5193 ^
1981 -Vv United States Office of the February 1980
Environmental Protection Administrator
?; Agency Washington DC 20460 _ ,
x°/EPA Operating
Year
Guidance
2200017
K
19b
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
19P
1r
-------
v°/EPA Operating
Year
Guidance
Operating Year
Guidance for
Fiscal Year 1981
February, 1980
r: • ' -
a ^" «•„,., i * -
• it - - j r , . - -
-------
Note on Preparation
During an evaluation of the Agency's annual
guidance process and document last fall, both
Regional and State officials requested that guid-
ance for the operating year be issued no later
than February. They indicated that they needed it
this early for their negotiations on State/EPA
agreements and grants, and for their planning for
the coming year.
To respond to that request, we are issuing the
document much earlier than we have in the past.
However, to get it out this early meant that we
had to circulate draft material to the Regions
that contained information on the President's
budget before it was officially released. As a re-
sult, while the Regions were encouraged to dis-
cuss with State environmental officials the priori-
ties in the Guidance, they were unable to circu-
late the draft material to the States for their re-
view and comment.
State agencies will have additional opportunities
to influence priority activities for FY 1981 in their
negotiations on priorities for State/EPA Agree-
ments and grant conditions.
Envi.'cnnrjrtal Protection Agency
-------
Contents
Statement of the Administrator and Deputy 1
Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation 5
Overview 5
Air 5
Noise 8
Radiation 9
Office of Water and Waste Management 11
Overview 11
Water Quality 13
Drinking Water 16
Solid Waste 18
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances 21
Overview 21
Toxic Substances 22
Pesticides 24
Office of Enforcement 27
Overview 27
Stationary Source Enforcement 30
Mobile Source Enforcement 31
NPDES Permits Issuance 31
Water Enforcement 31
Drinking Water Enforcement 31
Hazardous Waste Enforcement 32
Hazardous Waste Permit Issuance 32
Pesticides Enforcement 32
Noise Enforcement 32
Toxic Substances Enforcement 32
-------
Office of Planning and Management 35
Overview 35
An Integrated, Decentralized Program 35
Analytic Services 37
Providing Responsive, Efficient Services 38
Region-Specific Guidance 39
Priorities for State/EPA Agreements 40
Office of Research and Development 41
Overview 41
Mobile Source 46
Gases and Particles 46
Oxidants 47
Hazardous Air Pollutants 47
Radiation 48
Chemical Testing and Assessment 49
Pesticides 49
Water Quality 50
Drinking Water 50
Industrial Wastewater 51
Municipal Wastewater and Spills 52
Solid Waste 52
Energy 52
Administrator's Guidance on FY 1981
State/EPA Agreements 55
Overview 55
Roles and Responsibilities 56
Organizational Models 56
SEA Development Process and Schedule 57
Public Involvement 60
-------
Statement of the
Administrator and
Deputy
Administrator
This Operating Year Guidance is intended to give
EPA Headquarters and Regional Office managers
a sense of the major Agency-wide and program-
specific priorities that we and the Assistant Ad-
ministrators (AAs) have agreed to focus on dur-
ing the remainder of FY 1980 and in FY 1981.
This Guidance is the first step of an integrated
and improved management system. Headquarters
and Regional managers should use it as a frame-
work for developing FY 1981 operating plans and
performance standards and for revising FY 1980
plans and performance standards. We then will
evaluate individual and program performance
based on these plans and standards. The Guid-
ance should also be the basis for negotiating
State/EPA Agreements.
Our statement highlights the priorities that cut
across the Agency, requiring several programs to
coordinate and integrate their efforts. The Assis-
tant Administrators' statements identify specific
program activities they want Headquarters and
Regional offices to focus on. Although these ac-
tivities are identified as Assistant Administrators'
priorities, they reflect our priorities as well. We
have reviewed each Assistant Administrator's
statement carefully and discussed each item be-
fore including it in this document.
Each Assistant Administrator has designated two
types of priority activities. Level 1 priorities are
those which Headquarters or Regional offices
must do and for which we will make resources
available. Level 2 priorities are activities that are
important, but which Headquarters and Regional
-------
staff may only be able to undertake on a limited
basis because of limited resources.
can respond; and ensure the safety of our emer-
gency personnel.
Agency Goals
In FY 1981, the broad goals of the Agency con-
tinue to be protecting public health and preserv-
ing sensitive ecosystems. These goals should be
the focus of both the cross-cutting initiatives we
highlight and of the priority activities in each of
the Assistant Administrators' overviews.
The activities we want to emphasize follow. Al-
though we focus on new priorities, we also want
to emphasize the need to continue our efforts to
foster public participation in our regulations de-
velopment process, to integrate research activi-
ties with the rest of the Agency, and to support
the Administration's urban initiative.
Energy
The Administration this year is stressing expand-
ed energy production. In carrying out our respon-
sibility to ensure that energy projects are envi-
ronmentally sound, we must make certain that
these projects come on line as soon as possible.
Accordingly, we must quickly develop regulations
governing new energy technologies and expedite
permits for new energy facilities. A Management
Task Force is working now to develop a strategy
to expedite permitting.
We should also continue to support and promote
clean and inexpensive energy alternatives, such
as conservation and unconventional gas.
Integrated Toxics Strategy
Led by OPTS, the Agency will develop an inte-
grated strategy to control toxics substances ef-
fectively. Our aim is to coordinate the toxic-relat-
ed planning, research, information collection, reg-
ulatory, and enforcement efforts of all EPA's pro-
gram and staff offices to ensure that our re-
sources are used most effectively.
Emergency Response
We must improve our ability to respond to emer-
gencies caused by dangerous pollutants that
threaten public health and the environment. In
particular, we must improve coordination between
EPA, other Federal agencies, and the States;
broaden the range of emergencies to which we
Data Collection and Information Management
The Agency must ensure that the data we collect
are available, accessible, accurate and useful for
making decisions and evaluating programs.
We have asked a committee of Deputy Assistant
Administrators to provide Agency-wide direction
for collecting data and developing information
systems. Further, beginning now, every office
must develop programs to ensure the quality of
its data and must make sure that its data pro-
vide information that is necessary and useful.
Each laboratory also must evaluate its perfor-
mance.
We would also like the Regional Administrators
to ensure that the measurements of toxic chemi-
cals in the environment collected by their offices
are placed in the Agency's data storage systems.
Acid Rain
We are very concerned about our lack of under-
standing of acid rain and the problems it causes.
We have asked the Office of Research and De-
velopment and the Office of Air, Noise, and Ra-
diation to explore the relationship between fine
particulates, sulfates, nitrates, atmospheric load-
ing, and acid rain, and to recommend a strategy
for solving the problem. We may need to develop
legislative initiatives to enable us to better grap-
ple with the problem over the long term. How-
ever, on a short-term basis, we will need to eval-
uate strengthening our efforts under current legis-
lation.
Regulatory Reform
We strongly support the Administration's commit-
ment to regulatory reform, and will continue to
explore innovative approaches to enforcing our
rules. Getting our environmental job done more
surely at lower cost and with less "hassle", while
encouraging innovation, is important.
In FY 1980 and FY 1981, we must fully imple-
ment reforms we have already adopted, particu-
larly the bubble concept and trading, banking
and brokerage of offsets. We must also give high
priority to simplifying, consolidating, and stream-
lining permit processes; to implementing our non-
-------
compliance penalty authority; and to developing
and applying benefit measures and other analytic
tools to further strengthen our regulatory decision
making.
Legislative Initiatives
We will continue to work for passage of Super-
fund and the Integrated Environmental Assistance
Act this year. The proposed Superfund would
provide the resources we need to clean up haz-
ardous waste sites and spills that are a threat to
public health. The Integrated Environmental Assis-
tance Act would allow State and local environ-
mental agencies greater flexibility in using their
grant funds to meet their environmental problems.
In addition, given the need to extend the Clean
Air Act authorizations in 1981, we need to con-
sider improvements which may be needed in the
Act.
Building A Strong, Diverse Staff
In recruiting and developing staff we must con-
tinue our serious commitment to affirmative ac-
tion. We have made significant strides in bringing
minorities and women into top level management
positions in the Agency. We must continue to
press here in FY 1980 and FY 1981, but we
must emphasize bringing minorities and women
into middle level jobs as well.
Management Reform
Recent Civil Service reforms give government
managers practical tools for defining clearly each
employee's objectives, evaluating performance
and rewarding superior work. We must finish im-
plementing these reforms. Every Agency manager
must take seriously the very substantial responsi-
bility to implement this program.
This year we expect the Assistant Administrators
to help strengthen our regulation development
processes and products by directing their repre-
sentatives on regulation work groups to explore
alternatives, communicate important choices to
senior managers, and build consensus. They
should ensure that their Steering Committee
member fully represents their views and contrib-
utes to the final regulatory decisions in every
program area. We also expect the Regions to
become more active participants in developing
regulations, especially in considering the opera-
tional impacts on their resources of alternative
regulatory approaches.
The need for close coordination among programs
with overlapping interests is obvious, but we
want to emphasize that we expect the AAs to
set the tone for ensuring that their programs are,
in fact, coordinating with others.
Program Evaluation
It is important that in setting priorities we later
measure our effectiveness in implementing them.
We have asked OPM to develop increased capa-
bility to conduct evaluations on specific issues or
program areas. The current work on EPA delega-
tions to the States and the pesticides program
are examples of the approach we want OPM to
take. We need to be the principal evaluators of
our own programs. Therefore, we expect that the
programs and OPM will tackle these evaluations
aggressively and jointly—both in designing evalu-
ations and in implementing recommendations.
Improve Relationships with State and Local
Governments
In improving State and local relationships we will
focus on bringing environmental programs closer
together to ensure efficient management of
scarce resources. Therefore we want the Regions
to encourage all States, especially States with
separate programs, to give high priority to con-
solidation of those programs through the
State/EPA Agreements.
Headquarters and Regional managers should give
high priority to encouraging and developing real-
istic State/EPA Agreements (SEAs) in which both
EPA and the States commit to specific activities.
This joint planning process will improve
State/EPA relations and help both parties do a
better job. Each of the Assistant Administrators'
overviews contains SEA priorities. In addition, a
separate section conveying my guidance on
SEAs is included at the end of this document.
The Agency also needs to encourage delegation
of programs. We need to lay out more clearly
EPA and State roles in delegated programs. Do-
ing so will improve both accountability and
performance.
-------
We want to emphasize that we personally have
spent a lot of time developing and reviewing this
year's guidance. We urge you to carefully con-
sider the priorities it sets forth and incorporate
them into your State/EPA Agreements and grants
with the States, your operating plans, and your
performance standards. These are the priorities
against which we will measure both individual
and program performance.
DcdglasfM. Costle
Adminislfator
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
-------
Off ice of Air,
Noise, and
Radiation
David G.Hawkins
Assistant Administrator
Overview
In addition to the specific guidance for each of
the Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation (OANR)
programs, two areas are important for all OANR
programs. The first area is public participation.
We can learn things from the public. In addition,
the public must be satisfied that its myriad views
are heard, understood, and responded to by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I am
firmly committed to the EPA public participation
policy as set forth by the Administrator. We
should seek the broadest possible participation
base in all of our regulatory decisions and pro-
vide financial support to the extent practicable to
groups that need such support to present signifi-
cant comments to the Agency. Similarly, where
EPA provides financial support to State or local
agencies, the program should include provisions
for involvement of the public.
We should also pursue opportunities to strength-
en our working relationships with the States, par-
ticularly in implementing new approaches.
OANR's total environmental effort must be con-
ceived of as a working partnership with State
and local governments to achieve national envi-
ronmental goals. An appropriate vehicle for ce-
menting this partnership is the State/EPA Agree-
ment. These agreements provide an opportunity
for the States and EPA to plan programs jointly
to address environmental problems and for EPA
to be responsive to State concerns and priorities,
just as we expect them to be responsive to ours.
The Air Program
In implementing the Clean Air Act our success
record is mixed. State Implementation Plan (SIP)
-------
revisions have been slow and uneven in quality,
the regulation of hazardous pollutants has not
progressed rapidly, air quality standard review is
well behind schedule, and only limited action has
been taken to implement the goals of the Clean
Air Act regarding visibility and broader prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD). However, we
have made substantial progress in developing
emission standards for both stationary and mobile
sources and in establishing a framework for reg-
ulating airborne carcinogens, and have been par-
tially successful in having States assume new
source review responsibility. In addition, the
States have or will soon have in place major
expansions of their regulatory controls on existing
sources. I think we have been particularly suc-
cessful in overcoming inertia and opposition to
the adoption of inspection and maintenance (I/M)
authorizing legislation in most States where such
action was required.
Given the need to extend the Clean Air Act au-
thorizations in 1981, we should also identify and
evaluate substantive revisions that we or others
may ask Congress to adopt.
Fiscal Year 1981 will be a critical year for the
Air program. Fifty States have submitted com-
plete or partial implementation plans. In FY 1980
we will have completed appropriate rulemaking
and followup on conditional approvals. In FY
1981, timely action on Inspection and Mainte-
nance (I/M) and Transportation Control Measures
(TCM) schedules, the submittal of additional reg-
ulations for hydrocarbon control, and the devel-
opment of greatly improved data bases to sup-
port 1982 SIP revisions for many areas will be
required. These actions are critical to achieving
real improvements in air quality.
With respect to revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, we have completed the re-
quired review and revision only for ozone. Action
to propose and promulgate the revised carbon
monoxide (CO) standard will be completed in
1980. Our task in this area is greatly complicated
by less-than-adequate data from which to derive
health effects assessments. Consequently, the re-
view, and revision, if necessary, of other stan-
dards has been seriously delayed. Although final
action on most other standards will probably not
occur until the latter part of FY 1981, we must
continue to work closely with EPA's Office of
Research and Development to translate criteria
document drafts into regulatory analyses and ex-
pedite the process as much as possible.
We have made major efforts to develop a work-
able PSD program within the framework of the
law and court rulings. The PSD rules are com-
plex. However, I believe that nearly all State
Agencies are capable of implementing PSD pro-
grams effectively. The PSD program is EPA's ma-
jor activity to manage the air quality impacts as-
sociated with economic development. I believe
the program can make a major difference in the
quality of life in the long term. We must make
major efforts to get the States to become full
partners in this important program.
The FY 1981 Budget provides for a limited in-
crease in funds to support State and local air
pollution control activities. No funding is being
provided for Section 175 grants to metropolitan
planning agencies. However, a second round of
funding for these agencies from the $50 million
appropriated in 1979 is being announced early in
1980; these funds will carry planning and evalu-
ation activities related to transportation control
measures into FY 1981. Any new funding require-
ments in FY 1981 must be sought, within estab-
lished work program development procedures,
from money appropriated to the Department of
Transportation. I anticipate a reduction in the lev-
el of support for air quality management activities
carried out in the Regional Offices, and in sup-
port for standard-setting actions in the mobile
and stationary source areas.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• The first priority for Headquarters is to com-
plete reviews and appropriate revision of all
existing ambient air quality standards and iden-
tification of the relationships between fine par-
ticulates, visibility, and sulfates and acid rain
so that appropriate legislative or regulatory ac-
tion can be recommended for implementation.
In developing a strategy to deal with acid rain,
we must work closely with the Office of Re-
search and Development to achieve a greater
understanding of the relationship of various
pollutant sources to acid rain.
• High priority should be given to listing and reg-
ulating pollutants under the Air Carcinogen Pol-
icy, including the development of a monitoring
strategy for non-criteria pollutants. We should
develop a better understanding of what consti-
tutes "urban soup."
-------
• The development of New Source Performance
Standards for major stationary sources will
continue to be a high priority.
• High priority activities in the Mobile Source
program include completing the heavy duty ve-
hicle diesel particulates rulemaking and the
heavy duty vehicle gaseous emission standards
for model year 1985. Attention should be given
to hazardous pollutants from mobile sources,
and the thrust of our current program to limit
diesel emissions should be continued. Technical
and public information support for I/M pro-
grams and effective fuel economy testing
should also receive priority attention. Because
of resource constraints, other activities will re-
ceive less attention.
First level priorities for the Regions include:
• completing rulemaking (review and promulga-
tion) for State SIP submissions related to Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standards.
• ensuring effective management of schedules
and commitments for the development of I/M
programs, including necessary coordination of
interstate areas and review of proposed State
regulations and procedures.
• implementing control agency planning and eval-
uation programs, including State/EPA agree-
ments.
• delegating new source review responsibility to
States, including rulemaking on SIP modifica-
tion or delegation requests for PSD.
• assisting States to develop approved PSD
plans.
• conducting major source reviews for PSD
where States do not assume the program and
expediting permitting of new energy facilities.
• coordinating development of the data base for
1982 attainment SIPs in Level I and II areas
for ozone. Headquarters should give high prior-
ity to assisting the Regions in this effort.
• evaluating National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and selected State and Local Air Mon-
itoring Systems (SLAMS) and document their
status; conduct annual design review and quali-
ty assurance system audit of SLAMS network;
conduct performance audits of key NAMS mon-
itors; and coordinate air quality data and data
quality assessment submissions to EPA and
validate NAMS data.
• providing policy direction and guidance for im-
plementing quality "bubble" and "banking"
programs. Headquarters should work closely
with the Office of Planning and Management in
providing overall policy direction to this effort,
including assessing the additional resource re-
quirements involved.
Second Level Priorities
• ensuring effective management of attainment
SIPs within major urban non-attainment areas
or interstate areas; overviewing State compli-
ance with SIP schedules and commitments;
evaluating progress in attaining standards; and
coordinating to ensure consistent strategy de-
velopment.
• providing guidance to States and metropolitan
planning organizations in development of addi-
tional regulatory programs for key attainment
strategies, including Transportation Control
Measures and Volatile Organic Compounds.
• coordinating development of data base for
1982 attainment SIPs in Level III and IV areas
for ozone.
• facilitating fuel conversions, with emphasis on
compliance with applicable emissions-limiting
regulations rather than SIP revisions.
• coordinating States' submission of emission
data to EPA storage systems.
• managing contract efforts for preparation of
Regional and National Profiles.
• conducting ambient network reviews and ana-
lyzing ambient data for critical new sources.
• validating SLAMS data.
• coordinating special purpose monitoring (health
or SIP related).
• auditing larger local agency monitoring
systems.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
• Special emphasis should be placed on the pro-
cessing of coal conversions and the execution
of Section 110(f) activities resulting from local-
ized fuel shortages in affected Regions. Re-
gions connected to the Ohio River Basin
should upgrade their current efforts to work
with the States to coordinate actions to reduce
atmospheric loadings of sulfur compounds.
• Regions that contain areas where stationary
sources are major contributors to high ambient
lead levels should assign higher priority to lead
SIP actions.
• Regions containing major sources subject to
best available retrofit requirements of the visi-
-------
bility regulations should work with the States to
implement these controls.
• Regions affected by energy development
should emphasize permitting of facilities and re-
lated analyses and development of mechanics
to control surface mines.
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State/EPA Agreement Priorities
There are six areas which I urge Regional Ad-
ministrators to include in their negotiations with
Governors or heads of State Agencies during the
FY 1981 State/EPA Agreement process. They
are:
• State assumption and implementation of new
source review programs, including PSD,
through an approved SIP or acceptance of del-
egations.
• State implementation of I/M programs. Agree-
ments should define areas where major EPA
assistance and/or technical support for the de-
velopment of the regulatory program will be
necessary.
• submittal of fully approvable SIPs.
• commitments to provide quality data bases for
making key decisions for the 1982 ozone SIP.
Population projections should coincide with
those developed in accordance with the con-
struction grants program cost effectiveness
guidelines.
• development and implementation of a fully ef-
fective NAMS network meeting all EPA regula-
tory requirements on instrumentation, monitor
siting, and quality assurance.
• overview and coordination, including metropoli-
tan planning organization liaison, of the devel-
opment and necessary transportation control
measures within the urban non-attainment areas
for inclusion in the attainment SIPs.
