HC79.E5
E63
1980
100R79001
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Planning
and Management
Washington DC 20460
April 1979
vvEPA
EPA Guidance to the States
Fiscal Year 1980
-------
EPA GUIDANCE TO THE STATES
FISCAL YEAR 1980
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D,C,
APRIL 1979
-------
-------
FOREWORD
This is the second year EPA has published a Guidance
for the States separate from its larger internal Agency
Guidance. This was done originally because the scope of
the Agency Guidance had expanded, and we wanted to give
the States a guidance of manageable size which highlighted
items of interest to them.
CONTENTS
The State Guidance consists of two parts. The first
contains the Administrator's Policy Guidance, in which
Administrator Costle and Deputy Administrator Blum summarize
their priorities for the coming two years. Following the
Policy Guidance are Overview Statements from each of the
Assistant Administrators, which highlight their priorities
for specific programs and expand on the themes raised by
the Administrator and Deputy Administrator.
The second part of the State Guidance contains a
description of what EPA will look for in State program
plans, and sets forth those requirements on which EPA will
base its grant negotiations with the States. As such, it
translates national priorities into specific program
direction, while recognizing that varying needs and
conditions among States must be taken into account. State
Projected Program Accomplishments (PPA's) are items which
the States should address in their plan submissions and
report to the Regions as measures of progress in achieving
their objectives.
RELATION TO STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS
The purpose of the State Guidance is to describe EPA's
national objectives and priorities for the coming fiscal
years, with particular reference to EPA programs which
provide grants for State and local assistance. The
Guidance identifies areas which State, local, and areawide
agencies should emphasize in preparing their grant program
plans. State/EPA agreements, developed in accordance with
this Guidance, translate it into specific actions which
States agree to perform after discussions with the Regional
Office. State/EPA agreements also promote flexibility in
111
-------
achieving national goals and priorities, by taking parti-
cular State and Regional needs into account and encouraging
program planning across media lines to meet those needs.
EPA recognizes that differences between national
objectives and decentralized implementation will inevitably
appear in its programs. These differences should be dealt
with openly, in a spirit of candor and cooperation; we hope
that this State Guidance will contribute to this spirit and
promote our common efforts on behalf of environmental and
public health protection. The success of this Guidance will
be measured by how well it serves these goals.
IV
-------
EPA GUIDANCE TO THE STATES
FISCAL YEAR 1980
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ADMINISTRATOR'S/DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR'S
POLICY GUIDANCE 3
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS' OVERVIEWS
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION 11
WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 16
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 20
ENFORCEMENT 35
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 42
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 48
STATE GUIDANCES
AIR 53
WATER QUALITY 89
DRINKING WATER 125
SOLID WASTE 133
TOXIC SUBSTANCES 149
PESTICIDES 161
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICY GUIDANCE
1980/1981
DOUGLAS M, COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR
BARBARA BLUM, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
-------
ADMINISTRATOR'S POLICY GUIDANCE
EPA and State and local agencies can be proud of what
they have accomplished over the last two years. We have
won strong legislative mandates, and we are making good
progress in implementing them. EPA is better integrated,
and we have begun the process of strengthening our State
and local relationships. We are making good progress in
developing effective controls for toxics. In area after
area we are recognized front-runners in the Administration's
reform efforts. The air and the water are getting cleaner.
The people, the President, and the Congress support our
work: they respect both our professionalism and our
ability to get a tough job done.
This Guidance addresses the future. But before we
go on to define what lies ahead, we wanted to note how far
EPA has come. The Agency has been working hard and well.
Congratulations and our thanks.
In this Agency Policy Guidance we identify what we
feel the Agency's priorities should be for the next
several years. Our Assistant Administrators follow with
more detailed guidance for each of their areas of respon-
sibility. We have worked closely with them in developing
these program guidances.
Broadly stated, the Agency's priorities are as
follows:
o To reduce public exposure to dangerous
pollutants;
o To protect sensitive ecological systems;
and
o To improve management of our environmental
programs.
REDUCE PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO DANGEROUS POLLUTANTS
Over the last several years we have come to understand
more of the connections between the thousands of chemicals
our society has put into our environment and a great many
of the diseases that afflict modern man. EPA has been
given lead responsibility for identifying, evaluating,
and controlling environmental pollutants. Doing so is one
-------
of our chief objectives. We are approaching the problem at
every point — when a chemical is produced, shipped, used,
or ultimately disposed of. Our Toxics, Air, Water,
Pesticides, Drinking Water, Radiation, Hazardous Waste,
and spills programs must all give the toxics problem
greater priority. In doing so we expect that all action
on individual pollutants should generally be governed by
the principle of addressing first those that present the
greatest health risks. A major part of that effort has
been the development of an integrated strategy for toxic
substances, a strategy which we will continue to develop
and refine throughout 1980 and 1981 through vigorous
implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
As another element of an Agency-wide toxics strategy,
we will develop an Agency cancer policy. The policy
will provide a framework for continuing decision-making
in our pesticides, toxics, and drinking water programs
and for emerging carcinogen regulations under the Agency's
air, water, and hazardous waste programs.
