
states might prefer to have funds for other uses
in noise control since their budgets are so
small. We could report the total number of
people in those communities with objective noise
ordinances. We need guidelines for reporting.
Many numbers would be simply estimates."
Office of Noise Abatement and Control: "Since
many communities have ordinances which are not
enforced, we do not feel that the indicator
suggested (Number of Persons Living in Areas
with Objective Noise Ordinances) would be very
useful in conveying the actual efforts being
made at the State and local level to control
noise. Instead we would like to propose a
reporting item which would show the populations
covered by the following:
established programs (States and
municipalities in this category have
adopted a comprehensive approach to
noise control based on the implementa-
tion of legislation incorporating
acoustical criteria. Characterized by
a high level of noise control activity
and integration of program elements
into a structured, functional relation-
ship, these programs have personnel,
funding, instrumentation, and include
enforcement activities.)
limited programs (The absence of one or
more of the program elements character-
izing an established program is the
primary criteria for placing a State or
municipal program in this category.
However, both a moderate degree of
noise control activity and a demon-
strated interest in abating noise
problems are present. Limited programs
fall into three sub-categories: (1)
programs based solely on the imple-
mentation of and enforcement of
nuisance provisions. (Despite the
absence of performance standards and
noise measurement instrumentation,
-------
noise control efforts are actively
pursued); (2) programs directed at the
control of noise from only one major
class of noise sources (e.g., motor
vehicles) or that utilize only one
noise control approach (e.g., zoning).
(Although structured programs with
legislation, funding, personnel,
instrumentation, and enforcement, these
efforts lack the comprehensive
orientation of established programs);
(3) comprehensive program in the
initial stages of development.)
minimal activities (States and
municipalities in this category do not
have a structured noise control
program. Efforts usually consist of
investigation of complaints and limited
enforcement of nuisance provisions.
Resources (personnel, funding,
instrumentation) are drawn from other
programs and applied on an as needed
basis.)
no program effort This break-out is
feasible and is compatible with current
data collections efforts being carried
out at ONAC and in Regions. At
present, data is available only on
communities with populations greater
than 75,000; however, in three years
complete data should be available for
communities with populations greater
than 50,000."
"We do not feel that this item
"Numbers of Persons Exposed to
Unacceptable Noise Levels (Greater than
55 Ldn) by Source of Noise" should be
used. The data is an extrapolation
from one study done several years ago
and has been used by EPA as one of the
criteria for priority ordering products
for regulations. It is not used, and
is not intended to be used, as a device
for assessing progress on anything but
a long-range basis. Therefore, it
would be impossible to use it in a
yearly report. ONAC is in the process
of determining what assessment program
should be used, in keeping with our
resources and legislative mandate.
Undoubtedly whatever assessment program
is used will require State and local
support. In the absence of such State
and local program it is premature to
159
-------
include an indicator assessing progress
toward specific Ldn goals."
"ONAC does not have data for all
sources broken out into kilowatt hours
per day of sound energy, although this
could be derived (Noise Energy by Major
Sources). Sources have been rated for
relative population noise impact, and
this would be a more convenient
indicator to use. However, there are
more substantive problems. First,
there is not apt to be much change
between the relative impact of sources
in the near-term since EPA regulations
take some time to go into effect, and a
product population must be replaced in
order for noise from that product
source to drop. Secondly, even if it
were possible to show changes in the
relative source impact it is not clear
that this communicates very much. It
certainly doesn't say anything about
the overall problem. Therefore, we do
not feel that this should be included
as an indicator."
2.4.10
PESTICIDES
Region VII: "Pesticides - The three
categories are of interest. We have no way to
determine the data for amounts used or relative
dollar benefits. Recently we attempted to get
the figures for the amount of pesticides used by
states. This information is not available from
the U.S.D.A. Statistical Data Survey."
------- |