State Grant Priorities
There are a number of important activities which
Regions should consider in negotiating and es-
tablishing appropriate conditions for the annual
Section 105 grant requests with State and local
air pollution control agencies.
Regional offices must ensure that the decisions
resulting from State/EPA Agreements are ade-
quately provided for in grant applications and
awards. Additional priorities that should be cov-
ered in the grants are:
• meeting the schedules and commitments con-
tained in the 1979 attainment SIPs, including:
development and implementation of I/M, enact-
ment of Volatile Organic Compounds regula-
tions, completion of assessment studies for
specific Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)
non-attainment areas, development of non-tradi-
tional controls, and completion of attainment
demonstration analyses.
• implementing the requirements of the air moni-
toring regulations. These requirements include
establishment, operation, and quality assurance
of the SLAMS network; annual review of the
SLAMS network; validation and timely reporting
of SLAMS and National Emissions Data Sys-
tems data; review of source-operated ambient
networks; daily reporting of air quality in urban
areas; development of plans for the ambient
lead network; and responding to air emergen-
cies.
The Noise Program
The Quiet Communities Act of 1978 broadened
EPA's role in assisting State and local community
noise control programs. In so doing, the Act
created an opportunity for a comprehensive and
balanced national noise control effort. It made
actions to define adverse health and welfare im-
pacts of noise, and regulations to control noise
from newly manufactured products, a Federal re-
sponsibility. Planning for noise abatement and the
adoption and enforcement of specific noise con-
trol ordinances was made the responsibility of
State and local governments. I think this bal-
anced effort is particularly appropriate in noise
control, where the impact of the problem is high-
ly localized.
In 1979 we got off to a good start in accelerat-
ing State and local noise control efforts by de-
veloping cooperative agreements with State and
local agencies and by establishing technical cen-
ters. Funding for State and local programs in FY
1980 and FY 1981 will be generally comparable
with what was available in FY 1979, and we
should continue the thrusts that we initiated in
this area. The importance of noise control in ur-
ban areas was recognized by the President
when, in his Environment Message of August
1979, he established a Noise Urban Initiative
which mobilized Federal efforts.
Our accomplishments in regulating new products
for noise, however, have not been as satisfacto-
ry. Federal noise requirements were extended
only to cover trash compactors in FY 1979; we
anticipate that we will extend coverage to buses
and motorcycles, and broaden coverage of noise
associated with railroad yard operations in FY
-------
1980. I continue to be concerned about our slow
rate of progress in the regulatory area.
In FY 1981 the Noise program overall will be
supported by fewer full time equivalent (FTE) po-
sitions than in FY 1980. The bulk of this reduc-
tion will be applied to State assignees and to
Headquarters support of State and local program
development. Regional resources are being in-
creased in FY 1980 in recognition of the as-
sumption of greater responsibility for the negotia-
tion and management of cooperative agreements.
Because the major objective of the noise pro-
gram is to broaden the population base covered
by effective noise control programs, it is impor-
tant that continuing attention be given to State
and local program development and to the provi-
sion of technical support through technical cen-
ters, Each Community Helps Others (ECHO) pro-
grams and demonstration programs. However, be-
cause the regulation of the design and manufac-
ture of products which are major sources of
noise is essential to lowering of overall noise lev-
els, the writing of these regulations by EPA must
continue to be an integral part of a balanced
national noise control effort.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• development of updated long range plans and
development of State and local programs in
the interim with emphasis on State programs
that will provide assistance to local communi-
ties.
• development and Regional management of
mechanisms that are alternatives to direct EPA
technical assistance, that is, State ECHO,
Technical Assistance Centers, and EPA-run
ECHO programs.
• promulgation of court-ordered revisions to In-
terstate Rail Carrier (property line standard)
regulations.
• promulgation of additional regulations on the
noise levels of products.
• non-auditory health and welfare effects studies.
Second Level Priorities
• other health and welfare effects studies.
• demonstration projects on abatement tech-
niques.
• direct technical assistance by the Regions.
• public information and training materials.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
In FY 1981 two Quiet Community Programs
(QCP) will be in operation (in Kansas City and
Spokane). Regions VII and X should give contin-
uing attention to the development of these pro-
grams. In addition, Region III should consider a
followup evaluation that may be required for the
first QCP, which was in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State/EPA Agreements Priorities
In the SEA the States will assume the responsi-
bility for providing technical assistance to local
programs, especially where EPA has provided fi-
nancial assistance.
State Grant Priorities
In making Noise cooperative agreement awards,
priority should be given to State programs over
local programs where the State is willing to as-
sume technical assistance responsibility. Coopera-
tive agreements must include specific outputs.
The Radiation Program
During the past two years, the Radiation Pro-
gram has undergone several significant changes
including: new and expanded mandates through
amendments to the Clean Air Act, the Uranium
Mill Tailings Act, the Report of the Interagency
Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management
(IRQ), EPA's increased involvement in Emergency
Response Planning and the Agency's lead role
on the Radiation Policy Council. Along with these
expansions the Program has initiated an exten-
sive extramural program where none existed be-
fore and increasingly shared environmental con-
cerns with other EPA programs, such as Solid
Waste, Drinking Water and Air.
Significant progress has been made in carrying
out this expanded role. Radionuclides have been
listed as hazardous pollutants under the Clean
Air Act, and an assessment of CAA regulatory
needs has begun; criteria for radioactive waste
disposal have been proposed; standards for both
high and low level waste are under development;
standards for uranium mill waste from inactive
sites will be completed in FY 1980; and problem
assessments associated with naturally occurring
and non-ionizing radiation are under way.
Given this broad base of concern, the establish-
ment of program priorities and the comprehensive
planning of program activities must receive great-
-------
10
er attention. Priorities cannot be stated generical-
ly; actions must be evaluated individually and, in
the context of institutional constraints, be justified
on the basis of their individual merit in achieving
risk reduction compared to the merits of other
compelling priorities.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• promulgate High Level Waste Standard by the
3rd Quarter of FY 1981. (HQ)
• promulgate active site Uranium Mill Tailings
Standard by the 2nd Quarter. (HQ)
• participate in review and testing of State Emer-
gency Response Plans. (Regions)
Second Level Priorities
• provide support for the implementation of radi-
ological Standards and Guides.
• provide support to the Environmental Radiation
Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS).
» review Environmental Impact Statements.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
Those Regions that have radioactive waste dis-
posal sites within their boundaries should treat
them as a national second level priority concern.
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
The Radiation Program's primary objective for in-
teraction with the States must be to review and
test emergency response plans. Although review
of emergency response plans is important, regu-
lar testing is essential to determine effectiveness
of the plans in emergency situations. The
State/EPA Agreement should address this need
and detail the EPA role.
-------
11
Office of Water
and Waste
Management
EckardtC.Beck
Assistant Administrator
Overview
In the last several years the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has come to recognize that in
addition to the protection of sensitive ecological
systems and the clean-up of the Nation's air and
water, it is our mission to protect the public from
exposure to dangerous pollutants. To date, the
Office of Water and Waste Management
(OWWM) and its Regional counterparts have ad-
dressed this mission principally through control of
pollutants in the water. In FY 1981, while main-
taining our efforts in that area, we must give
priority to the implementation of a program to
control hazardous wastes in all their guises.
The hazardous waste problem we face is enor-
mous. Each year our society generates an esti-
mated 54 million tons of hazardous wastes. Only
10 percent of these wastes is disposed of safely.
Thousands of existing sites probably pose a haz-
ard to health and environment. In 1979, for ex-
ample, an EPA study found that 85-90 percent of
all pits, ponds, and lagoons are leaching hazard-
ous wastes into groundwater. In addition, they
are a source of volatile hazardous chemicals that
escape into the ambient air.
Operating under a schedule developed by the
U.S District Court, OWWM expects to promul-
gate regulations for the control of hazardous
wastes under Subtitle C of the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in April, 1980.
The task of implementing this complex new pro-
gram is staggering. Even during the limited initial
phase of implementation, the Agency will be reg-
ulating roughly 400,000 generators, 10,000 trans-
porters, and 30,000 treatment, storage, and dis-
-------
12
posal sites as well as managing a mandatory
"cradle to grave" tracking system for hazardous
wastes. Carrying out this mission will require an
extraordinary effort by both Headquarters and
the Regions to recruit and train necessary per-
sonnel and to develop States' capability to man-
age effective hazardous waste programs.
The effort to implement these regulations will be
complicated by the relative paucity of safe haz-
ardous waste disposal facilities and sites. Siting
is a difficult public policy issue that State and
local governments and private industry are just
beginning to consider. Successful implementation
of the Subtitle C regulations will require that we
articulate an Agency position on the Federal role
in locating hazardous waste disposal sites or fa-
cilities and setting site criteria. Such policy devel-
opment will be initiated shortly by a Deputy As-
sistant Administrator-level committee which will in-
clude Regional representation.
A legacy of society's failure to manage hazard-
ous chemical wastes is the thousands of uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites that have been and
continue to be discovered. As in FY 1980, high
priority should be given to implementing the inter-
im strategy for uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites issued by the Deputy Administrator in July,
1979. Pending enactment of Superfund legisla-
tion, we will continue to identify and evaluate
these sites and move vigorously to initiate emer-
gency assistance and containment wherever pos-
sible. Particular attention should be given to inte-
grating investigation, enforcement, and emergency
response activities to ensure that the appropriate
response is used.
The emergency response and prevention program
will be important in FY 1981 both because it
must provide support and assistance to the un-
controlled hazardous waste site program and be-
cause the hazardous substances spills program is
expected to be in a growth stage. Recent pro-
mulgation of regulations making the reporting of
these spills mandatory dictates increased activity
in this area. The new responsibilities related to
hazardous waste sites and hazardous substance
spills will require Regions to augment the capa-
bilities, resources, and authority of on-scene co-
ordinators and to improve Regional coordination
and pre-planning activities.
In FY 1980, OWWM has initiated the develop-
ment of two strategies—the groundwater strategy
and the 1990 Construction Grants strategy. Both
will influence future EPA management and pro-
gram direction. The groundwater strategy will
provide the framework for the development of a
comprehensive groundwater protection policy that
will define the Federal/State roles and responsi-
bilities and provide an action plan to address
groundwater management. The 1990 Construction
Grants study will define program objectives for
1990 and provide the strategy for their achieve-
ment during this decade. States are already en-
couraged to coordinate groundwater policies and
construction grants project impact through their
State/EPA Agreements. These strategies will pro-
vide further guidance in that direction.
For all programs in FY 1981, a first level priority
must be improved program management, both
within the Agency and at the State level. At the
Headquarters level, we must focus on the inte-
gration of water quality, drinking water, and solid
waste programs. Headquarters and Regions must
focus on improved management of program dele-
gations and grant awards. The State/EPA Agree-
ment (SEA) obviously provides the framework
through which such improved management should
be accomplished.
Improved management of program delegations
must include the provision of assistance to States
in developing their capability for operating effec-
tive environmental programs, as well as mainte-
nance of adequate oversight to ensure that legis-
lative goals are met. We must support State and
local development of technical, financial, and
problem solving skills. At the same time, we must
develop and implement management information
and evaluation systems in all Regions to track
State performance and to determine the effective-
ness of the State/EPA Agreement as a manage-
ment tool.
States should be encouraged to be innovative in
their use of grant funds. Categorical program
funds can be used to solve broad priority envi-
ronmental problems. For example, environmental
monitoring conducted under various EPA pro-
grams is a potential area in which inefficient or
duplicated services may be improved. One output
of the State/EPA Agreement might be an inte-
grated monitoring program with funding contrib-
uted by all of the various environmental programs
and authorities.
Program evaluation should be a key tool in the
management of OWWM's programs. Evaluations
can provide an accurate assessment of the effec-
tiveness of Headquarters, Regional and State
management and can assist in identifying areas
-------
13
for improved performance. During FY 1981, all
program offices will give attention to the develop-
ment of an evaluation process similar to the one
used in the Drinking Water program and the
Construction Grants program management perfor-
mance monitoring system.
Regions, Headquarters, and States also need to
improve their communication so that Regional
and local needs can be reflected better in our
policies. To facilitate this, I intend to set up a
process that will have each Region take the lead
in one or more policy areas and work with
Headquarters to develop that policy or program
direction. Guidelines and proposed assignments
for this process will be forwarded to the Regions
in the near future.
The Water Quality Program
In FY 1981, an important aspect of the Water
Quality program's activities will be the continua-
tion of all aspects of the program to control tox-
ic pollutants. We will promulgate regulations that
require primary industries to use Best Available
Technology (BAT) and will complete the study of
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) assess-
ing the effectiveness of secondary treatment on
toxic pollutants. Increased attention will be given
to determining whether there are additional toxic
compounds that should be addressed in effluent
guidelines. Special "hot spot" studies (pollutant-
by-pollutant and geographic) will determine the
necessity of controls in addition to BAT.
Information and data generated by these toxics
studies will be vital to other OWWM and EPA
programs. Particular emphasis will be given to
the exchange of data on toxic pollutants with the
Drinking Water and Solid Waste programs and to
integrating and coordinating development of rules
for control of toxic pollutants in ambient waters,
drinking water and in waste disposal.
As States increasingly assume day-to-day respon-
sibility for the Construction Grants program under
delegation, EPA must move rapidly toward pro-
gram management and overall monitoring of
State performance. Establishment of systems and
procedures that bring stability and predictability
to the program, delegation under Section 205(g)
of the program to States, and meeting the treat-
ment needs of the largest Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSAs) will be major program-
matic thrusts. Implementation of the National Mu-
nicipal Policy and Strategy—which mandates a
coordinated approach to grant making, permit-
ting, and enforcement activities—is expected to
improve the management and effectiveness of all
of these programs.
A particular emphasis should be given to encour-
aging the construction of cost effective, high
quality facilities which employ innovative and al-
ternative technologies. To foster this develop-
ment, new resources are being provided to the
Technical Support Group in Cincinnati to promote
innovative and alternative project design, particu-
larly in the area of energy conservation. These
resources are in addition to previous actions tak-
en to promote an active program for innovative
and alternative treatment within existing re-
sources.
A major OWWM study on Construction Grants is
currently under way to define the program direc-
tions in the 1980s, toward achieving legislative
goals by 1990. This study will likely lead to ma-
jor legislative and budget recommendations for
FY 1982 and later. Among other factors, the
need for adopting measures to improve Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) performance will be
considered.
As indicated in the overview, improved manage-
ment of programs at the Agency and State levels
must be considered a major priority. States are
gradually assuming administrative responsibility for
a variety of programs—construction grants, 208
programs, dredge and fill, clean lakes. If these
programs are to be managed effectively by
States, EPA must achieve better program integra-
tion in its rulemaking in such areas as water
quality assessments, standards, permits, and non-
point source controls. Where programs have
been delegated, EPA must assist States by as-
sessing State program management to identify
strengths and weaknesses and then work with
States to improve their stewardship. In this pro-
cess, particular attention should be given to the
implementation by States of a comprehensive
quality assurance effort to provide for the gener-
ation, storage, and use of environmental data.
In 1981 the Environmental Emergency Response
and Prevention program will place highest priority
on two relatively new program areas: (a) the pro-
vision of emergency support and assistance to
the uncontrolled hazardous waste site program,
as discussed in the Solid Waste Media section,
and (b) emergency response to hazardous sub-
stances spills, in response to the recent promul-
gation of regulations governing these substances.
The new responsibilities related to hazardous
-------
waste sites and hazardous spills will require Re-
gions to augment the capabilities, resources, and
authority of on-scene coordinators and improve
Regional coordination and pre-planning activities.
Increased resources are requested for FY 1981
to expand implementation of activities called for
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
protect sensitive wetland areas by ensuring ade-
quate environmental review. Attention should be
focused on the most environmentally sensitive
projects, with emphasis on pre-permit application,
planning, and analysis.
Although no additional resources are available,
the Agency must direct attention to ensuring that
monies for management of non-point sources of
pollution are being spent effectively, and that we
are improving water quality. Priorities for the non-
point source program include urban runoff, agri-
culture, and groundwater management.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• continue development of a framework for toxic
pollutant control.
—develop specific water quality criteria for
toxic pollutants. (HQ)
—promote adoption of toxic criteria into State
standards. (HQ)
—promulgate BAT (toxic) industrial point
source limitations and pre-treatment stan-
dards. (HQ)
—complete POTW study and prepare guidance
to Regions on treatability of toxic pollutants.
(HQ)
—develop area-by-area "hot spot" analyses;
continue pollutant-by-pollutant, exposure/risk
studies; and, as required in Section 307(a)(1)
of the Clean Water Act, revise the Agency's
list of toxic pollutants (or combinations) for
which an effluent standard will be estab-
lished. (HQ)
—assist in the development of RCRA regula-
tions by managing industry-by-industry stud-
ies of waste streams. (HQ)
—perform priority pollutant analyses to deter-
mine exposure/fate of pollutants and devel-
op geographic control strategies. (Regions)
—provide technical assistance to Regional and
State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Strategy (NPDES) permit authorities for sec-
ond round determinations. (HQ)
—propose Section 311 hazardous substances
removal regulations. (HQ)
• respond to major environmental emergencies.
(HQ)
—initiate on-scene response (direct Federal re-
moval or monitoring) to major spills of oil
and/or hazardous substances. On-scene re-
sponse includes coordination of media cover-
age, enforcement, and technical assistance.
(Regions)
—provide emergency assistance for the most
critical uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
under authority of Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act, where applicable. (Regions)
—implement spill prevention compliance pro-
gram for hazardous substances for NPDES
permitted facilities, pursuant to regulations to
be published during FY 1980. (Regions)
• continue to improve the management of the
Construction Grants program in compliance
with the Program Management Strategy guid-
ance issued by the program office. (PRM 79-5)
—continue to delegate major management re-
sponsibilities for the Construction Grants pro-
gram to the States as expeditiously as pos-
sible.
—fully implement the National Municipal Policy
and Strategy, in accordance with more de-
tailed guidance to be issued separately.
—encourage use of innovative and alternative
technologies emphasizing energy conserva-
tion, cost effectiveness, and land treatment.
(Regions)
—improve overall management of obligations,
outlays, project completion, pre-construction
lags, quality of priority lists, and quality of
facility plans. (Regions)
—ensure pre-treatment program implementation
and encourage assumption of program re-
sponsibilities by the States and localities, by
greater use of construction grant incentives
and pre-treatment system implementation
deadlines. (Regions)
—keep States' implementation schedule in del-
egation agreements on course and ensure
that proper evaluation and control proce-
dures are established before State assump-
tion of each activity is consummated. (Re-
gions)
• build State water quality management capacity.
—ensure that States develop adequate toxics
analytic capabilities, including adequate pro-
vision for purchase of laboratory equipment.
(Regions)
—provide technical assistance for non-point
source management in areas of financial,
groundwater, agriculture, and urban runoff
management.
—provide grant management oversight on 208
and 106 programs with particular emphasis
-------
15
on improved integration, accountability, and
attention to priorities. (Regions)
—ensure implementation of procedures consis-
tent with Agency's Quality Assurance Policy.
(Regions)
—with completed WQM needs assessment, an-
alyze need for 106 priorities and initiate re-
design of WQM program. (HQ)
• expand activities to protect sensitive ecosys-
tems.
—provide increased level of review for individ-
ual Section 404 permit cases, especially pre-
application field investigations, joint process-
ing, and enforcement. (Regions)
—work actively to develop Section 404 pro-
grams in selected States. (Regions)
—evaluate clean lakes restorative techniques
on an economic/technical basis. (HQ)
—in the ocean disposal program, place pri-
mary emphasis on developing and encourag-
ing alternative methods for disposal of sew-
age sludge before the 1981 statutory dead-
line, through the Section 201 planning pro-
cess.
• manage wasteload allocation/advanced waste-
water treatment review process.