Finally, our urban strategy is a key part of this
effort because it is based on attacking the unhealthy
environmental conditions of cities. We expect the
Assistant Administrators and you to continue to implement
our existing urban initiatives and to develop innovative
solutions for urban problems.
PROTECT SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Increasingly during the past two years, we have
focused the Agency's efforts on dealing with pollutants
as they affect public health. Ultimately, however, we
must protect the environment that supports us and all
other life. While continuing to clean up our air and
water, we need to give much more attention to particularly
sensitive environmental systems such as wetlands. Though
natural systems like wetlands and fisheries are usually
described as renewable — on the assumption that they can
regenerate themselves when depleted or damaged — we are
beginning to learn how fragile they truly are as we begin
to understand sensitive ecological relationships. Once a
groundwater supply is contaminated with toxics, for
example, it may take centuries for natural restoration
(or millions of dollars for clean-up) if it is ever to
support healthy natural life or to be used for drinking
water.
-------
IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
We have made a major commitment to finding better,
more effective ways of regulating. There are almost fifty
reform efforts in progress across the Agency now. We are
beginning to see the results of this commitment, and we
expect a great many more initiatives to move into
implementation stages over the next several years. We
will continue to look for complements to traditional
regulation, such as offsets and the bubble, our reporting
requirements, sunset, and procedural simplifications. We
want your active help in finding better ways to carry out
our responsibilities. Specifically, we want to continue
to:
o Integrate EPA programs -- We have made a good
start in our efforts to consolidate our grant
and permit programs. The integration of programs
in water quality, drinking water, solid waste,
hazardous wastes, and underground injection can
serve as a good model for other program areas.
o Strengthen Federal/State/local partnerships --
Establishing the State/EPA Agreements and
encouraging appropriate delegation should streng-
then and improve environmental programs at all
levels. We also need to retain and improve our
ability to assess performance at all levels. We
want to work for passage of an Integrated Environ-
mental Assistance Act as a legislative base for
increasing management flexibility between us and
the States as well as in State programs.
o Improve coordination with other Federal agencies —
We must make greater use of the IRLG and Regulatory
Council mechanism to assure coordinated and
concerted action among all Federal agencies. We
must work particularly closely with the Department
of Energy in developing environmentally and health
sensitive energy policies.
o Reform and refine our management practices —
In this area we are emphasizing the completion of
Civil Service reforms recently enacted. We must
also put in place the planning, zero-based
budgeting accountability system for the Agency.
-------
In addition, we are reassessing our monitoring
with an eye to the quality, utility and compati-
bility of our information systems.
o Improve regulatory reform — We are giving major
emphasis to the development of more flexible, less
costly alternatives to our traditional regulatory
approaches, such as the "bubble" concept and
"banking" of offsets in nonattainment areas. We
want to continue improving the quality of our
regulations. One of the most important elements
to the latter is continued strengthening of the
Steering Committee; we want to enlarge the role
of the Regions in this process.
o Strengthen the Agency's research capacity and
programs — We want to improve our ability to
forecast environmental problems and solutions,
particularly in the long term. We need to expand
the data base for our regulatory decision-making.
Finally, there are a number of cross-cutting issues
we want to flag. We expect:
o a strong commitment to improving public partici-
pation;
o a determined affirmative action program; and
o continued attention to the Administration's
urban programs.
The 1980-1981 planning years present a great challenge
to us as managers. We must continue to move this Agency
toward protecting public health and the environment more
fully. We expect that each participant in this planning
will consider how his or her program can contribute to
these initiatives.
-------
- 7 -
The following sections of this Guidance set forth our
priorities in greater detail. They serve as the basis for
FY 1980 Federal and State program implementation and as
the policy framework for program and resource recommen-
dations to the President for FY 1981.
[as M. Costle
Administrator
Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
-------
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS' OVERVIEWS
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ENFORCEMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION
Each OANR program plan should include resources and
should plan for effective participation. Limited resources
should also be available for case-by-case assistance to
participants in a small number of major rulemaking and/or
permit proceedings.
I would also like OANR offices to work with Regional
Offices to develop effective public participation programs
for their activities.
Finally, each office should review existing public
information materials in its area of responsibility.
Program plans should provide for major improvements in
our information base and should include a system for
keeping our public information materials current. Please
work with our Office of Public Awareness representative
in this effort. Our laws, particularly the Clean Air
Act, are complex but their purposes and effects can be
simply explained. We must make more of an effort to do
so.
AIR
High priority must be given in 1980 to completing all
actions required as a result of State implemention plan
submissions in 1979. Most plan approvals, disapprovals,
and promulgations should be completed in 1979, as should
the schedules for implementing the plans. However, some
such actions may not occur until 1980. We must have in
place systems for tracking State progress in implement-
ing their approved plans. We need to emphasize and
develop ways of assuring that the States assume their
responsibilities under the plans including all new source
review responsibilities. It is especially important that
we encourage States to implement the program for Prevention
of Significant Deterioration.