—review technical adequacy of wasteload allo-
cations in advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT) and advanced secondary treatment
project proposals. (HQ)
—establish a program for wasteload allocations
for States and Regions. (HQ)
—manage/provide guidance for State waste-
load allocation programs. (Regions)
—review proposed AWT projects. (Regions)
Second Level Priorities
• in the Construction Grants program, allocate
reduced levels of resources to lower priority
activities defined in Management Option D of
the 1981 Zero Based Budgeting issue paper
and the program management strategy. (Re-
gions)
Lower relative priority should be given to the
following:
—review of infiltration/inflow analyses.
—design conferences and reviews.
—review of grant amendments.
—review of engineering contracts.
—mid-course facility planning meetings.
• monitor removal actions taken by dischargers
of oil or hazardous substances where Federal
on-scene response is not necessary.
• undertake lesser priority toxics control activi-
ties.
—complete Best Control Technology (BCT)
rulemakmg for primary industries. (HQ)
—finalize high priority surveys for industrial
Best Management Practices (BMP) regula-
tions. (HQ)
• assign adequate resources for State assistance,
grants management, and evaluation of the
Clean Lakes program. (Regions)
• provide technical review of proposed revisions
to State water quality standards. (Regions)
• propose and develop regulations to establish
limits of liability for all on-shore/off-shore facili-
ties and develop reduced liability limits for
small onshore hazardous substances storage
facilities in accordance with Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. (HQ)
• review and redesign national monitoring net-
works as necessary. (HQ)
• guide and direct State monitoring programs.
(Regions)
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
• assist in the process for determining ocean dis-
charge waivers (§ 301 (h)), including the con-
duct of and participation in hearings. (Regions
I, II, III, IX, X)
• approve stream use classification only in areas
where downgradings have been thoroughly jus-
tified. (Regions III, V, VIM)
• develop a coordinated plan for management of
the salinity in Colorado River. (Regions VI, VIII,
IX)
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State/EPA Agreement Priorities
• Section 205(g) Delegation: Where States have
already signed delegation agreements, ensure
that the State/EPA Agreements (SEA) refer-
ence timetables established in the delegation
agreements, Regional Office oversight func-
tions, and State/EPA management and monitor-
ing procedures for delegated responsibilities.
For States expected to sign delegation agree-
ments during FY 1981, SEAs should contain
information on the scope of the delegation
agreements as well as a schedule of negotia-
tion and assumption. For States not expected
to sign delegation agreements, the SEA should
reference individual work programs that identify
responsible Agencies, to avoid duplication of
reviews between EPA and the States.
• Emergency Response: State should develop a
contingency plan to deal with oil and chemical
spills, as well as multi-media, multi-pollutant
emergencies, and develop a spill prevention
program.
-------
16.
• Pre-treatment: Identify municipalities requiring
pre-treatment programs and identify steps to
ensure that pre-treatment programs are devel-
oped in accordance with established timetables.
Coordinate the pre-treatment program with the
industrial sludge disposal program.
• Monitoring and Data Management: Work
toward a full basic water monitoring program
with special emphasis on toxics. Coordinate
various assessment reports—SIA, open dump,
etc. Perform water quality analyses as needed
to develop geographic controls for toxic hot
spots.
• Water Quality Standards: States should review
and revise water quality standards as appropri-
ate, with increased consideration of toxics cri-
teria.
• Wasteload Allocation (WLAs): If Section 201 or
205(g) funds are to be used for WLAs, the
SEA should include a priority list of needed
wasteload allocation studies with highest priori-
ty assigned to projects that require further wa-
ter quality analysis as a result of AWT reviews.
• Non-Point Sources: Ensure that States identify
priority non-point source problems and ap-
proaches for solution. National priorities are ur-
ban runoff, agriculture, and groundwater. Non-
point source planning should be coordinated
with point source, clean lakes, groundwater
projects and RCRA programs wherever possi-
ble.
Grant Priorities
Regional Offices should ensure that the decisions
resulting from State/EPA Agreements are sup-
ported in grant applications and awards. Addi-
tionally, grant funds should be used as follows:
• Section 208 Funds: Direct monies toward im-
plementable non-point source problems as iden-
tified in the Water Quality Management (WQM)
plan. Paragraph 35.1533-3(b) of the Water
Quality Management regulations, which denies
award of Section 208 grants unless significant
implementation of a Section 208 plan is under
way, must be implemented. The project should
include fiscal management analyses so that
technical solutions can be financed and imple-
mented.
• Section 106 Funds: Improve grant management
through increased integration, accountability
and attention to priorities. Identify funds re-
leased by Section 205(g) delegation.
Drinking Water Program
The Drinking Water Program will undertake four
major priority efforts in FY I98I to ensure the
safety of the Nation's drinking water. The first is
expansion of standards and the regulatory frame-
work to control additional contaminants of con-
cern, particularly carcinogens. Expansion of the
regulatory framework encompasses the issuance
of Revised Primary Drinking Water regulations,
including uranium and other radionuclides; the
identification of a methodology to control corro-
sive waters; and the promulgation of maximum
contaminant levels for specific organics in
groundwater.
The achievement of maximum compliance with
existing standards is the second major priority
effort. Since much of the non-compliance current-
ly being identified is among small systems with
limited resources, this will require a balance of
technical assistance and enforcement. Where pro-
gram delegation has occurred, we must evaluate
the State programs and exercise management
controls to improve performance.
Implementation of the Agency's groundwater
strategy is the third major effort. In FY I960, the
Office of Drinking Water will take the lead in the
development of this strategy which is designed to
focus Agency attention on the protection of the
Nation's groundwater resources. Particular em-
phasis will be given to developing a framework
for policy development and program integration
and to improve coordination among EPA ground-
water protection programs, including the con-
struction grants program.
The fourth priority effort is to maximize the num-
ber of States which accept delegation of the
new underground injection control (UIC) program.
Delegation of primary enforcement responsibilities
requires that we ensure that the State program
satisfies minimum requirements.
The budget submission for FY I98I requests a
modest increase in Regional resources for the
implementation of the UIC program and an in-
crease in underground water source protection
grants to encourage State primacy and to defray
State UIC program implementation costs. In addi-
tion, an increase in the Office of Research and
Development program has been requested to ex-
pand current efforts to identify effective treatment
technologies applicable to small systems.
-------
17
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• expand the regulatory framework for ensuring
safe drinking water.
—develop national revised primary drinking wa-
ter regulations, including uranium and other
radionuclides. (HQ)
—promulgate maximum contaminant levels for
specific organics in groundwater. (HQ)
—issue Suggested No Adverse Response Lev-
els (SNARLs) for unregulated chemicals in
drinking water. (HQ)
—develop information on the methods to con-
trol corrosive waters. (HQ)
—expand design of laboratory certification pro-
grams to cover analytic methods and other
quality assurance practices to support new
organics focus. (HQ)
—implement expanded laboratory certification
program. (Regions)
• promote compliance with existing standards
and regulations.
—evaluate State performance of PWS and UIC
programs; identify major deficiencies; and
ensure that required corrective actions are
included in SEAs. Emphasize follow-up of
non-compliance and groundwater protection
activities. (Regions)
—implement the compliance and small systems
strategy which is currently under develop-
ment. (Regions)
• delegate primary enforcement responsibilities
for the PWS and UIC programs to States and
improve program management.
—provide technical assistance to States on de-
veloping UIC programs. (Regions)
—issue program guidance on implementation of
the UIC program. (HQ)
—review State UIC primacy applications.
(HQ/Regions)
—implement UIC/ADP systems being devel-
oped in FY I980 to serve as part of a con-
solidated UIC, hazardous waste and consoli-
dated permits system. (HQ/Regions)
—prepare for promulgation of UIC programs
and review UIC permit applications in non-
primacy States. (Regions)
• complete the development of the groundwater
strategy in FY I960 and implement in FY I98I.
—prepare guidance documents. (HQ)
—implement strategy (Regions)
Second Level Priorities
• implement UIC training and public awareness
program. (HQ)
• implement the sole source aquifier program.
(Regions)
• evaluate performance data on point-of-use wa-
ter treatment devices. (HQ)
• implement UIC programs on Indian lands. (Re-
gions)
• follow up on non-compliance for non-community
systems. (Regions)
• initiate development of criteria and standards
for Reuse of Wastewaters for Potable Purpose.
(HQ)
• follow up on Surface Impoundments Assess-
ment findings. (Regions)
• evaluate the Headquarters program. (Regions)
Region-Specific Goals and Objectives
• work with States to implement corrosion con-
trol of lead in the distribution system. Monitor
mitigation measures necessary to protect the
Wachusett Reservoir from the construction of
Interstate I90 through the watershed. (Region I)
• focus on non-community systems in State eval-
uations. (Regions II, IV, V)
• work with Pennsylvania to achieve primacy for
public water systems. (Region III)
• continue to implement an aggressive public wa-
ter system program in Pennsylvania, Indiana,
South Dakota and Wyoming. (Regions II, V,
VIII)
• propose UIC program for Osage County and
other Indian lands by the end of 1981. (Re-
gions VI, VIII, IX)
• carry out a comprehensive public water system
program in Oregon, including full implementa-
tion of the National Interim Public Drinking Wa-
ter Regulations. The first priority is to ensure
compliance with the regulations, taking enforce-
ment action as necessary. Second priority ac-
tivities include identification and correction of
potential public health hazards. (Region X)
• complete State evaluations and emphasize non-
compliance follow-up actions. (Region VII)
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State/EPA Agreement Priorities
• public water system program:
—provide for implementation of requirements of
-------
18
regulations on trihalomethanes, uranium, and
radionuclides, and amendments to the Na-
tional Interim Public Drinking Water Regula-
tions.
—include compliance activities in primacy
States, particularly monitoring, reporting,
public notification, and follow-up of non-com-
pliance.
—provide for implementation of a small sys-
tems strategy.
—ensure that States' emergency response
plans cover drinking water.
—develop a program to assist communities in
locating potential Federal and State funding
sources for public water systems.
• groundwater protection:
—implement a coordinated groundwater strate-
gy that fosters delegation of the UIC and
hazardous waste (RCRA) programs and con-
solidation of UIC, NPDES, and hazardous
waste permitting systems.
—develop specific plans for assumption of pri-
macy for the underground injection control
program.
—implement a management information system
that includes reporting and recordkeeping re-
quirements for the UIC program.
Grant Priorities
Regional Offices should ensure that the decisions
resulting from State/EPA Agreements are sup-
ported in grant applications and awards. Addi-
tionally, grant funds should be used as follows:
• Public Water Supply: Encourage expansion of
non-compliance follow-up activities and auto-
mation of compliance data (or other quality
control mechanisms for data management).
• Groundwater Programs: Ensure that grant funds
support only those activities directly related to
assumption of primacy of the UIC program.
Also ensure that activities are coordinated with
groundwater-related programs such as RCRA
and Section 208 programs.
The Solid Waste Program
During FY 1980, EPA expects to promulgate reg-
ulations for the control of hazardous wastes un-
der Subtitle C of RCRA. Operating under a
schedule developed by the U.S. District Court,
the regulations under Sections 3001, 3002, 3003,
3004, 3005 and 3006 (as part of the Consolidat-
ed Permit Regulations) will be promulgated by
April, 1980. With these regulations promulgated,
the Regional Offices will begin the task of imple-
menting Subtitle C by authorizing eligible States
and by managing the program in States that fail
to apply for or are denied authorization to run
the program.
During FY 1980, Headquarters and Regional Of-
fices will jointly develop an implementation strate-
gy for hazardous waste management. This strate-
gy will form the basis for Regional Office actions
on Subtitle C during FY 1981. Very shortly, a
Deputy Assistant Administrator-level Committee on
which the Regions will also be represented will
recommend an appropriate Agency policy on
siting.
In order to ensure comprehensive waste manage-
ment, it is EPA policy to complement the Subtitle
C hazardous waste program with a program to
manage all wastes not classified as hazardous
under Subtitle D of the Act. In FY 1979, regula-
tions were promulgated that establish the criteria
for classifying land disposal sites. Also promulgat-
ed were guidelines for State solid waste manage-
ment plans. Implementation of this program will
begin in FY 1980 and continue in FY 1981. The
States will receive grants to carry out the man-
dated inventory of open dumps, and to develop
State solid waste management plans.
High priority will continue to be placed on the
uncontrolled hazardous waste site program.
Pending enactment of Superfund legislation, EPA
will continue to implement the interim strategy
and will move vigorously to initiate emergency
assistance and containment actions at such sites
whenever possible. Particular attention should be
given to integrating Section 311(k) of the Clean
Water Act, enforcement, and investigation pro-
gram activities and making maximum use of
EPA's emergency response capabilities for these
sites. Draft priority-setting criteria developed by
OWWM and the Enforcement Task Force should
be the basis for Regional actions in this area.
The interim strategy will only bridge the gap until
Superfund is enacted and is not intended to be
a major program of cleanup or containment in
advance of funds and authorities that would be-
come available under new legislation.
To try to support the requirements of this accel-
erating program, resources requested for the
Subtitle C program are greatly expanded in FY
1981, both for Headquarters and the Regional
offices. Headquarters contract resources would
more than double from the FY 1980 President's
budget. Permanent Regional positions would qua-
druple from the FY 1980 President's budget, pri-
marily because of the heavy workload associated
-------
19
with permit issuance. To supplement these posi-
tions, the Regional Offices would gain over 100
other-than-permanent workyears and access to a
$4 million contract that would provide assistance
to permit writers in both authorized States and
EPA Regions. Grants to States for the develop-
ment and management of hazardous waste pro-
grams would also expand significantly, from a
base of $18.6 million in FY 1980 to $30 million
in FY 1981.
Because of the inherent difficulties of rapid ex-
pansion of this demanding program, EPA will be-
gin to advance hire for the Subtitle C program in
each Region in FY 1980. A total of 200 positions
may be filled in FY 1980, with another 91 to be
filled in FY 1981.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
The purposes of the Solid Waste program are
• assist States to develop and implement hazard-
ous waste programs under Subtitle C with a
goal of maximizing the number of States re-
ceiving authorization. (Regions)
• issue guidance for State implementation of the
Subtitle C program. (HQ)
• process Part A permit applications, provide no-
tices of interim status to all applicants, priori-
tize facilities, and begin to call for Part B per-
mit applications on a prioritized basis. (Re-
gions)
• issue guidance for selection of site priorities.
(HQ)
• implement and closely monitor compliance with
the manifest system for generators, transport-
ers, treaters, storers, and disposers of hazard-
ous wastes, including operation of a data pro-
cessing system for exception reporting. (Re-
gions)
The purposes of the Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites program are
• prioritize provision of emergency assistance on
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, preparation
of enforcement cases, and investigation. (Re-
gions)
• investigate uncontrolled hazardous waste sites
that pose the greatest threat to determine
whether Section 311 and/or enforcement ac-
tions are necessary. (Regions)
• provide technical advice in the event of haz-
ardous waste site emergencies or imminent
hazards, including containment procedures to
mitigate the problem; assistance in determining
a permanent remedy; and follow up to ensure
that the remedy is applied effectively. (Regions)
Second Level Priorities
The purposes of the Solid Waste Program are
• as part of effective management of Subtitle D
grants, monitor and closely review State imple-
mentation of the land disposal site inventory
mandated under Subtitle D of RCRA. (Regions)
• review and approve State solid waste manage-
ment plans (due January I98I) ensuring the
proper disposal of all solid waste, with special
emphasis on considerations for siting hazard-
ous waste facilities. (Regions)
• deliver funding and provide programmatic sup-
port to Urban Policy resource recovery grant-
ees to ensure the maximum possible number of
successful resource recovery implementations.
(Regions)
• manage and provide technical assistance
through the Technical Assistance Panels pro-
gram, with emphasis on assistance in hazard-
ous waste management facility siting. (Regions)
The purposes of the Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites program are to complete full field
investigations—engineering planning, cost analy-
sis, and design—on uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites to effect long-term remedial action.
(Regions)
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State/EPA Agreement Priorities
• begin implementation of EPA interim authorized
hazardous waste programs. Emphasize estab-
lishment and operation of a manifest system
and establishment of permit priorities.
• ensure that States without interim authorization
support the Federal program and begin devel-
opment of State programs by refining statutory
authority, providing increased resources, ex-
panding surveillance and enforcement activities,
and providing appropriate permit mechanisms.
• for their Subtitle D programs, States should
evaluate disposal facilities for purposes of an
open dump inventory and submit names of the
dumps to EPA.
• States should implement Subtitle D Approved
State Plans with emphasis on enforcement
against open dumps, implementation of co-dis-
posal or resource recovery strategies, and
-------
20-
planning for solid and hazardous wastes treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities. A search
for alternative funding sources, including a user
fee system, should begin because Federal
funding for these State programs will be
phased out in FY 1984.
Grant Priorities
Regional offices should ensure that the decisions
resulting from State/EPA Agreements are sup-
ported in grant applications. Additionally, grant
funds should be used as follows:
• Hazardous Waste Grants:
—for States that do not receive interim autho-
rization in FY 1981, ensure that the State
works toward having adequate legislative au-
thority, adequate regulations in effect, con-
trol over a substantial majority of hazardous
wastes, the capacity to monitor and inspect,
enforcement capabilities, adequate resources,
and the ability to permit facilities.
—for States with interim authorization, ensure
that they operate interim authorized pro-
grams and work toward full authorization.
This system will include having a program
that is equivalent to and consistent with the
Federal program and has adequate enforce-
ment for compliance with the Subtitle C re-
quirements.
• Solid Waste Grants:
—ensure that States continue to evaluate land
disposal sites, and submit names to EPA for
the open dump inventory. States should also
begin to implement their solid waste plans in
FY 1981.
-------
Office of
Pesticides and
Toxic Substances
Steven D. Jellinek
Assistant Administrator
Overview
The past two years have seen important progress
in the implementation of TSCA and FIFRA.
Under FIFRA we have focused on implementing
the 1978 amendments to streamline the regulato-
ry process, reduce the burdens on industry, and
ensure public accessibility to basic health and
safety studies.
Under TSCA we have acted under all major pro-
visions of the law, including: controlling the un-
reasonable risks of RGBs and CFC aerosols;
publishing the TSCA initial inventory of 47,000 +
chemical substances in U.S. commerce; activating
the premanufacture notification (PMN) program,
one of TSCA's most important vehicles for pre-
venting unreasonable chemical risks to our soci-
ety; developing—through proposals under section
8—an adequate information base to support cur-
rent and future regulatory actions; and laying the
necessary groundwork for TSCA's chemical test-
ing program.
In FY 1981 we will continue to improve our abili-
ty to deal effectively with chemicals under both
acts. Some of the high priority objectives com-
mon to the two programs are:
• To proceed as quickly as possible to identify
and control the highest risk chemicals. This will
mean continued emphasis and speedier deci-
sions on rebuttable presumption against regis-
tration (RPAR) pesticides. Under TSCA it will
mean (for new chemicals) priority assessment
-------
22
of problem chemicals and aggressive pursuit of
appropriate control actions.
• To expand the efforts to integrate toxics-relat-
ed activities across different EPA programs
and the IRLG agencies. The goals of these
efforts are to ensure that we are:
—dealing with the most serious problems.
—attacking these problems in the most effec-
tive manner.
—avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
—achieving the most protection of public
health and the environment possible with the
available resources.
• To improve the (1) quality and quantity of data
and (2) the methods for storing, retrieving, and
processing data used in support of OPTS and
other agency actions. Obtaining the testing in-
formation needed to make better regulatory de-
cisions and continuing to supply information to
the Regions to support their enforcement ef-
forts are particularly important. We will be eval-
uating our toxics data program at the Adminis-
trator's behest to ensure that other EPA pro-
grams and the Regions find that data useful
and easy to access and manipulate.
• To develop regulatory and nonregulatory strate-
gies which provide strong continuing incentives
to the private sector to achieve the FIFRA and
TSCA goals of protecting public health and the
environment. These incentives should be de-
signed to (1) stimulate industry to develop
safer chemicals (without unduly affecting inno-
vation), (2) to provide adequate information
about the hazards associated with those sub-
stances, and (3) to take actions to protect
against unnecessary risks.
• To develop and implement methods for evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of OPTS regulatory pro-
grams. Such evaluations will also include as-
sessing the economic impact of OPTS actions.
• To continue to improve and integrate OPTS
planning and management activities, particularly
developing and refining systematic approaches
to setting analytical and regulatory priorities.
The Headquarters Toxic Substances Program
In FY 1980, OTS will continue to place high pri-
ority on making the premanufacture notification
program fully operational, including taking actions
under sections 5(e) and 5(f), as appropriate, to
stop the introduction of new chemicals into com-
merce and to follow up on other chemicals via
"significant new use rules" or rules under section
8(a). We will also emphasize action which will
establish an adequate information and assess-
ment base upon which to regulate now and in
the future. This will include the development of
rules to obtain testing data and the development
of reporting and recordkeeping rules. We expect
to review over 400 new chemicals, require data
submissions under section 8 on several thousand
priority chemicals, initiate testing rules on several
dozen chemicals for various health and ecologi-
cal effects, initiate labelling controls on several
thousand acutely toxic chemicals and more than
one hundred carcinogens, and propose the ban-
ning of non-essential uses of asbestos and move
toward control of a handful of other high risk
chemicals under section 6.
Program Accomplishments
• published the inventory of commercial chemical
substances providing information on over
47,000 unique chemicals.
• evaluated over 300 "substantial risk" notices
under section 8(e) and took appropriate action.
• promulgated the first of many "submission of
unpublished health and safety studies" rules
under section 8(d).
—sustained in court against Dow challenge.
—80 companies submitted 685 studies on 5
individual chemicals and 5 chemical catego-
ries.
—second 8(d) rule has been proposed cover-
ing 18 chemical categories and 39 individual
substances; over 550 chemicals in total.
• established a procedure for export notices.
—120 countries notified of EPA action on
PCBs and CFCs.
• proposed regulation on premanufacturing notifi-
cation; and established a system for screening
and assessing notices.
—over 50 notices received as of 1 /25/80.
—first 5(e) and "significant new use" actions
in process.
• two sets of health effects test standards were
proposed in FY 1979 covering good laboratory
practices and a wide range of effects.
• chlorofluorocarbons.
—regulation banning aerosol uses of chloro-
fluorocarbons promulgated in March 1978 in
a joint action with the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission.
• polychlorinated biphenyls.
—PCB marking and disposal rules promulgated
in February 1978
—rules implementing the TSCA ban on manu-
facture, processing, distribution, and non-
totally enclosed uses of PCBs promulgated
in June 1979.
-------
-23
• established and implemented Regional program
for voluntary control of asbestos in schools.
• ANPRMs published on controlling asbestos in
schools and banning non-essential uses of as-
bestos in commercial products.
• major TSCA computer based system already
partially operational:
—will provide full public access to all non-
confidential data.
—confidential business information will be
strictly protected in separate computer.
• OPTS leading development of a toxics data
network that will link Federal system and facili-
tate information exchange; became partially op-
erational in 1/80.
• toxics integration directories and reference
data bases.
—EPA Chemical Activities Status Report—a
compilation of approximately 1,300 chemicals
from EPA programs for which some techni-
cal data, assessment, or proposed/final reg-
ulation applies.
—Chemtrax—a computerized data base that
contains 5,000 chemicals and 50 data
sources from OTS, EPA programs, and Fed-
eral agencies, designed for tracking and
consolidating activities and decisions.
• mounted major effort to harmonize international
efforts to control commercial chemicals.
Headquarters Objectives and Activities
First Level Priorities
• Fully operate the pre-manufacturing notification
process at an efficient level to ensure that no
high-risk chemicals are introduced. We expect
400 notices this year.
• Promulgate the health and environmental test
rules proposed in 1980 encompassing five ca-
tegories of chemicals with 5 to 20 chemicals
per category, and propose and promulgate ad-
ditional test rules for chemicals selected by the
Interagency Test Committee.
• Promulgate final regulations on asbestos use
and the asbestos school program.
• Have in place a set of tiered information-gath-
ering rules for use by OPTS and other Federal
agencies.
• Continue chemical information systems develop-
ment and operate the system, services, and
data base, thereby providing Headquarters and
the Regions with the following:
—background information on individual chemi-
cals, particularly toxicity data and information
about past and present regulatory efforts.
—information, by State and Region, on chemi-
cal manufacturers and importers, including
estimates of production and importation vol-
ume.
• Implement a specific training effort in FY 80 to
help the Regions and selected States better
understand and use chemical data bases.
• Produce a revised printed version of the chem-
ical inventory, evaluate the current usefulness
of the inventory, and propose ways of increas-
ing its usefulness.
Second Level Priorities
• promulgate and propose regulations of existing
chemicals with emphasis on generic ap-
proaches (e.g., labelling, solvents, dyes).
• achieve international consensus on Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD)-developed test protocols, a minimum
premarket data set, and principles of good lab-
oratory practices.
• continue to review TSCA's economic effects
and its impacts on innovation.
Regional Toxic Substances Program
The Regional toxics abatement and control (A/C)
program actively participates in TSCA implemen-
tation by providing technical aid and guidance to
State and local officials to reduce asbestos ex-
posure in schools, and by assisting industry, utili-
ties, the general public, and local, State, and
Federal officials to comply with PCB regulations.
The Regions also serve as a communication front
line on TSCA and toxics-related issues because
of their scientific expertise and experience.
The Regional A/C program has taken the lead in
their Region's efforts to solve local chemical
problems. Some of the mechanisms used to ac-
complish this are:
• participating in Intergovernmental Regulatory Li-
aison Group (IRLG) activities.
• establishing Regional Toxics Coordinating
Groups.
• identifying and working with State officials in-
terested in toxic substances.
There will be fewer abatement and control posi-
tions in the Regions in FY 1981. Regional and
Headquarters A/C and enforcement staff will
have to work together to ensure that priority
items are accomplished. Regional efforts devoted
to information use and dissemination will increase
-------
24
because of the increased availability of chemical
information and the ability of Regions to directly
access these data.
Regional Objectives and Activities
The Regional activities included here are essen-
tial both to implementing TSCA and to the more
general task of systematically integrating Regional
approaches to toxic substances control. Regional
activities are divided into first level priorities and
second level priorites.
First Level Priorities
• Regions will continue to work with State and
local governments, school superintendents and
other Federal agencies to reduce asbestos ex-
posure in schools. Monthly status reports to
Headquarters will be necessary. Other-than-per-
manent-full-time positions (OPFTEs) are specifi-
cally provided for this purpose.
• Information assistance to industry, Government,
the public, and special interest groups should
continue in FY 1981. The Regional A/C pro-
grams are the local liaison between EPA, other
Federal and State agencies, and the public.
They should continue (1) to disseminate infor-
mation about TSCA (in particular, information
on Section 6 Control Regulations), and chemi-
cal problems through meetings and seminars,
(2) to provide technical assistance, when possi-
ble, and (3) to refer requests to appropriate
media programs, agencies, or Headquarters.
• Chemical information utilization activities should
become much more important in FY 1981,
given the greatly increased availability of such
information to Regional offices and States. Re-
gional A/C programs should use this informa-
tion to determine problems unique to the Re-
gion, reporting any such problems to OPTS or
other appropriate Headquarters offices. The
Regional A/C programs should continue to be
major contributors to program integration ef-
forts among the various media offices through
Regional toxics coordinating groups or other
appropriate mechanisms.
Second Level Priorities
A/C positions should review State/EPA Agree-
ments developed by the Regions in conjunction
with States to ensure that toxic substances is-
sues—particularly those requiring multimedia or
interprogram coordination—are adequately ad-
dressed.
• Regions should participate in the review of
premanufacturing notices (PMNs) by providing
plant or site-specific information to Headquar-
ters.
• Regions should continue participating in IRLG
activities.
• Regions should identify and work with State
toxics contacts.
The Pesticides Program
In FY 1979 the Pesticide Program emphasized
the review and diposition of RPAR chemicals at
the same time as it turned its attention to imple-
menting the conditional and generic registration
provisions of the 1978 Amendments to FIFRA.
Generic registration of pesticides entails a single
comprehensive evaluation of risks and benefits of
the active material common to numerous prod-
ucts based on all data relevant to the registra-
tion decision. Pending the completion of these
efforts, OPP will grant conditional registrations as
warranted. This will permit the Agency to register
new products if the public interest would be
served by a registration, and if risks during the
period required to complete and submit additional
studies are not unreasonable. New uses of "old"
chemicals in addition to new chemicals will also
be eligible for conditional registration if EPA de-
termines that enough information is available to
evaluate unique hazards that may be posed by
the new uses.
The accomplishments of the Pesticides program
include the following:
• Work was begun on generic standards in 1979.
Data gathering was initiated and completed for
a number of chemicals.
• We promulgated regulations governing condi-
tional registration, waivers of efficacy require-
ments, compensation for the use of data, and
registrants' responsibilities for data submission.
• We have approved or provisionally accepted
over 1000 conditional registrations in the past
year.
• RPAR proposed decisions have been made on
12 chemicals and proceedings have been com-
pleted for BAAM, Endrin, Trifluralin, and Beno-
myl, resulting in a reduction of risk through
concellation of uses, modification of labels, and
reduction in the residues of contaminants.
• We carried out emergency suspensions of
2,4,5-T and Silvex, and a regular suspension of
DBCP.
• Agreements were reached with major Silvex
registrants for voluntary cancellation of their
products in turn for EPA arrangement of
disposal.
-------
'25
• Our laboratory audit process has identified sev-
eral new suspect chemicals and labs that had
significant problems.
• All States but two (Nebraska and Colorado)
have approved plans for applicator certification
where private and commercial applicators are
trained to use restricted pesticides.
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is receiving
increasing attention through agreements and
research funding to develop, demonstrate, and
deliver new IPM technology.
The level of funding in FY 1981 will provide for
the continuing development of pesticide registra-
tion standards. The budget will also permit the
continuation of RPAR actions. The RPAR investi-
gative process will be made a part of the regis-
tration standards setting system in 1981. By then,
any newly suspect chemicals that enter the stan-
dards process will be subjected to RPAR review
when unreasonable adverse effects are identified.
The laboratory audit program will be continued.
Funding is also requested for disposal activities
including: performance testing of disposal tech-
niques; Environmental Impact Statements on ship-
ping and disposal operations; disposal of Silvex
pesticides; and the possible disposal of 2,4,5-T.
Registration will emphasize conditional registra-
tions on new products similar to those on the
market, minor uses, public health uses, respond-
ing to emergency situations, supporting to State
and local governments and registering pesticides
for local use, setting tolerance levels on food
products, innovative pest controls, farm and farm
worker safety, and increasing the overall efficien-
cy of the registration process.
Under the Regional Pesticide Use Management
program, the responsibility and resources neces-
sary to manage the Certification and Training
program for applicators will be transferred to the
enforcement program in FY 1981. The remaining
Headquarters and Regional resources in Pesticide
Use Management will provide technical assistance
to upgrade training materials to the 12th grade
level; assist the States on spills, kills, and fires;
and conduct limited evaluation activities and han-
dle pesticide inquiries.
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• continue to implement a conditional registration
program and process new registration applica-
tions in an efficient and effective manner, giv-
ing priority to innovative, environmentally pro-
tective pesticides and minor uses.
• prepare pesticide registration (generic) stan-
dards, including reassessment of tolerances,
and integrate them with the RPAR process.
• review benefits and risks of RPAR compounds
identified as posing potentially unreasonable
adverse effects, reach final risk/benefit deter-
minations, and reduce health and environmental
impacts, if necessary, by restriction or elimina-
tion of some or all uses.
• finalize decisions on emergency exemptions
and emergency use permits on a schedule that
provides the decision prior to the need to use
the compound.
• integrate IPM into regulatory actions (e.g., Sec-
tion 18 emergency exemptions, registrations,
rebuttable presumptions) when technically ap-
propriate; and working through the Office of
Enforcement, provide State applicator training
programs with information on IPM techniques.
Second Level Priorities
• conduct a core Regional program (provide a
local Federal presence to assist registrants and
to respond to emergencies).
• audit laboratories to ensure underlying data va-
lidity.
• ensure farm workers' safety.
• identify requirements for monitoring pesticide
residues for hazard prediction and significance
of potential problems; and contribute to the de-
velopment of exposure assessment models for
predictive purposes.
Objectives for Regional Interaction with the
States
In the implementation of the FY 1980 Operating
Plan for each Regional office, careful consider-
ation should be given to existing delegations for
work under Sections 5(f) and 24(c). A transition
plan should be prepared for reducing activities in
these areas from FY 1980 to FY 1981.
The Office of Enforcement and the Office of Pes-
ticide Programs will work together in providing
for a smooth transition in transferring responsibili-
ty and resources for certification and training to
the Office of Enforcement.
-------
27
Office of
Enforcement
Jeffrey Miller
Acting Assistant Administrator
Overview
No major policy shifts in the enforcement of our
various statutes are planned for FY 1981. En-
forcement must, however, become much more in-
timately involved in the State/EPA Agreement
process. It is essential that enforcement priorities
be addressed in negotiating these agreements.
While there are no major enforcement legislative
initiatives, Enforcement will play a key role in
gathering the data to support Superfund legisla-
tive proposals. The passage of this legislation will
provide important new enforcement tools, but it
will require adjustments in the enforcement strat-
egy. Additionally, supplemental guidance will be
required and issued if amendments are made to
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The following priorities form the nucleus of our
FY 1981 enforcement program.
• Management Systems and Employee Develop-
ment
During FY 1981 the Office of Enforcement will
emphasize the importance of effective manage-
ment systems for all enforcement programs. Of
paramount concern is the need for effective
coordination within Enforcement and with other
program offices within EPA given the multi-me-
dia nature of our enforcement activities. For
example, permit consolidation requires integra-
tion of five separate permit programs; imple-
mentation of the RCRA permit strategy requires
a close working relationship between the Office
-------
28
of Solid Waste and the Office of Enforcement.
The issuance of the National Municipal Policy
and Strategy illustrates the benefits to be de-
rived from a well coordinated Agency effort.
To establish effective enforcement programs to
deal with toxic substances and hazardous ma-
terials, we must consider the various ways
such materials enter the environment and are
regulated by each statute and enforcement
program. For example, enforcement responses
to environmental emergencies threatening hu-
man health and safety can involve violations of
more than one statute and more than one me-
dium. A recognition and coordination of the
toxics aspects of each of our programs is es-
sential if we are to deal effectively with the
national concern.
The ultimate strength and credibility of all of
our enforcement efforts depends on our ability
to manage the gathering and review of compli-
ance information, ranging from the design of
inspection strategies to the review of self-moni-
toring reports and data. Headquarters person-
nel, with Regional participation, will ensure ad-
equate guidance, manuals and procedures to
strengthen our management systems, including
expedited case reviews and referrals. A system
of Regional review visits will be initiated to de-
termine where improvements are needed to ob-
tain priority objectives. Likewise, Regions will
be encouraged to work with the States to
strengthen technical capabilities and manage-
ment systems and to improve our basic operat-
ing strategies. Also, during FY 1981 the Office
of Enforcement will introduce a comprehensive
training program to improve the legal and tech-
nical skills of enforcement personnel both in
EPA and in participating State Agencies.
Hazardous Waste Enforcement/Permitting
The fundamental goal of the Hazardous Waste
Enforcement program is to protect the public
health and environment from risks posed by
hazardous waste. The Agency has developed a
two-pronged approach for addressing this
problem. First, the Hazardous Waste .Enforce-
ment Task Force was created to deal with the
most immediate threats to health and the envi-
ronment. We anticipate filing numerous legal
actions during FY 1980.
Second, the Agency is issuing regulations to
implement the provisions of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA),
which will establish a system for handling haz-
ardous wastes from "cradle to grave." The Of-
fice of Enforcement has assisted the Office of
Solid Waste in promulgating the regulations.
Moreover, we have focused on developing an
overall enforcement strategy to implement the
compliance monitoring, inspection and sam-
pling, and enforcement provisions of RCRA.
In FY 1981, we will continue aggressive en-
forcement action to clean up both abandoned
and active waste sites. Further, as the RCRA
regulations become effective, we will focus on
ensuring that non-notifying generators of haz-
ardous waste are identified and brought under
the regulatory system, and that generators,
transporters and disposers of hazardous waste
use and comply with the manifest system re-
quirements. In addition, interim and final State
authorization plans will be reviewed for the ad-
equacy of their enforcement provisions.
All hazardous waste enforcement and permit
efforts will be top priority tasks during FY 1980
and FY 1981. The hazardous waste permitting
policy, which will be completed during 1980,
will provide specific guidance on the hazardous
waste permitting strategy. The permits program
itself will begin in FY 1981. As a result, the FY
1981 budget includes increased resources for
the program. The Office of Solid Waste, in ad-
dition, will provide technical support.
• Consolidated Permits, Second Round Permit Is-
suance, and Pre-Treatment Implementation
Four aspects of Agency permitting activities
are of high priority in FY 1981, namely: (a)
The issuance of hazardous waste site permits;
(b) the control of toxics through issuance of
NPDES permits to primary industries, major
secondary industries and major POTWs, espe-
cially those requiring pre-treatment programs;
(c) the expeditious issuance of energy-related
permits for all media and (d) consolidation of
permit programs under RCRA, the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the
Clean Air Act.
• Major Source Enforcement Effort (MSSE)
During FY 1979 the Office of Enforcement initi-
ated all actions against over 500 major source
violators not in compliance with the initial re-
quirements of the Clean Air and Water Acts. In
FY 1980, priority will be given to concluding all
the MSEE actions on the original list. As a
-------
.29
result of the issuance of the National Municipal
Policy and Strategy, a number of new munici-
pal actions will be added to the MSSE list. An
enforcement strategy for the utility industry will
be developed during FY 1980 and, as a result,
we expect to file additional utilities cases in FY
1981. Also several hundred potential new air
actions which were not included in the initial
MSEE effort will need to be initiated. Comple-
tion of these actions against violators who
failed to meet the statutory deadlines of the
Clean Air and Water Acts is of vital importance
in FY 1981 to demonstrate EPA's resolve to
deal with all non-excusable violations of statu-
tory requirements and to ensure that there is
no incentive to delay compliance with future
requirements.
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Imple-
mentation
During FY 1980 and FY 1981, implementation
of enforceable TSCA regulations will be of
growing importance. Enforcement resources
have been increased for toxic activities in FY
1981. It is anticipated that, in addition to the
Section 6 chemical control regulations for
PCB's and CFC's new rules and regulations
concerning testing, labeling, and pre-manufac-
turing notification and other information report-
ing will be in effect and enforceable in FY
1981. Emphasis must be placed on the design
and implementation of Regional compliance
monitoring and enforcement systems to ensure
the integrity of the TSCA regulatory program.
• Non-Compliance Penalties
Final regulations for implementation of Section
120 of the Clean Air Act to provide for assess-
ment and collection of non-compliance penal-
ties will be issued early in 1980. Assessment
and collection of these penalties by EPA and
States is a major undertaking of prime impor-
tance. It is imperative that EPA and States de-
velop the necessary evidence of violations re-
quired to implement the non-compliance penalty
program. Implementation efforts will be initiated
in FY 1980 and carried into FY 1981 as a
priority task.
• Pesticides Certification and Training
By FY 1981 the Office of Enforcement will as-
sume responsibility for implementing the pesti-
cides certification and training programs. We
will begin to implement these efforts in FY
1980 and to enforce these new functions in FY
1981.
• Operation and Maintenance
Continuous compliance is a broad program that
includes a number of major activities. The Re-
gions must complete the development of ade-
quate overview programs that ensure that
States are conducting satisfactory compliance
monitoring inspections and providing timely, ac-
curate compliance data to the Regions.
Also, the Regions must ensure that all sources
subject to continuous monitoring requirements
have installed the proper working equipment.
We also need to expand continuous monitoring
and other improved data collection measures,
particularly under the Clean Air Act, and take
prompt enforcement action to remedy violations
caused by poor performance. An overall opera-
tions and maintenance strategy will be devel-
oped for implementation in FY 1981 which will
include an examination of accelerated use of
the contractor listing provisions of the Clean
Air and Water Acts.
• Mobile Source Enforcement
Recognizing the public health and environmen-
tal significance of air pollution from mobile
sources, Headquarters will continue to place
high priority on its efforts to ensure that vehi-
cles meet emission standards when produced
throughout their use. Assembly line testing and
recall will continue to be the primary means of
ensuring that production vehicles meet emis-
sions.
Recently completed nationwide surveys indi-
cated that tampering and fuel switching are
occurring at disturbing rates. As a result, a
centralized enforcement program has been de-
veloped to control tampering and fuel switching
in order to reduce in-use emissions from mo-
bile sources. This program will include a spe-
cial effort directed toward preventing a wide-
spread increase in fuel switching caused by a
shortfall in unleaded gasoline.
The anti-tampering and anti-fuel switching effort
is intended to complement and facilitate the
implementation of I/M programs by preventing
further deterioration of the vehicle fleet before
I/M programs are implemented. Public resis-
tance to I/M programs is likely to increase
proportionately with the percentage of the fleet
-------
30
that is tampered with and that would be per-
ceived as failing an I/M program. Our enforce-
ment program for in-use vehicles is designed
to curtail the disturbing rate of tampering and
fuel switching inspections of major chains of
automobile repair facilities, fleet operators, new
car dealerships, and gasoline retailers. Regions
will continue to be appraised of Headquarters'
efforts in their particular areas.
• National Municipal Policy and Strategy
Implementation and enforcement of the National
Municipal Policy and Strategy is of critical im-
portance if we are to bring major municipalities
into compliance with the Clean Water Act. Mu-
nicipalities are the largest remaining point
source of water pollution. Industrial dischargers
will be reluctant to comply with current or fu-
ture standards if we ignore the widespread
non-compliance among municipal dischargers. A
detailed implementation plan will be issued in
FY 1980.
• Federal Facility Compliance
Federal facilities are required to comply with
the requirements of all Federal, State and local
environmental regulations. Regions should place
emphasis on monitoring Federal facility compli-
ance and ensuring that projects are identified
and funded in accordance with procedures of
Executive Order 12088.
• State/EPA Agreements
As stated earlier, as a matter of policy, EPA
Regional personnel are encouraged to include
enforcement priority objectives in their
State/EPA agreement process and discussions.
An understanding of the respective roles in the
areas of permitting and enforcement is often
critical to maintaining effective working relation-
ships with the States. This is particularly true
in FY 1981 for such important activities as
hazardous waste permitting and enforcement
efforts, the Major Source Enforcement program,
Section 120 non-compliance penalties under
the Clean Air Act, pre-treatment and energy
permits.
• Grant Priorities
EPA Regional personnel should attempt to ne-
gotiate reasonable levels for level 1 priority en-
forcement objectives as part of the State grant
process.
• Enforcement Resources to Emergencies
Enforcement actions in emergency situations in-
volving substantial threats to public health or
safety whenever or wherever they occur are to
receive overriding priority attention.
• Energy Related Activity
The President has identified the creation of an
Energy Mobilization Board as a key element of
his energy program. It is extremely important
that Regions and States do all they can to
expedite processing of permits required for fa-
cilities designated by any Energy Mobilization
Board established by Congress.
Stationary Source Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• Major Source Enforcement Effort:
The Regions must commit themselves to ensur-
ing that MSEE cases are developed, properly
concluded, and all associated schedules and
decrees tracked.
• Implementation of Section 120 Non-Compliance
Penalties:
The Regions must begin immediately to prepare
for the implementation of the Section 120 pro-
gram by ensuring that evidence of violations by
major sources is current and complete and that
technical and legal staff are prepared to han-
dle the issuance of notices and the conduct of
adjudicatory hearings.
• Expediting Energy-Related Permits:
Expediting energy-related PSD/NSR permits for
facilities named by an Energy Mobilization
Board, if established by Congress, will become
extremely important during FY 1981.
• Ensuring Continuous Compliance.
• Developing a Utility Strategy.
• Ensuring Federal Facility Compliance.
• Enforcing NESHAP.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
The issuance of Non-Ferrous Smelter Orders will
be a level 1 Priority, particularly in the Western
-------
31
Regions. Responses to Section 110(f) Energy
Emergencies and issuances of Section 113(d)(5)
Coal Conversion Orders will be a level 1 priority
in the Eastern Regions.
Mobile Source Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• anti-tampering efforts.
• anti-fuel switching.
• assembly line testing.
• recall program.
Objectives for Regional Interaction with States
State Grant Priorities
In FY 1981, $2,000,000 in Section 105 grant
funds has been earmarked for State/local anti-
tampering and anti-fuel switching enforcement
programs. Regions should address mobile source
enforcement concerns specifically related to tam-
pering and fuel switching in the State/EPA
Agreement and during the grant negotiations to
require reasonable levels of enforcement activity
by States.
NPDES Permits Issuance
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• Control of Toxics:
Toxics will be controlled by issuing permits to
primary industries, major POTWs, and major
secondary industries; by implementing the pre-
treatment program; and by reviewing State ac-
tivities.
• Permit Simplification:
Permit simplification will occur with the imple-
mentation of the consolidated permit program
and the expediting of permits for critical ener-
gy facilities.
• 301 (h) Marine Discharge Variances.
• Energy Related Permits.
Second Level Priorities
• conduct and settlement of Adjudicatory Hear-
ings.
• proposal and issuance of General Permits.
Water Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• continue Major Source Enforcement Effort.
• implement National Municipal Policy and Strate-
gy-
• ensure continuous compliance.
• implement improvements to the Enforcement
Management System (EMS).
• conduct inspections in support of enforcement
cases and emergency situations.
• fully implement Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) quality assurance program to improve
NPDES compliance data.
• begin enforcement of pretreatment regulations.
• expand monitoring and enforcement activities
for toxics, priority pollutants and BAT.
• achieve Federal facility compliance.
Second Level Priorities
• begin automated DMR review using the Permit
Compliance System (PCS).
• conduct compliance inspections of major per-
mittees.
• continue NPDES enforcement, including en-
forcement against industrial violators of statuto-
ry requirements.
• begin enforcement of Section 404 permits.
• increase criminal enforcement.
• carry out overview of State NPDES permits.
Drinking Water Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
The first level priority is the enforcement of the
health related Primary Drinking Water Regulations
in non-primary States, including significant viola-
tions of Maximum Contaminant Levels, reporting
requirements, and public notification requirements.
Second Level Priorities
• overview of compliance monitoring and en-
forcement activities in States that have primary
enforcement responsibility for the Public Water
Supply program.
• review of the enforcement portions of State ap-
plications for Underground Injection Control
(IUC) program primacy.
-------
32
Hazardous Waste Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
The first level priority is initiating enforcement ac-
tions in situations involving substantial threats to
health or the environment, using all available le-
gal authorities for active and inactive sites as
well as other hazardous waste management
problems.
Second Level Priorities
• ensure that all hazardous waste generators
have notified EPA of their status and are prop-
erly complying with the requirements of Section
3002 regulations.
• review of interim or final State authorization
plans for adequacy of enforcement provisions.
• ensure compliance with interim status standards
and requirements.
• conduct an outreach program to encourage
voluntary compliance with the provisions of
RCRA.
Hazardous Waste Permit Issuance
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• issue on- and off-site Hazardous Waste Man-
agement permits.
• provide national guidance for the permit is-
suance process and coordinate Regional per-
mitting procedures.
• ensure development of adequate State Hazard-
ous Waste Management programs.
Pesticides Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• ensure the support of an effective base Re-
gional pesticides enforcement program which,
among other functions, includes (a) the man-
agement, oversight, and evaluation of the State
grants program, emphasizing improvements in
the quality of State pesticides enforcement pro-
grams, and (b) enforcement actions and case
development and prosecution, especially in
States that do not have cooperative enforce-
ment grants.
• implement and enforce certification and training
programs.
Second Level Priorities
• increase the number of States participating in
the cooperative enforcement grant program.
• increase emphasis on the training and utiliza-
tion of Regional personnel in the laboratory
data audit program.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
In Regions VII and VIII, emphasis will be placed
on administration and enforcement of applicator
certification in Colorado and Nebraska. We ex-
pect, however, that Regions VII and VIII will
make every effort to assist Colorado and Nebras-
ka in adopting and establishing acceptable State
certification programs. In addition, those Regions
with States that are not yet authorized for State
use primacy should emphasize steps to upgrade
State programs to ensure the granting of prima-
cy. The States where the issue of primacy has
not been resolved are Ohio, Utah, Wyoming, Col-
orado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Massachusetts.
Noise Enforcement
Headquarters Objectives and Activities
First Level Priorities
• continue enforcement of new compressors and
medium and heavy duty trucks and to initiate
enforcement of buses through production verifi-
cation and selective enforcement audits.
• continue development of enforcement strategies
and regulations for other Section 6 and Sec-
tion 8 products.
• provide guidance and assistance to State and
local noise enforcement programs.
• initiate a program to ensure compliance with
noise labeling requirements for hearing
protectors.
Regional/State Relationships
The noise enforcement program is centralized at
Headquarters. Any future Regional activity will be
coordinated with the Regions. State and local
governments interested in developing a noise en-
forcement program should request, through their
Region, model noise enforcement guidance devel-
oped at Headquarters.
Toxic Substances Enforcement
Headquarters and Regional Objectives and
Activities
First Level Priorities
• Highest priority for both Headquarters and the
Regions will be initiating enforcement re-
-------
33
sponses to toxic substances emergencies in-
volving threats to public health and the envi-
ronment.
• The Regional Offices are urged to establish
organizations which integrate the functions and
resources of the toxic substances enforcement
and pesticides enforcement programs, similar to
those now established at Headquarters. In this
way existing resources can be most effectively
employed to respond to emergencies and to
vigorously enforce existing and new toxic sub-
stances rules and regulations.
• The existing base toxic substances enforcement
program is to receive continued support. At
Headquarters emphasis will be placed on as-
sisting the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Sub-
stances in developing new rules and regula-
tions, and in developing enforcement programs
for such rules and regulations as they become
enforceable. The Regional Offices will concen-
trate on compliance monitoring activities and
the initiation of enforcement proceedings, relat-
ing in particular to TSCA Section 6 chemical
control regulations for RGBs, CFCs, asbestos,
and labeling. The Regions will also conduct
compliance monitoring and enforcement func-
tions for Section 5 premanufacturing notice re-
quirements, the Section 8 inventory regulation,
and any other new rules or regulations which
may be enforceable by FY 1981.
Second Level Priorities
Second level priorities include an increased em-
phasis on training and using Regional Office per-
sonnel in conducting laboratory data audits under
TSCA Section 4.
Region-Specific Objectives and Activities
The scope of Regional activity in enforcing all
TSCA rules will vary according to the presence
of companies, sites, or operations regulated or
affected by those rules and regulations in effect
in FY 1981.
-------
35
Office of
Planning and
Management
William Drayton, Jr.
Assistant Administrator
Overview
The Agency's central management objective re-
mains that of creating a national environmental
program that derives strength and initiative from
decentralization, and purposiveness and environ-
mental coherence from effective integration.
OPM's core job is to help the Administrator and
Deputy and the rest of the environmental regula-
tory effort work together to make coherent, time-
ly decisions.
This guidance is divided into three parts: the first
describes what the Agency must do to further
this central objective; the second outlines the
chief priorities for our analytic efforts; and the
third deals with the common services that sup-
port everything else we do. Each of these parts
in turn has two lists of specific tasks: the first
level indicating work the Administrator and Depu-
ty and I feel must be done without question and
the other, second level but still very important
work.
An Integrated, Decentralized Program
Over the last several years we have put in place
and greatly strengthened our core cross-cutting,
common decision making processes. We are also
well into the introduction of a new personnel sys-
tem that will help us do a better job of manag-
ing and of holding one another accountable. In
FY 1981 we must finish the job of refining and
institutionalizing these tools. More important, we
can and should use them to full advantage: we
must do a better job of substantively integrating
both our programs and the several levels of the
Nation's environmental effort—State and local,
Regional, and national.
-------
36
First Level Priorities
• OPM should diagnose substantive program inte-
gration problems and lead in developing solu-
tions. Let me cite several examples: (1) The
next year and a half will see the final design
and start-up of the Agency's approach to im-
plementing its new chemical control responsibil-
ities (RCRA, TSCA, Superfund, etc.). Virtually
every office in the Agency is involved. We
must make sure the pieces fit together logically
and practically. (2) OPM must help OPTS and
other affected offices work out an integrated
approach to rule-writing for toxic chemicals. (3)
We should continue to halp ORD strengthen its
ties with the programs and Regions. (4) OPM
must continue helping the Regions, the pro-
gram offices, and our State/local colleagues
plan and better integrate our and the States'
field programs through State-EPA agreements,
the Integrated Environmental Assistance Act,
our grants, etc. The Administrator and Deputy
have asked OPM to increase its work in this
area sharply with this Guidance. After first
thinking through a specific agenda more care-
fully with them, we will then have to reorient
first management attention and later resources
both within OPM and more broadly.
• OPM must also expand the assistance it gives
the Administrator in assessing and ensuring
coordination among program and Regional of-
fices. OPM will continue to press strongly (1)
to increase effective Regional participation in
Agency regulation/policy and manage-
ment/budget decision making; and (2) to fill
probably the most critical remaining gap in our
management process by putting in place the
necessary means through which the Administra-
tor and the Agency's managers can measure
performance against promise and hold both
Regional and Headquarters organizations ac-
countable. This is also an area where the Ad-
ministrator has asked for greater investment
with this Guidance. OPM will seek additional
means of meeting this objective, and both it
and the rest of the Agency will very probably
have to increase the resources allocated to
this effort.
• We should continue to strengthen our regula-
tion development and Zero Base Budgeting
(ZBB) processes. They provide the structure
that makes possible broad involvement in the
Agency's two principal cross-cutting areas for
decision making: (1) regulation and policy de-
velopment, and (2) priority setting, management
and resource allocation. They need continuing
adjustment and strong support. Since this core
Agency decision making process is now rea-
sonably mature, this task will take less energy
than it has in the last several years. The ZBB
process should focus more and earlier on a
limited number of major issues.
Because OPM's analytic capacity is not equal
to the dramatic increase in the Agency's regu-
latory workload let alone the several new tasks
listed here, it will have to target its regulation-
specific efforts more sharply. The Regions and
other Assistant Administrators should play a
more active, critical, contributive role in helping
develop and evaluate regulations and policy.
• We need both stronger State programs and
stronger State/EPA collaboration. State and lo-
cal officials now staff 85 percent of the nation-
al environmental regulatory effort, and we are
seeking to delegate even more. We must
strengthen our joint environmental management
effort, especially in the following areas:
—Our State/EPA Agreements should become
more than contracts: they should induce
joint planning and they should press decision
making on major problems or opportunities
up to the senior policy officials. This should
make it easier to refocus programs as our
needs change and to innovate and integrate.
By 1981 the agreements should cover all
our programs.
—We must win passage for and then imple-
ment our Integrated Environmental Assis-
tance legislation to give the States the flexi-
bility and added resources for such refocus-
ing, innovation, and integration.
—The Regions, especially those with manage-
ment analytic centers, should begin direct,
constructive program evaluations of their
States' programs.
—The Regions should encourage personnel in-
terchange and training, e.g., through group
IPAs. (A secondary priority for all Regions
except those pilot-testing new approaches,
except where such approaches promise sig-
nificant resource savings as well.)
• Our Regional Administrators must strengthen
their management/analytic capacity so that
they can better manage their Regions, lead
and evaluate the State and local agencies in
their areas more effectively, and participate
equally in Agency-wide policy and management
decision making. Unless the Regions' ability to
think and manage is strong, both Regional de-
centralization and EPA's linkage with State and
local government are at risk. Headquarters an-
alytic units must work jointly with the Regions
-------
37
to develop this capacity, and both groups
should build strong, continuing ties.
Regional Administrators, helped by OPM,
should give immediate priority to finishing the
job of recruiting uncompromisingly first class
managers and staff for the Regional Analytic
Centers as quickly as possible, preferably over
the next several months. They, again helped by
OPM, should pay close personal attention to
the start-up of these centers: their selection of
early projects; their strong institutional position-
ing in the Region, e.g., in the process of de-
veloping State/EPA Agreements; and the effec-
tive progress of their early undertakings.
All EPA managers should adopt Agency-wide
career paths. True independence, based ulti-
mately on the real ability to move if frustrated,
will flow from the professional breadth, self-
confidence, and reputation such mobility will
foster. It will also give the Agency a manage-
ment team with Agency-wide environmental per-
spective and loyalty, a critical step in our suc-
cessful integration. Individual managers should
both pursue such breadth in their own careers,
and encourage and help their staff towards
that same end.
Second Level Priorities
We should further streamline and strengthen our
regulation review and budget development pro-
cesses. We should eliminate some of the rough
spots which appeared in last year's workload
analysis and explore its extension to the States.
We should also complete renovation of the Agen-
cy's routine reporting system. Senior Management
Reports should build into this as an "exceptions
report"—highlighting especially critical problems
which need attention from top management.
Regions can also build on the foundation provid-
ed by first level activities. In particular, Regions
should work to increase their use of State/EPA
Agreements as tools which integrate the activities
of separate EPA and State programs in solving
complex environmental problems.
Analytic Services
Our analytic services—directly supporting our top
managers, helping prepare regulations, posing the
tough budget issues and checking pricing, pro-
viding legal or economic analyses, negotiating
with other agencies conducting program evalu-
ations, and the like—must keep up with a grow-
ing workload and maintain a superior level of
professional quality. Compromise here is foolish.
We must continue our leadership in regulatory
reform. Finding more effective, equitable, and
economical ways of doing our work is one of the
most useful, highly leveraged opportunities open
to us. (Further, as America's largest regulatory
agency, we have a responsibility to lead.) Our
two most important reforms are controlled trading
and improving the tools for regulatory decision
making, including benefits analysis.
First Level Priorities
• The Regions, aided by OPM/OANR, must fully
implement controlled trading. The compounding
growth of the economy and consequently of
pollution will press ever harder against the
world's unchanging quantity of air, land, and
water—forcing society to pay more and more
just to maintain current levels of environmental
safety. These higher and higher prices for the
same benefit inevitably mean increased political
resistance. Increasing the rate of control tech-
nology innovation and thereby lowering the
cost of control is the only way we can avoid
this dead end. Controlled trading (the bubble,
offsets, banking, brokerage) will provide the
positive incentives we need to encourage such
innovation. Making it work is essential to the
long-term health of the environmental move-
ment. This reform also provides the first practi-
cal way of avoiding the deadweight loss
caused by the fact that rules unavoidably are
overgeneralizations that somewhat rigidly force
set and often quite suboptimal solutions on
each particular case. Controlled trading does
so by encouraging those we regulate to coun-
terpropose more efficient ways of cleaning
up—as long as they are environmentally equiv-
alent and equally enforceable.
The Regions must press the widespread imple-
mentation of this most important, strategically
necessary reform with utmost vigor in 1980
and 1981. They should actively reach out to
responsible firms in their area in 1980 and en-
courage and help them to develop good quality
counterproposals. At the same time they must
actively go out to each of their State and local
counterparts, explain the importance and value
of the reform to them, help train their staffs,
and provide continuing support and encourage-
ment. They should also actively explain the re-
form to their environmental constituents and
the general public. OPM/OANR must help just
-------
38
as vigorously. The Regional Administrators will
have to give this reform their personal atten-
tion, and we will have to provide added re-
sources at all levels.
• We should continue to contribute to the devel-
opment of the Administration's clean energy
policies, encouraging the development of rela-
tively economic and environmentally benign op-
tions and pressing to ensure adequate environ-
mental control of all energy sources. At the
same time the Regions must efficiently process
and carefully track energy permits and the
Agency must adjust to the new Energy Mobili-
zation Board.
• OPM must strengthen and expand its program
evaluation effort, and it should also stimulate
and lead an expanded evaluation effort in the
programs and the Regions. Our current joint
effort with the Regions to review delegations
and EPA oversight is a good example.
• The Agency needs a much improved strategic
planning capacity. We must anticipate new
problems and do a better job of forward envi-
ronmental planning. In 1980 we must lay the
intellectual groundwork for the 1981 and 1982
legislative agenda, which in turn must be suffi-
ciently far-seeing to provide a wise foundation
for the environmental needs of the mid- and
late eighties. For example, how are we going
to deal with the increasingly apparent fact that
pollutants affect people cumulatively and syner-
gistically, not one by one? The Administrator
has asked OPM to take the lead and increase
the resources devoted to this task in reviewing
this guidance.
• OPM, working with the program offices, must
continue to develop better methods of regula-
tory decision making, especially applied bene-
fits analysis. In recent years, EPA has been a
model for the Federal Government in identifying
the full costs of our regulatory actions. This
has helped us both develop better regulations
and defend them more effectively. Now we
must develop our ability to articulate the bene-
fits. The Economic Analysis Division will help
program offices demonstrate and quantify the
benefits of a limited number of major regula-
tions. This experience should help us write reg-
ulations which we can defend more easily, and
which we can "target" more closely on the
most severe problems.
Second Level Priorities
• Expand our controlled trading reforms beyond
the Air program. We should, for example, press
our current work to explore the value of the
bubble in Water.
• Further develop our permitting reforms, e.g.,
the skeleton permit, single application forms,
standard permit conditions, and common proce-
dures for processing, tracking, and issuing per-
mits.
• Expand the number of energy alternatives we
press within the Administration. Seek analogous
modification in economic policy.
• Support the Regulatory Council and other
cross-agency efforts.
• Press cross-agency ZBB.
Providing Responsive, Efficient Services
We are responsible for many services the rest of
EPA must have—grants, personnel, contracts,
support services, facilities management, employee
health and safety, and information management.
Although we will be able to take the initial steps
toward purchasing the next decade's computer
system and to improve our information manage-
ment capabilities, funding for many of the other
activities during FY 1981 will remain at a level
similar to that for FY 1980. Meanwhile, we will
have an increasingly heavy workload in all areas
because of program growth and shifts in empha-
sis. For that reason, we need to develop more
innovative and efficient ways of performing these
services. We must take particular care to provide
excellent services to EPA's new, high priority,
high stress chemical control programs.
This guidance reflects a program designed to im-
prove our performance with the limited resources
available and to focus especially hard on ensur-
ing adequate support to help get the Agency's
new programs off the ground.
First Level Priorities
• EPA's research, regulatory, and enforcement
missions depend heavily on having reliable
data. The Agency now recognizes that there
are serious problems with our current methods
of collecting, storing, and analyzing these data.
To respond to these problems, the entire
Agency will be making an intensive effort in FY
1981 to improve and integrate our monitoring
and information systems. As part of that effort
OPM will devote significant Headquarters re-
sources to upgrading the Agency's computer
systems. This is an expensive undertaking, and
one that will affect our ability to store, inte-
-------
39
grate, and analyze data for the next 20 years.
We should complete the concept design phase
of the computer system acquisition in FY 1981.
Regional and Headquarters planning and man-
agement staff should contribute to this effort in
the following areas:
—We must help other offices integrate the
data and information systems developed for
TSCA and RCRA and other new systems
with the Agency's extensive existing systems.
For example, we have begun integrating
RCRA inventory, permit tracking and compli-
ance information systems with each other
and with related Agency data systems. We
will begin the process of building a strong
central systems development staff to assist
in the integration of major data systems im-
mediately.
—We must make the Agency-wide clearing-
house launched in FY 1980 fully operational
during FY 1981 so that it can handle the
data available on hazardous waste and other
information needed by State and Federal
regulators and the research community.
• Under Civil Service Reform we are developing
improved ways to evaluate employee perfor-
mance and provide positive rewards for excep-
tional service. During this period we must by
law implement fully, at Headquarters and in the
Regions, the Senior Executive Service and
Merit Pay systems. We must finish the job of
training managers at Headquarters and in the
Regions in putting performance standards in
place.
• We will improve our common services in a
number of ways:
—We will fully implement a contract voucher
system beginning in 1980 that will provide
new performance incentives for both con-
tracting personnel and program offices.
These incentives should help us improve the
contract acquisition process by establishing
clear performance measures and rewards for
contract negotiators and, equally important,
for program office personnel who control a
substantial part of the contracting process.
The facts that our contracts staff has been
widely recognized as one of the best and
that they have cut processing times and car-
ryover sharply in the last several years
makes it possible for us to take this step.
—0PM will provide new internal management
consulting services to EPA managers.
—The Agency's personnel managers will fur-
ther cut processing times and also substan-
tially increase and improve training, recruit-
ing, counseling, affirmative action, and other
more active personnel management tasks.
—We will further automate and strengthen our
financial management systems in FY 1981.
—We will use contracts to perform more of
our administrative management functions in
the Regions.
Second Level Priorities
As with OPM's other efforts, there are support
service activities which, though not first priority,
are important and should be addressed within
the limits of available resources.
• We should move where possible to link infor-
mation systems throughout the Agency. One
important means to this end is to institute man-
agement controls to integrate information sys-
tems more fully. This should include further
strengthening OPM's data processing staff so
that it can provide a higher level of assistance
in the development of both existing and new
information systems.
• OPM's grants staff will continue to help ORD
design and implement its new grants peer re-
view approach.
Region-Specific Guidance
Region X has been a leader in moving to link its
resource allocation to identified environmental
problems. Because of the developing pressure to
link resource allocation to problems and accom-
plishments and because of Region X's experience
in the area of environmental profiles, we expect
the Region to continue developing an environ-
mental results-oriented management system as a
first priority. This pilot activity in Region X is
significant to the Agency and should be support-
ed as a major management initiative on the Re-
gion's analytic agenda.
Several Regions, particularly II, III, V, and X,
have made significant investments in information
management, including the development of data
systems to support critical Regional activities
such as permit issuance and tracking and grant
processing, and providing leadership in the de-
ployment and use of minicomputer technology.
These investments should be continued and coor-
dinated with the Agency-wide reforms in informa-
tion management.
-------
40
Priorities for State/EPA Agreements
The activities which I would like to see included
in State/EPA Agreements are:
• A firm, joint commitment to implement con-
trolled trading defining a series of specific ob-
jectives for each State and providing in a num-
ber of cases for pilot experiments with banking
and other new ideas in each Region.
• Streamlining and tracking permits for critical
energy facilities.
Agreeing to new program evaluation and ac-
countability approaches.
One last point underlies all of what I've said
above. OPM managers and the Regional manage-
ment staff must continue to build and maintain a
superior level of professional quality among their
staff. This includes a continued strong push for
affirmative action in all our programs. The skills
of our people are the "capital investment" upon
which all other productive returns depend. Com-
promise here makes no sense at all.
-------
41
Office of Research
and Development
Stephen J. Gage
Assistant Administrator
Overview
From now through FY 1981, the Office of Re-
search and Development (ORD) will continue to
stress the achievement of three major objectives:
(1) the continued integration of research and de-
velopment planning into the mainstream of the
Agency's regulatory and enforcement activities;
(2) the enhancement of our capability to provide
the scientific and technical data EPA will need
for future decision making; and (3) the improve-
ment of the quality of these data. To support
these objectives, we will also continue to improve
ORD management systems as a necessary factor
for better use of available resources. Although
we have made significant progress in all of these
areas during the past year we still have much
to do.
The following three sections contain guidance
that relates to the objectives just identified. Spe-
cific guidance applicable to each Research Com-
mittee is then presented.
Integrating ORD Planning into the Mainstream
of the Agency
Ninety percent of ORD's base program will be
jointly planned with the regulatory programs
through thirteen Research Committees, twelve of
which were established before the FY 1981 bud-
get cycle. (See figure 1.) Thus far, each Commit-
tee's attention has been mainly on the develop-
ment of multi-year research strategies and in-
volvement in the budget process (DU develop-
ment, media ranking, etc.). Over the next year
and a half, the Committees' attention will shift
-------
42-
LU
&K
Is
"- *^
O *» w
mtr^
O UJ **
^ b 2
t <<
LU
Lt
D
o
u.
-------
•43
increasingly toward monitoring the ongoing pro-
gram and evaluating recently completed research
results.
During this time, ORD will also examine ways to
further improve the Research Committee system.
A Research Council chaired by ORD's Assistant
Administrator and composed of ORD Research
Committee co-chairmen and Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrators will be established. The Council will
enable us to approach research planning from a
multimedia perspective and should be extremely
useful in addressing cross cutting Committee
issues.
One especially important application of the Re-
search Council will be in developing a research
response to the acid rain problem. The threat
acid rain poses to the environment may be one
of the most important issues EPA must come to
grips with in the coming years. Although our An-
ticipatory research program has focused on this
problem for the past two years, we must recog-
nize that acid rain will soon be incorporated in
the Agency's ongoing regulatory activities, and
that a research effort responsive to these activi-
ties will therefore be needed. Because acid rain
cuts across three Committees' areas of interest
(i.e., Gases and Particles, Energy, and Water
Quality Research Committees) the Research
Council will provide a mechanism for us to de-
sign a well coordinated research plan. Once the
President's newly created Interagency Acid Rain
Program (co-chaired by EPA and the Department
of Agriculture) is well under way, we should have
a significant contribution to make toward better
understanding and dealing with this critical
problem.
Three other activities aimed at better integrating
ORD planning into the Agency's mainstream
should also be noted. First, pending OMB ap-
proval, ORD will restructure its decision units for
FY 1982 so that each Research Committee will
have only one decision unit containing all the
activities within its purview. This new decision
unit structure will present the research program
in a manner paralleling the regulatory program,
and will clarify its purpose to the rest of the
Agency. With this alignment, Committee inputs to
the Agency's planning process can be explicitly
tracked. Second, the energy research program
will be linked to the Research Committee process
by creating a Research Committee to enable
joint planning of the bulk of the energy program.
And, third, ORD will work closely with the Re-
gions to ensure that the Regional point of view
is effectively integrated into Research Committee
planning.
Enhancing ORD's Capability to Assist Agency
Decision Making
ORD will continue to improve its capability to
deliver scientific and technical data for future
Agency decision making. In FY 1979, ORD re-
aligned the laboratory reporting relationships to
consolidate functional or discipline groupings.
(See figure 2.) This realignment established an
office to manage health effects research, an of-
fice to integrate environmental transport, fate and
effects research, and an office to integrate con-
trol technology and hazardous waste research.
The Office of Monitoring and Technical Support
was unchanged. Furthermore, ORD created an
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment
to improve coordination of the effects assessment
activities required in the Agency's development of
regulations. ORD will also continue to experiment
cautiously with matrix management approaches,
primarily to improve the coordination of high visi-
bility, short term research products.
In addition to the realignment of our laboratory
reporting relationships, three of ORD's Deputy
Assistant Administrator offices will be reorganized
along media lines in FY 1980. This reorganization
will allow our Headquarters divisions to better
relate to the program offices as well as the Re-
search Committee system (which is also struc-
tured along media lines). Specifically, the Office
of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
will consist of three divisions: one for toxics and
pesticides, one for water and land, and one for
energy and air research. The Office of Health
Research will have a division supporting pro-
grams within the Office of Air, Noise, and Radia-
tion (OANR) and a division supporting programs
within the Office of Water and Waste Manage-
ment (OWWM) and the Office of Toxic Sub-
stances (OTS). Finally, the Office of Monitoring
and Technical Support (OMTS) will have two di-
visions—a division responsible for research for
media within OANR and a division for OWWM
and OTS. A Quality Assurance Management Staff
will also be established. (The name of the Office
of Monitoring and Technical Support will be
changed to the Office of Monitoring and Systems
and Quality Assurance.)
Paralleling with these activities, ORD is taking
steps to ensure that the Agency is addressing
the most important future problems and attracting
the best scientific talent to work on them. We
are now in the process of creating an Office of
Exploratory Research (OER) which will provide
the organizational capability to anticipate emerg-
ing environmental problems and provide respon-
sive research funding to solve them. OER will be
-------
44-
o.
O
Q
*
I 1
U
E
S :
Ul I
K
; Z
i?
5S 5
—
—
OFFICE OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ELIZABETH ANDERSON
(ACTING!
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SCIENC
ADVISOR
HERBERT WISER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
SAMUEL RONOBERG
—
—
—
OFFICE OF
HEALTH RESEARCH
VILMA HUNT
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESSES b EFFECTS RESEARCH
ALAN HIRSCH
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGV
STEVEN REZNEK
OFFICE OF MONITORING AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
COURTNEY RIORDAN
z z
i S
5§ f
z ±
O I
£
I
5 <
cc X
0 S
E i
1
1
I PROGRAM OPERATIONS STAFF
1 ROSS ROBESON
11
< Z
0 <
1
z
Ifl <
o
0
5
I
5
z 2
z I
D O
"1
I
1
z
u
1
I
o a *
|| I
z
s
iii
gs
i <
z
III
< s
I
2
o
Is
li
0 "
1
z
2
li
w) " m
£
i
5
I
z
I
z
I
1 ^
3 <
z
1
~
I
il
S~S 1
III S
111 "
1
E
2 " Z K
1 o - °
ill
iii *"
< *
i
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
SYSTEMS LABORATORY RESEARCH
TRIANGLE PARK NC
THOMAS MAUSER
U O <*
|f If
Z
I
Jo
S <
1
z
is
5 >-
Z I
Ili!
°S= 5
Z
1
z<0 z
5 o K ij
-1 < z S
IP1
z
1
(- Z
flsi
125 1
Hff
3
:
i
i 0
5o z
i
1 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
SYSTEMS LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS NEVADA
| GEORGE MORGAN
'
«-
i 1
s =G ' o i> 1 1 1 i ilj
1 |* Is iM ?" 5 '""
LU
C3C
C
U-
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1980 O— 317-268
-------
45
responsible for coordinating collaborative efforts
with the Canadian government and the Acid Rain
Interagency Task Force to handle the acid preci-
pitation problem, and working with OANR to
identify possible control strategies for acid rain.
OER will also administer the Center Support Pro-
gram. This program was initiated in FY 1979 to
fund research at major universities across the
country for indepth study of environmental prob-
lems. Thus far, centers have been established for
epidemiology, advanced control technology, and
groundwater research; four additional centers will
be established during FY 1980 in the areas of
intermedia transport, ecological systems, ultimate
disposal, and marine sciences research.
We will continue to actively support the Innova-
tive Research Program established in FY 1979.
This program is specifically designed to provide
ORD's inhouse staff with opportunities to conduct
research away from the day to day pressures of
their normal working environment. Four sabbati-
cals were sponsored by this program in FY 1979
and we anticipate sponsoring four to five more in
FY 1980.
ORD has consulted extensively with the Science
Advisory Board and outside groups (primarily uni-
versities) on ways to improve the quality of its
grants program. Because research grants are the
primary mechanism available for supporting inno-
vative ideas, we will make the scientific communi-
ty more widely aware of research grants, encour-
aging much greater competition for them, and
acting to ensure that grants are awarded on
merit through enhanced peer review. Additionally,
we will consolidate scientific peer review and ad-
ministration of research grants, including an ex-
panded research proposal solicitation system.
We will also improve the use of cooperative
agreements in conducting environmental research
by taking steps designed to encourage wider
competition for funds. These steps will be cou-
pled with a training course for project officers on
the effective use of cooperative agreements.
Finally, ORD will emphasize enhanced account-
ability in its research activities. In FY 1979, ORD
revised its internal implementation documentation
system to reduce paperwork and to stress re-
search outputs, rather than resource inputs. We
now have an automated system in place to reli-
ably track critical research milestones and out-
puts. Early in FY 1980, we must ensure that
milestones and outputs of key importance to the
Research Committees are incorporated in this
system and must use the system to monitor
these activities. We are also working to develop
an ORD-wide performance management system
for Senior Executive Service and Merit Pay Sys-
tem employees that links together program strate-
gies, required accomplishments, commitments by
individual managers, and salary incentives to at-
tain or surpass those commitments.
Improving the Quality of Agency Data
The credibility and integrity of the scientific and
technical data used in EPA decision making is
crucial to the promulgation and enforcement of
meaningful environmental regulations. Through FY
1980, ORD will move aggressively in two areas
to improve the quality of these data. First, we
will continue to build appropriate improved review
mechanisms into all of the ORD's data develop-
ment efforts. Second, we will spearhead the de-
velopment and implementation of the Agency's
mandatory quality assurance program. Our first
area of attention will be at the project level.
Here, we will emphasize that, whenever feasible,
research results should undergo rigorous scrutiny
by outside experts through their publication in
refereed journals. We are reorienting our techni-
cal information program to encourage such publi-
cation in journals. We also are moving to ensure
that our research findings are packaged in an
appropriate format and are reaching appropriate
audiences.
In addition to the peer review of individual re-
search efforts, we will systematically review our
research programs. To supplement reviews at the
laboratory level, we will continue the cross-cut-
ting Assistant Administrator-level program reviews
initiated in FY 1979. At these quarterly meetings,
we will assemble the best technical people from
outside EPA to critically review major research
programs and outputs. We will increasingly direct
our programmatic reviews according to those of
the Research Committees as well as high priority
areas such as the FY 1980 Public Health
Initiative.
The second area of attention will significantly ex-
pand our efforts to improve the quality of envi-
ronmental data. The Administrator has given ORD
lead responsibility in implementing the Agency's
mandatory quality assurance program. With the
creation of the Quality Assurance Management
Staff within the Office of Monitoring Systems and
Quality Assurance, ORD will have a focal point
for the establishment, direction, and coordination
of this critical program. We will first make sure
-------
46
our own house is in order by requiring adequate
quality assurance practices for all environmental
quality monitoring, sampling, and analytical activi-
ties conducted in the ORD laboratories or under
contract, cooperative agreement, or grant. We
will also require similar quality assurance prac-
tices for all of the Agency's laboratories, con-
tractors, and grantees. Finally, we will work
closely with the Regional Offices to bring quality
assurance practices into uniform use in all of the
State and local laboratories that provide the bulk
of the environmental quality data available to the
Agency. Specifically, we will encourage Regions
to implement recommended quality assurance pol-
icies and procedures in the following areas: am-
bient air and water quality monitoring, NPDES
source monitoring, public drinking water system
monitoring, and hazardous waste site monitoring.
Program-Specific Guidance
As noted previously, ninety percent of ORD's
base program is jointly planned with our principal
clients—the program offices, the Office of En-
forcement, the Office of Planning and Manage-
ment and the Regions. The guidelines contained
in the following sections convey the areas of em-
phasis that each Research Committee has speci-
fied for FY 1981. During the analysis period that
preceded the restructuring of this year's guid-
ance, OPM solicited inputs from the Regions re-
garding specific research needs. Although many
of the needs identified in this exercise have al-
ready been identified by the Research Commit-
tees and incorporated in ORD's research plans,
all other needs must undergo careful scrutiny by
the responsible Committee before ORD can make
a commitment to sponsor them and guidelines
can be developed. All Regional needs identified
thus far have therefore been forwarded to the
appropriate Research Committees for their con-
sideration. It should be noted here that ORD has
just recently developed an information system to
track Regional research needs. This system
should prove invaluable in keeping the Regions
as well as the Research Committees informed of
the needs that have been identified and of what
needs should be considered in the development
of Committee strategies.
Mobile Source Research Committee
Significant accomplishments in the mobile re-
search program have been made during FY
1980. These accomplishments include results
from bioassays of ambient air samples collected
in New York City, preliminary results from diesel
inhalation experiments using Strain A mice, a
critical review of diesel epidemiological studies of
populations exposed to diesel exhaust, an as-
sessment of carcinogenic risk of diesel emissions,
and preliminary results from in vivo tests that
compare the carcinogenic potency of diesel par-
ticulates with extracts from cigarette smoke, coke
oven emissions, and roofing tar.
Comparative carcinogenesis work will continue in
FY 1981 and our development of bioassay and
diesel emission collection methods will be empha-
sized. In particular, we wish to develop short
term tests that can reliably detect the carcino-
gencity or mutagenicity of a substance. We also
want to devise methods to collect and test the
unregulated gaseous emissions from diesel
engines.
Greater emphasis will also be placed on the
modeling and monitoring of human exposure to
automotive emissions. In conjunction with the Ox-
idants Research Committee, we are planning to
do work to determine the concentrations of car-
bon monoxide to which commuters are frequently
exposed.
Concurrent with these directions, we expect a
decline in the number of our whole animal inhala-
tion experiments in FY 1981 because some of
the key results needed for regulatory purposes
will be provided during FY 1980.
Gases and Particles Research Committee
Much new work was begun in FY 1980, largely
because of our Public Health Initiative. Epidemio-
logical research, development of animal models
to assess health effects, and clinical experiments
will continue to be of major importance through
FY 1981.
In FY 1980 we initiated a study of the transport
patterns of aerosols through complex terrain. We
undertook field studies to validate our air quality
simulation models and to identify conditions un-
der which prolonged pollution episodes exist. We
expanded our nationwide inhalable particulate
sampling network to include almost 150 stations
and developed methods to improve the reliability
and accuracy of our measurements of particulate
matter. A problem definition study designed to
direct and focus major epidemiological research
projects will be completed this year.
In FY 1981 we will continue to expand this sam-
pling network, especially because it will support
our expanded epidemiology program. Using the
results from our problem definition work, we ex-
-------
•47
pect to initiate major epidemiological studies fo-
cusing on the effects of sulfates and nitrates in
areas where sufficient data on health and air
quality are available.
We will also emphasize our particle characteriza-
tion work, which can help identify the sources of
particulate pollutants, as well as the reduction
and analysis of data derived from our field stud-
ies. The development of reliable portable moni-
tors that can be used for enforcement purposes
is also a high priority.
The products of our research will be used in
revisions of the criteria document for particles
and sulfur oxides and will be used to support
adoption or revision of ambient air quality
standards.
Oxidants Research Committee
By 1983, the Office of Research and Develop-
ment must present an updated data base to sup-
port maintenance or revision of the ambient air
quality standards for ozone, photochemical oxi-
dants, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. To
improve the data base for these pollutants,
ORD's research activities in this area can be
placed into the following major categories: animal
toxicology; clinical and epidemiological studies on
the health effects of these pollutants; studies to
detect, understand, and predict the impact of
these pollutants on terrestrial ecosystems; studies
on the transport and fate of these pollutants in
the atmosphere; and research on the develop-
ment of new instruments and methodologies, and
research on hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide con-
trol technology. The experimental phases of stud-
ies related to the health effects of ozone must
be completed by the end of FY 1981 in order to
provide data for the ozone criteria document and
ambient air standards in FY 1983 and FY 1984.
The FY 1981 oxidants research program will con-
tinue to focus on the adverse health effects re-
sulting from exposure to ozone, carbon monox-
ide, and nitrogen oxides. To determine the ef-
fects of ozone and other photochemical products
more accurately, various kinds of stress and spe-
cial at-risk groups will continue to be studied.
Research on natural and agricultural crops will
also place more emphasis on reductions in crop
yields and associated costs. More of this re-
search will be conducted under actual field con-
ditions instead of in laboratory chambers.
The following activities represent the major re-
search that ORD will be conducting in FY 1981
in response to specific requests by the Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation.
• We will characterize the kind and magnitude of
various pulmonary function losses that consti-
tute an adverse health effect. Special emphasis
will be placed on atoxic symptoms such as
throat tickle, chest tightness, and wheezing.
• We will develop more information on the ef-
fects of oxidant air pollutants on sensitive pop-
ulation groups such as young children, whose
lungs are developing.
• We will investigate the adverse effects of other
pollutants in the photochemical mixture such as
PAN, nitric acid, formaldehyde, and acrolein.
• We will conduct field studies to measure the
impact of ozone and other photochemical oxi-
dants on crop yield and growth and convert
these impacts on vegetation to economic im-
pacts that can be better understood by both
the farmer and the consumer.
• We will estimate the impact of high, natural
background levels of ozone on the attainment
of the ozone standard in remote, rural areas.
• We will determine the role of ozone as a sur-
rogate for other oxidants through smog cham-
ber studies and field investigations.
Many of the preceding activities are responsive
not only to the program office's needs but also
to the Regional office's needs. However, the fol-
lowing additional activities are more specifically
tied to Regional requests:
• We will provide technical assistance.
• We will determine the health effects of expo-
sure to carbon monoxide at high altitudes.
• We will determine the overall air quality impact
of photochemical atmospheric processes on
visibility degradation through formation of finely
divided aerosols in the atmosphere.
• We will complete development of improved am-
bient air monitoring instrumentation for non-
methane hydrocarbons.
• We will conduct needed experimental studies
to permit development of regional scale air
quality simulation models for oxidants.
• We will conduct area-specific studies in the
Regions (Houston, Southern California, etc.).
• We will determine the volatile organic emissions
from a number of industrial processes.
Hazardous Air Pollutants Research Committee
Thus far, ORD's research on hazardous air pollu-
tants has focused on vinyl chloride, benzene,
-------
48
mercury, cadmium, asbestos, and beryllium. EPA
has recently developed and plans to implement a
systematic approach for regulating hazardous air
pollutants within the purview of the recently pro-
posed air carcinogen policy. Since carcinogens
have been identified as highest priority, ORD's
emphasis will shift from research on the heavy
metals to more research on organic chemicals
that have a high potential of being human carcin-
ogens.
The following categories of research represent
the major research needs identified by the Office
of Air, Noise and Radiation and ORD:
• Identification of Potential Ambient Air Carcino-
gens
The identification and characterization of poten-
tially hazardous substances in ambient air is of
prime interest to OANR. To minimize the time
needed to characterize potentially hazardous
air pollutants, ORD is developing several differ-
ent biological rapid screening techniques. A pi-
lot program to test the utility of the output
from this type of air characterization program
is underway in FY 1980. The results of this
program will be used to modify the character-
ization techniques, if needed, and will be used
as a basis for implementing an ambient air
characterization program.
• Development of Risk Estimates
ORD is providing risk numbers from existing
effects data to the Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning & Standards (OAQPS) for analyses inte-
gral to the implementation of the carcinogen
policy. In those instances where data is not
available and is not being generated elsewhere,
ORD is performing the necessary in vivo, in
vitro, and epidemiology studies to permit risk
analysis. Deficiencies in the tests are being
identified in FY 1980; research to develop fast-
er, more accurate, less expensive tests will
continue at least through FY 1981.
• Development of Control Technology Techniques
The FY 1981 control technology research pro-
gram will cover a wide range of activities. Con-
trol of volatile organic compounds will be em-
phasized. Small scale, add-on technology
equipment constructed in FY 1980 will be used
to determine the feasibility of control for high
priority toxic sources in FY 1981. Field tests to
verify control capability will be conducted at a
limited number of sites. Test programs to eval-
uate the effectiveness of maintenance as a
generic technology for the control of fugitive
volatile organics will be started.
• Non-Carcinogenic Effects
Although the major portion of ORD's research
on the health effects of hazardous air pollu-
tants focuses on carcinogenic effects, ORD will
devote some research efforts to non-carcino-
genic effects. Initial discussions with OAQPS
on how to integrate this research with the de-
velopment of a non-carcinogen hazardous regu-
latory policy are under way in FY 1980.
Under the hazardous air pollutants research pro-
gram, ORD provides the Regional offices with
analytical and monitoring support, and with tech-
nical assistance during emergency episodes or
upon request.
Radiation Research Committee
ORD's radiation research program has four pri-
mary thrusts:
• Research on the health effects and non-ioniz-
ing radiation
The ORD is systematically conducting research
on biological effects on animals of prolonged
exposure to non-ionizing radiation, the mecha-
nisms of interactions between non-ionizing radi-
ation and biological systems, and the potential
effects of non-ionizing radiation on the human
population. Pilot studies are being conducted
on the effects of continuous long term expo-
sure to radiofrequency radiation (970 MHz) on
rats. These will lead to more definitive studies
in FY 1981. In the same vein, the design and
engineering phases for an experimental animal,
lifetime exposure system directed at more real-
istic simulation of population exposure condi-
tions will be initiated. An epidemiological study
of the effects of high level microwave exposure
on life span, cause of death, and morbidity will
be initiated.
• Offsite monitoring
EPA provides offsite radiation safety and sur-
veillance services to the Department of Energy
(DOE) at and around the Nevada Test Site
and at other test sites around the country. The
objective of this agreement between EPA and
DOE is to document environmental radiation
levels resulting from nuclear test activities. In
addition, EPA is responsible for assessing the
exposure and estimating the dose that the gen-
-------
49
eral population receives from these activities.
ORD has provided the Office of Radiation Pro-
grams (ORP) with funds for a mobile van
equipped with pulsed radiofrequency radiation
monitoring equipment. ORP will use this van in
FY 1981 to assess population exposure to
pulsed sources of microwaves. Similarly, ORD
is providing funds to buy field instruments for
radiofrequency monitoring to be used in the
Regions in resopnse to requests for hazard
evaluation.
• Emergency response support
• Quality Assurance
EPA is developing a comprehensive, national
quality assurance program to document and
improve the precision, accuracy, and intercom-
parability of radiation measurements.
ORD's FY 1981 research and development pro-
gram will continue to focus on the health effects
on non-ionizing radiation. Greater emphasis will
be placed on conducting epidemiological studies.
Research with various exposure modes and fre-
quencies will be continued. Studies to refine mi-
crowave dosimetry techniques and to develop im-
proved experimental and population exposure as-
sessment methods will be continued in FY 1981.
The preceding research supports the develop-
ment of interim Federal environmental guidelines
on non-ionizing radiation by EPA's Office of Ra-
diation Programs. ORD will provide more immedi-
ate support to the Office of Radiation Programs
by developing a Criteria Document on the Health
Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. This docu-
ment will be part of the ORP Radiofrequency
Exposure Guidance package to be issued in FY
1981.
In addition to the research activities that primarily
support specific EPA regulatory needs, the ORD
will continue to provide technical assistance,
monitoring equipment, and training to the Region-
al Offices.
the types of pollution (e.g., solid waste, particu-
late emissions), and the receiving enviromental
media (e.g., air, sediment).
Four goals provide the framework for ORD's tox-
ic substances research program: to provide spe-
cialized technical assistance to resolve complex
problems; to develop research capabilities to
meet implementation timeframes for the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA); to develop a
comprehensive long-range program to continuous-
ly refine test methods and assessment schemes;
and to build continuity and stability into the pro-
gram to meet future challenges.
ORD will support EPA's toxic substances pro-
gram by providing the expertise and methodology
for required tests and by aiding the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) in toxic
substances hazard and exposure assessment.
OPTS will require improved hazard assessment
test evaluation procedures, both to analyze data
from industry sources and to support its own
results for regulatory purposes. Improved expo-
sure assessment tests will give additional depth
to the program by allowing EPA to clearly evalu-
ate exposure levels from a variety of pollutants
and the consequent hazard they pose to humans
and the environment. Exposure parameters to be
documented include toxic chemical release, fate,
use, distribution, and disposal.
Specific needs for the next fiscal year will in-
clude technical assistance, development of pre-
cise, inexpensive testing methods and justification
and expansion for scientific assessment method-
ology. Additionally, ORD will aid OPTS in a num-
ber of special projects not necessarily in re-
sponse to any one section of TSCA. Chemicals
of specific regulatory and research interest will
be studied, as will improved methods for risk as-
sessment. Thus, ORD's toxics research program
will effectively converge with EPA's effort to im-
plement TSCA, in the study, evaluation, and doc-
umentation of the health and environmental im-
pacts of toxic substances.
Chemical Testing and Assessment Research
Committee
The fundamental purpose of EPA's toxic sub-
stances research is to provide accurate, scientifi-
cally rigorous, timely information to support deci-
sions to regulate and control manmade toxic ma-
terials in the environment. The research structure
is designed to address the three aspects of the
hazardous chemical problem: the sources of pol-
lution (e.g., energy production, manufacturing),
Pesticides Research Committee
The Research Committee on Pesticides advises
the Assistant Administrator for Research and De-
velopment on needs and priorities in pesticides
research. The research plan developed by the
Committee focuses on data and techniques for
assessing potential health and environmental risks
and on techniques to minimize introduction of
pesticides into the environment. Three basic ele-
ments are necessary to evaluate potential overall
-------
50
human health hazards and environmental hazards
for pesticides: (1) identification of the population
at risk; (2) assessment of population exposure;
and (3) determination of adverse effects on
health and ecology. The Committee is charged
with developing a program designed to provide
scientifically sound and legally defensible informa-
tion to support regulatory decisions on pesti-
cides.
Pesticide research needs will focus strongly on
environmental exposure studies in support of
EPA's registration standards and research on bi-
ological pesticides. Additional research needs in-
clude a quality assurance program in measuring
pesticides in agricultural soils, increased environ-
mental exposure assessment work, and increased
health effects and exposure research. New re-
search problems that will be addressed include
contamination of groundwater by pesticides and
control of drift from aerial application of pesti-
cides. Additional ORD emphasis should be given
to integrated pest control techniques that can
minimize unnecessary environmental contamination
by pesticides used in agriculture. Resource in-
creases beyond current levels should also pro-
duce efforts in quality assurance in measuring
pesticides in urban soils and in developing short
term screening procedures to reduce the time
required for reproductive and teratologic studies.
Water Quality Research Committee
Over the next several years we expect continued
or increased demand for a number of areas of
water quality research. During this period, the
Agency is likely to consolidate its programs and
expand enforcement efforts for technology based
effluent limitations, expand controls for toxic sub-
stances, and evaluate those situations where
technology based effluent limitations may not
alone be appropriate, either because water quali-
ty goals cannot be achieved or because they
can be achieved with lower cost alternatives
(e.g., Section 30l(h) of the Clean Water Act). It
will also continue to evaluate alternatives for
waste disposal, such as ocean dumping or place-
ment of dredge spoil. Water quality planning will
be further integrated with water resource man-
agement efforts. Finally, the Agency will continue
its actions to protect sensitive ecosystems such
as wetlands.
These activities will require expanded and more
efficient toxic pollutant measurement methods ac-
companied by rigorous quality assurance guide-
lines, data to support balanced health and envi-
ronmental criteria for additional numbers of toxic
pollutants, more sophisticated and definitive meth-
ods for measuring and assessing the effects of
stress on water ecosystems, including wetlands,
and more discriminating methods for assessing
the impacts on water quality of alternative pollu-
tion management strategies. Our research plans
for FY 1981 and beyond reflect these priorities.
During FY 1981 we will determine if effects of
certain toxic substances are similar in aquatic
and mammalian species and if effects on short-
lived species can be extrapolated to man. In ad-
dition, we will determine the relationship between
sediment contamination and toxicity, pollutant bio-
accumulation and pollutant availability, and ef-
fects on marine organisms; continue to study the
effects of acid precipitation on aquatic ecosys-
tems; develop procedures for use in defining wet-
lands; and determine the effects of stress on
wetland function and productivity. Finally, we will
intensify our efforts to characterize the transport
and fate of pollutants in the environment, and we
will refine and validate models for predicting the
persistence and fate of toxic organic chemicals
and for assessing pollutant impacts in specific
ecosystems.
Drinking Water Research Committee
The long range goal and overall concept of this
program is the provision of a scientific basis for
ensuring safe supplies of drinking water in this
country. Therefore, research related to drinking
water must be designed to yield data that will
help determine whether we need to regulate spe-
cific substances, and, if this need exists, to help
determine the levels at which standards should
be set. The program addresses organic, inorgan-
ic, and microbiological contaminants in water
supplies, as well as the protection of ground-
water. It is composed of four types of research:
Health effects, treatment control technology,
groundwater, and quality assurance.
In FY 1981, we will try to find practical, cost
effective processes to meet the needs of small
communities that have difficulty complying with
State and national drinking water standards.
The highest priority in the drinking water re-
search program will continue to be on organic
contaminants, including those associated with, or
produced by, disinfection practices. In the health
effects area, the research will emphasize studies
on carcinogenic and other chronic effects. These
studies will be complemented by chronic toxicity
and epidemiology studies as well as shorter term
projects on important organics to provide data
-------
51
relevant to making determinations on maximum
contaminant levels. In the treatment area, re-
search will focus on measurement and control,
with concern for avoiding the formulation of con-
taminants as well as their redirection to accept-
able levels. Updating of the interim treatment
manual to control chloroform and other trihalo-
methanes (THM) will be helpful for implementing
the THM Regulation in FY 1981. The ground-
water and quality assurance portions of the pro-
gram will also emphasize organics. In the quality
assurance area, we will continue to emphasize
compounds being considered for regulation.
Research on inorganics will continue to focus on
cardiovascular effects. A recent report on control
technology for asbestos has been distributed and
should help the Office of Drinking Water evaluate
the potential for regulating asbestos in drinking
water. In the groundwater area, we will focus our
attention on determining absorption, movement,
and transformation of contaminants. The quality
assurance effort will be directed toward sub-
stances for which regulations have been devel-
oped to help ensure proper implementation of
these rules.
Detection and control of the occurrence of mi-
crobiological related disease will continue to be
of concern because outbreaks of waterborne dis-
ease still occur in this country, especially in
poorly operated systems for treatment and distri-
bution of drinking water. In the case of bacteria,
projects on microbiological contaminants are con-
cerned with gastrointestinal illnesses. Viruses will
also be included in the program.
Industrial Wastewater Research Committee
Emphasis in the Industrial Wastewater Research
Committee is on control technology. However,
the program relies, and can continue to rely, on
analytical and effects data derived as part of
other programs, especially those under the Com-
mittee. Thus, coordination among those Research
Committees active in the water quality area will
continue to be imperative. The wastewater pro-
gram may be categorized in four areas: industrial
source characterization and assessment; control
methods evaluation, research, development, and
demonstration; analytical methods evaluation and
quality assurance; and recycle/reuse research,
development, and demonstration. Recycle/reuse
as a category is intended to emphasize the po-
tential that this technology has for approaching
zero discharge.
In the source characterization activity, both con-
ventional pollutants and specific compounds from
existing and emerging industries will be ad-
dressed. Major milestones will include: character-
ization updates of the 21 high priority industries
for the 129 toxic pollutants mandated by the le-
gal process; characterization and assessment of
wastewaters from the synfuels technologies for
coal and oil shale conversion; assessment of
non-treatment alternatives such as modification of
manufacturing processes; and reassessment of
conventional pollutants from industry.
We will continue to emphasize control methods.
Research to develop treatability data will cover
both conventional and other priority pollutants.
This work will also include an effort to identify
surrogate compounds or other measurable param-
eters that will indicate response to treatment in a
similar manner as the difficult and expensive
analysis of a host of compounds of interest.
Milestones related to treatability will include a
treatability manual prepared for guideline devel-
opers, permit writers, and design engineers; up-
dating the treatability data base for newly recog-
nized toxics; and exploration of basic mecha-
nisms of treatability in the most important treat-
ment processes.
A significant portion of our effort on control
methods will be concerned with optimizing avail-
able treatment methods and developing innovative
technologies. This area of the program includes
development and demonstration of new and im-
proved means of control for both direct dis-
charge and pretreatment. We will emphasize the
goal of reducing cost and energy consumption.
Milestones include: demonstration of centralized
treatment of metal finishing wastes, bench and
pilotscale development of textile wastewater con-
trol technology to support 1983 guidelines, in-
cluding non-conventional pollutants and pretreat-
ment regulations; and general development and
demonstration of treatment technology and non-
treatment alternatives, with emphasis on high de-
grees of removal of selected toxic pollutants.
ORD is responsible for promulgating the analyti-
cal methods requirements supporting the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. We will focus primarily on analytical
methods evaluation and quality assurance. These
activities will have the Effluent Guidelines Divi-
sion, the Regions and the Office of Enforcement
as principal clients.
Under the recycle/reuse category, evaluations
will continue on existing systems in an effort to
draw conclusions on their applicability to other
industrial applications. Also, demonstrations for
-------
52
new industries will be initiated. Milestones will in-
clude: demonstration of recycle/reuse for indus-
tries with high potential to solve toxic discharge
problems through these systems; and examination
of various recycle/reuse technologies to deter-
mine factors including the possibility of their de-
velopment in the private sector.
Municipal Wastewater and Spills Research
Committee
The research covered under this Committee sup-
ports EPA activities in the area of municipal
wastewater and sludges, oil and hazardous spills,
and response to uncontrolled hazardous waste
disposal sites. In this latter area, currently listed
as EPA's top priority, we will in FY 1981 build
on much of the work initiated in FY 1980 on the
development of new or improved sampling and
analytical protocols and methodologies, the es-
tablishment of a quality assurance program for all
data developed (in support of enforcement ac-
tions against the owners of these disposal sites),
and the adaptation of previously developed spills
technologies for remedial action at these pollut-
ing disposal sites.
In the municipal wastewater area, research will
deal primarily with the development and evalu-
ation of innovative biological treatment systems,
with increased emphasis on energy efficiency and
reduction of capital and operating costs. The as-
sessment of the effectiveness of aquaculture sys-
tems for pollutant removal will also be accel-
erated.
Top priority research under this Committee in the
spills area will focus on the area of hazardous
spill prevention addressing technologies which
analysis of historical data identifies as offering
the greatest potential payoffs. Increased empha-
sis will be placed on the development of technol-
ogies for the ultimate disposal of hazardous ma-
terial residues recovered during spill cleanup and
on improved technology for use in evaluating the
environmental impact of uncontrolled hazardous
waste disposal sites. Increased attention should
also be placed on the development and promo-
tion of field application of overland and other
land treatment technology. Finally, efforts will
continue to address the resolution of the health
issues associated with the land application of
sludge and the development and promotion of
the control technology necessary to recommend
environmentally acceptable management methods
for disposal of municipal wastewater sludges. Im-
mediate increased effort is being focused on ac-
tive support of the Agency's innova-
tive/alternative construction grant program and
production of improved guidance for design of
Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Solid Waste Research Committee
With the possible exception of toxics research,
solid waste research should be the major growth
area for EPA in the years ahead. Until recently
the solid waste research program has focused
almost exclusively on nonhazardous waste (pri-
marily municipal refuse); in FY 1981, ORD will
shift the primary emphasis of its research pro-
gram to hazardous waste. The regulations for
hazardous waste management must be supported
by an active research program to be workable.
One of our top priority activities in FY 1981, and
a key component of our solid waste research,
will be the establishment of a program to devel-
op new or improved sampling and analytical
methodologies and validation procedures for iden-
tification of hazardous waste. Another top priority
activity will be the creation of a quality assur-
ance program to ensure the validity of all data
generated. These activities are the Office of Sol-
id Waste's top research priorities. Additionally,
ORD will accelerate its efforts in incinerator and
land disposal research for hazardous wastes in
FY 1980 and 1981 to provide useful technical
data to EPA permit writers for hazardous waste
treatment, disposal, and storage. Emphasis will
be placed primarily on the thermal decomposition
and containment of hazardous waste.
Attention will also be directed to research in the
hazardous waste effects area (i.e., health and
ecological effects and pollutant transport and
fate). Efforts will emphasize the establishment of
a credible program for dealing with the health
effects of hazardous waste exposures. Research
in the area of nonhazardous waste, including re-
source recovery, will, for the most part, be
phased out by the end of FY 1981.
Energy Research
The energy program's underlying goal is to con-
tribute substantially, by providing scientific infor-
mation to developing policies that strike the
proper balance between ample domestic energy
production, reasonable cost, and environmental
quality by providing scientific information. These
policies and incentives and the program pertain
to extraction, processing, and utilization aspects
of energy systems. There are two primary com-
-------
53
ponents of the program, one concerned with
health and environmental processes and effects
and the other with control technology. There is
also a strong and extremely important interagen-
cy component of the program.
Plans for FY 1981 call for an expansion of about
$6.2 million. This figure represents a major initia-
tive concerned with the control technology por-
tion of the synthetic fuels industry—an industry
emerging as a significant element of the Nation's
energy future. The resource increase also pro-
vides for an expansion of the dry scrubber sulfur
oxides control technology program.
Overall, the program addresses both conventional
and advanced energy systems. Research empha-
sis is on the current and projected coal fuel cy-
cle as well as the oil shale cycle. Uranium and
offshore oil and gas extraction operations will
also be studied, but to a more limited extent.
Emphasis given to synfuels in FY 1981 will be
sustained.
There are identified efforts in the program that
are complementary to non-energy (e.g., Air or
Water program) concerns. A portion of the pro-
gram also has a strong multimedia perspective.
This part of the program will receive special at-
tention from the newly established Energy Re-
search Committee. This group is a significant ad-
dition to the Research Committee system be-
cause it will complete overall ORD planning by
incorporating the full energy program into the ex-
isting Committee forum and enhance coordinated
planning between the energy and related non-
energy programs.
In the health area, a series of projects will be
continued on development and validation of
bioassay screens and predictor tests relative to
determining health effects of pollutants from fossil
fuel combustion. This part of the program will
also include ongoing determinations of health
hazards of fossil fuel leachates. In the environ-
mental processes area, projects will be sustained
on pollutant transport, transformation, and envi-
ronmental impacts, with special emphasis on the
effects of acid deposition on aquatic and terres-
trial ecosystems. The results of these projects
are targeted, for example, for use in developing
regulations and for translation into guidance man-
uals providing data on carrying out phases of
energy production and use in ways that minimize
environmental impact.
In the control technology area, coal extraction
research will focus on defining pollution sources
from active mines and on the development and
demonstration of methods to control, treat, and
abate pollutants from mining and beneficiation
processes. Research on oil shale will evaluate
control technology and techniques that can pro-
tect surface and subsurface water from the ef-
fects of runoff caused by extraction and spent
shale disposal.
We will give special emphasis to portions of the
program dealing with conventional combustion.
This effort is concerned with coal, where the ma-
jor pollutants are sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
particulates, and associated fly ash and sulfur
sludge. It focuses on developing and demonstrat-
ing cost effective control technology to be used
in conjunction with utility and industrial processes
in order to render them less environmentally
damaging.
To support the Nation's renewed interest in syn-
thetic fuels as an alternative to imported oil, our
energy research program includes an accelerated
effort to evaluate and develop the controls need-
ed for synfuel processes. Our research will ad-
dress both the performance and cost of control
technologies for the major coal liquefaction, gas-
ification, and oil shale processes. Results of this
effort are to be targeted toward near-term com-
pletion of guidance documents for synfuel devel-
opers and permitting authorities prior to promul-
gation of legally binding standards.
-------
-------
55
Administrator's
Guidance on
FY1981
State/EPA
Agreements
Overview
State/EPA Agreements (SEAs) are intended to
be key management tools that top managers in
both EPA and the States can use to focus atten-
tion on priority activities and problems. Each As-
sistant Administrator has, in the appropriate sec-
tion of this Guidance package, identified both
program priorities and SEA priorities for Fiscal
Year 1981. These SEA priorities should be used
to guide the negotiation of the FY 1981 SEAs
with a goal of maximizing the use of available
resources to solve environmental problems.
This section of the Operating Year Guidance for
FY 1981 provides direction for development of
FY 1981 SEAs. It includes a concise statement
of the roles and responsibilities of Headquarters,
the Regions and the States in the SEA process.
It defines the activities which occur in the devel-
opment of SEAs, sets forth a suggested schedule
for SEA development, and defines the essential
elements of the SEA. The Guidance also dis-
cusses the role of tracking and public involve-
ment in the SEA process. It covers both required
and suggested activities for SEA development
and is based on the actual experience of States
and Regions with FY 1979 and 1980 Agree-
ments* and the recommendations of the Adminis-
trator's Committee on State/EPA Agreements.**
*See October 1979 Annual Report: State/EPA
Agreements.
**Convened by the Administrator in November
1979, to discuss SEA development and recom-
mend future direction.
-------
56
More detailed information, including examples of
innovative or successful approaches to SEA de-
velopment, will be included in the FY 1981 SEA
Handbook which will be available by March 1980.
SEAs as a Management Tool
Based on past experience, the consensus is that
SEAs should be strengthened as a management
tool by:
• including all EPA programs as candidates for
coverage in SEAs.
• focusing SEAs on priority issues, with particular
emphasis on addressing problems across pro-
gram lines.
• making the negotiation and implementation of
SEAs a top level, personal priority of Regional
Administrators.
• using SEA priorities to "drive" program grant
activities.
• tracking specific State and EPA commitments.
Roles and Responsibilities
In delineating Federal and State roles in the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
and other environmental legislation, Congress
clearly expected a Federal/State partnership. The
State/EPA Agreement process should make that
partnership real by encouraging States and Re-
gional Offices to negotiate their priorities in order
to maximize the use of available resources.
The EPA Headquarters role in SEA development
includes:
• setting national priorities.
• developing regulations and guidelines to imple-
ment environmental legislation.
• providing grant funds.
• developing program guidance.
• developing methods to consolidate and stream-
line overall paperwork.
• providing a forum for information exchange.
• reviewing the SEAs and assessing operation of
the SEA process.
EPA Regional Offices and the States are the
most active participants in the negotiation and
implementation of State/EPA Agreements. EPA
Regional Offices have responsibility for:
• identifying and assessing Regional environmen-
tal problems.
• identifying opportunities to integrate resources
and activities to solve environmental problems.
• providing States with program guidance consis-
tent with the Agency Operating Year Guidance.
• consulting with appropriate Assistant Adminis-
trators before negotiating SEAs which conflict
with major national program priorities as stated
in the Agency Operating Year Guidance.
• negotiating SEA priorities and work plans with
States.
• streamlining the SEA process and consolidating
paperwork where possible.
• assisting States with public participation.
• identifying and implementing EPA commitments
in SEAs.
• evaluating SEA progress and tracking commit-
ments to ensure that they are met.
The State, as recipient of Federal grant funds, is
responsible for complying with applicable Federal
laws and regulations. The SEA offers States the
opportunity to negotiate, with EPA, the priorities
within their annual grant work plans, as well as
the crosscutting issues that call for the applica-
tion of time and resources across program lines
(e.g., hazardous waste sites). State responsibili-
ties include:
• identifying and negotiating SEA priorities with
the Regional Office.
• identifying opportunities to integrate resources
and activities to solve environmental problems.
• developing grant work plans based on SEA
negotiations and integrating them where possi-
ble.
• conducting public involvement activities (no-
tices, public hearings, workshops).
• implementing SEA commitments and grant work
plans.
• evaluating SEA progress and tracking commit-
ments to ensure that they are met.
Although the States and EPA have primary re-
sponsibility for negotiating the Agreements, par-
ticipation by the public and other governmental
agencies is important to the negotiation and exe-
cution of the Agreements. EPA and the States
should, therefore, work closely with the public
and appropriate interstate agencies and Regional
and local agencies in developing the Agreements.
SEA Regional and State Organizational Models
Because the FY 1980 SEAs included three or
more environmental programs, many Regions and
States found it advantageous to assign responsi-
-------
57
bility for coordinating SEA development to specif-
ic organizational units. Regardless of the organi-
zational model used by the Region, it is clear
that support of the Regional Administrator and
other top managers, along with active, continu-
ous involvement by the program offices, en-
hances the quality and utility of the Agreement.
Program offices should be involved in negotiating
the Agreements to ensure that the SEA priorities
are effectively implemented through the grant
work plans.
State arrangements for SEA development vary,
but in general they can be grouped into two
types. In one, negotiations are conducted by a
single environmental agency that has responsibili-
ty for all of the programs included in the SEA. In
the other, two or more State agencies individually
conduct negotiations for the program grant ar-
ea(s) for which they are responsible and become
co-signers of the SEA. This arrangement is fre-
quently accompanied by an "umbrella" Agree-
ment with the Governor.
Methods of organizing and negotiating Agree-
ments are less important than the character of
the negotiations. The State/EPA Agreement must
be a truly bilateral agreement. Both EPA and the
States must be willing to commit themselves to
specific activities (in addition to the award of
grant funds).
SEA Development
Process
The State and EPA should begin to develop the
Agreement as early as possible each year (see
Schedule below). Generally, the SEA process
should include the following broadly defined ac-
tivities:
• assessment of environmental problems and ex-
isting strategies.
• identification of priority problems.
• identification of available resources.
• negotiation of SEA priorities.
• assessment and selection of alternative prob-
lem-solving approaches.
• assignment of tasks, schedules, funding and re-
sponsible parties.
• implementation of the signed Agreement, in-
cluding the award of grants.
• periodic evaluations of SEA outputs and annual
revision.
In planning for the FY 1981 SEAs, both Head-
quarters and the Regions should make a con-
certed effort to streamline the SEA process by
consolidating planning activities and related pa-
perwork where possible.
FY 1981 SEA Schedule
The following is a suggested schedule for FY
1981 SEA development. It is similar to several
Regional schedules and provides a general calen-
dar for SEA activities.
MONTH
1979
October
November
December
1980
January
ACTIVITY
Award FY 1980 grants
Assess FY 1980 SEA process and identify needed improvements
National EPA/SEA Coordinators Meeting
Initiate review of FY 1980 SEAs to determine strengths and weaknesses
Prepare FY 1981 SEA schedules and "scope of work"
Review environmental problem assessments
Begin FY 1981 SEA priorities planning
Review draft National SEA Guidance
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
Regions
HQ/Regions
HQ
HQ/Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States/locals
-------
58-
SCHEDULE-Continued
MONTH
1980
February
ACTIVITY
Issue final Agency Operating Year Guidance, which includes guidance for
SEA development
Prioritize problems based on problem assessments and available multi-year
strategies
March Prepare program priorities for SEA negotiations based on Agency Operating
Year Guidance
Begin negotiations on SEA priorities
Issue public notice about SEA development
April Public meetings/workshops/questionnaires for SEA priorities
Mid-year review of FY 1980 SEA
May Complete SEA negotiations for draft FY 1981 SEA
June Distribute FY 1981 SEA draft for review
Prepare summaries for public
Solicit public comments on SEA draft
July Final SEA negotiations
August Complete FY 1981 SEA, reflecting public comments
Prepare public responsiveness summaries and distribute as appropriate
September Sign FY 1981 SEA
HQ - EPA Headquarters
Region - EPA Regional Offices
States - Appropriate State Offices
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
HQ
Regions/States
Regions
Regions/States
Regions and/or States
States/Regions/I ocals
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions or States
Regions and/or States
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States
Regions/States
The SEA negotiators should coordinate their
schedules with those of existing EPA program
grants. State planning and budget cycles should
be considered to the extent possible. Generally,
this means that the draft SEA should be com-
pleted by June 1 of each year. Following final
negotiations, review, and public input, the final
agreement should be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and State signator(s) in September
of each year.
Format and Content
The key to SEA success is flexibility and accom-
modation of individual States' environmental prob-
lems and resource capabilities. Keeping this in
mind, the Regions and the States have flexibility
regarding SEA formats. The term "format" refers
to how an SEA is packaged; that is, how priori-
ties, work plans, grants, summaries, signature
pages, and the like are included or appended.
Regardless of what format is used, the Agree-
ment should deal with a manageable number of
priorities and should be streamlined so that it is
useful to top EPA and State managers.
The Agreements should, however, have some uni-
formity of content to enhance their use as man-
agement tools. With this in mind, FY 1981 Agree-
ments should include the following:
• an executive summary (if the SEA is longer
than 25 pages).
• a clear identification of priority problems based
on problems assessments and multi-year strate-
gies, where feasible (an example of a multi-
year strategy format is shown in figure 1).
• annual grant work plans, which may be ap-
pended.
• a documentation of tasks and resources need-
ed to meet SEA priority commitments (an ex-
ample of a format for documentation of re-
sources is shown in figure 2).
• a description of public involvement.
• a procedure for management tracking.
-------
'59
FIGURE 1 - SAMPLE MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY FORMAT MULTI-YEAR AIR QUALITY STRATEGY
(Stationary Source Control)*
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
*Reduce pollution levels
caused by stationary
sources.
"Prevent violations of
air quality standards.
SCHEDULE
RESPONSIBLE
TASKS
Task No. 1
Task No. 2
Task No. 3
Task No. 4
Task No. 5
AGENCY
State
EPA
State
EPA
State
RESOURCES
Y
X
T
U
V
| 1980 1 1981 | 1982 1983
3/80 3/81
6/80 9/82
9/80 2/82
1984 1985
4/80 3/84
9/80
6/85
"Actual air strategy format used by State of Alaska for FY 1980 SEA.
FIGURE 2 - DOCUMENTATION OF ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES USED TO MEET SEA
PRIORITY COMMITMENTS
PRIORITY ISSUE: Develop Emergency Response Program*
REGION. XII
STATE: Xanadu
ACTIVITY
*Prepare predictive
analysis study to
forecast spills in the
following areas oil,
hazardous wastes and
toxics substances
'Develop emergency
response plan.
*Response to spills in
accordance with plan
(estimate 10 major
spills in FY 1981).
*Provide information
and technical assis-
tance to States on spill
protection program.
MILESTONES
10/80-2/81
10/80-5/81
on-going
10/80-9/81
FY80 RESOURCES
WORK YEARS $x1000
STATE FEDERAL PROGRAM/AMT
1 1 CWA-106/30
CW A-106/30
CWA-106/70
RCRA-3011/40
SDWA-1443a/40
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY(s)
State: Dept of Environ-
mental Quality
EPA: Surveillance and
Analysis Division
State: Dept of Environ-
mental Quality
State: Dept of Environ-
mental Quality
Dept of Health
EPA Surveillance and
Analysis Division
Enforcement Division
TOTALS:
210
'Example adapted from approach used in Region VIII FY 1980 SEAs.
-------
60-
SEA Tracking
A general criticism of the FY 1980 SEAs by both
States and EPA is that many commitments in the
Agreements are so loosely worded that tracking
progress (verifying specific, measured steps
toward the stated objectives) is difficult.
To help improve SEA tracking, several Regions
have suggested: (1) tying major SEA commit-
ments to managers' performance agreements; (2)
giving each program office a checklist of SEA
tasks and output dates for which it is responsible
(this should assist in tracking commitments at all
management levels); (3) using the SEAs as the
basis for State/EPA mid-year reviews where
commitments by EPA and the State are evalu-
ated; and (4) assigning State and Regional
project officers to each priority.
Clearly, as in all aspects of the SEA process,
top management must support SEA implementa-
tion and evaluation. Where commitments are not
met, the Regions and States must take needed
corrective actions.
volvement of the public and other interested par-
ties is important to the development and imple-
mentation of each SEA. Federal regulations re-
quire EPA and the States (1) to notify the public
about the goals and scope of the Agreement; (2)
to provide information to help people participate
in the Agreement process; and (3) to schedule
ample opportunities for participation by the publ-
ic. Specific procedural requirements for public in-
volvement, including those for public meetings or
hearings, are contained in the public participation
regulations (40 CFR 25). In addition to the gen-
eral public, EPA and the States must work close-
ly with Regional planning and implementing agen-
cies, as well as interstate agencies and local
governments, to agree on cooperative strategies,
priorities, and responsibilities.
The FY 1981 SEA Handbook will contain detailed
suggestions on how to improve public involve-
ment, including the use of target groups, Region-
al and interstate agencies and consolidation of
public participation activities.
Public Involvement
The States and EPA have principal responsibility
for negotiating the Agreements; however, the in-
DATE DUE
MAR 0
1938
HIGHSMITH 45-220
-------
60604
-------
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
1981
------- |