-------
- 12 -
During 1980 programs for visibility protection and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration for pollutants
other than TSP and SO should be ready for implementation.
States should be urged to assume responsibility for these
programs as well.
The next major round of SIP revisions will be in 1982
for those areas where EPA has granted extensions beyond
the 1982 deadline. Our guidance requires that for ozone
these areas base their revised plans on an air quality
model. It appears that the most appropriate technique for
protecting future air quality in this round of SIPs will
be the relatively complex dispersion models which account
for photochemical reactions. We should give high priority
in 1980 to the acquisition of data required for these
models and to validating them. The 1981 program plan
should provide for the use of these models in all areas
where required in a time frame that permits technical
review and public participation on development of control
strategy to assure meeting the Clean Air requirements.
The general problem of lack of confidence in air
quality data also must be addressed in 1980. Emphasis
must be given to the establishment of technically sound
sites and procedures for National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) as
required by our monitoring regulations. Participation by
State/local laboratories in quality assurance programs
should be mandatory. If the programs require additional
resources, this should receive a high priority in the
1981 budget request.
At Headquarters, by December 31, 1890, we must have
completed our review and appropriate revision of all
existing ambient air quality standards. The plan for
1980 should clearly recognize this requirement and, given
the need for a better quantification of benefits, provide
for the development of such a data base and analyses as
may be required.
The budget for 1980 provides funding to complete the
development of new source performance standards for all
major stationary sources by 1982. The program plans for
1980 and 1981 must demonstrate that we are on a schedule
which will meet that statutory deadline.
-------
No large increment in resources is bein>7 provided in
1980 for activities related to he./-.^--doar; ^i~ pollutants,
I expect that, before the next 13 seal year negiris, we will
have in place a policy on air carcinogens providing a
systematic approach to substantially reduce risks from air-
borne carcinogens. Our plan in 1980 should provide for
the orderly implementation of that policy with a irr-.jor
intensification of actions in 198], Thin program sl-ould
take into account and be coordinated with other programs
regulating risks from toxic or hazardous pol.luf.ancs.
In Mobile Sources we should have- completed alJ vehicle
rulemaking specifically required by the Jiean Air Act in
1980. Our future standard-setting prooram ; hould aiddress
the need to regulate presently unregulated pol.utants, and
resources to address the light-duty diesel jhould be
available in 1980 in the event that re; crrch estabL-snes
the need for additional action. Our 1980 program should
focus on such assessment activities as may be necessary if
standards are to be proposed in FY 1981 or subsequent
fiscal years.
Given commitments to inspection/maintenance programs
in the SIP's, we must be in a position of being able to
provide expert guidance to State and local I/M programs.
The 1980 plans should address, as a matter of priority,
such data gathering and assessment as may be necessary to
assure that we can assist I/M programs to achieve their
maximum potential.
We should give major attention to other activities
which will help assure that vehicles in u^ pet form as
intended, and the 1980/81 plans should spec! cic
-------
- 14 -
To the extent the 1980 budget is not adequate to complete
the required pre-regulatory work for light duty vehicles
and tires, the Agency should not make formal commitments.
These sources would then be a major initiative in the
1981 budget.
Although I am attracted by the idea of using noise
labeling as a method of enhancing consumer choice,. I
believe we should complete promulgation of the general
labelling and hearing protector regulations first. Any
proposal for additional work in the labeling area- in
1980 must be carefully tailored to fit within available
resources and my desire for us to complete pending
actions. An expanded program may be considered in 1981,
but it should have a lesser priority than work related to
transportation sources.
I am anxious that we show material progress in
implementing the Quiet Communities Act. To the extent
that our stated goals of 400 communities and 40 States
with effective noise programs provide a real basis for
program planning, our program plans for both 1980 and
1981 should clearly indicate projected progress against
these goals.
We should likewise display our actions to. undertake
investigations and studies on a more complete health
base for noise control against a specified objective.. I
think it important that we develop an outline which
indicated the areas in which new information should be
produced on a priority basis and that our proposed
research-related plans in both 1980 and 1981 indicate how
they will meet our needs as outlined.
RADIATION
In radiation the mission of EPA is now reasonably
well defined as a result of the IRG Report, Libassi
Committee deliberations, NRC Agreements, and our own
actions in developing criteria for waste disposal. The
IRG Report indicating the multi-agency nature of the
Federal government's nuclear waste management program
should be used as a blueprint for defining the scope of
and timing required for EPA standard-setting in this
area. The program focus in 1980 should be on actions
delineated in that report.
-------
- 15 -
The priority we give to actions under the Clean Air
Act must be a product of the reduction in radiation risk
which such actions can accomplish compared to reduction
achieved in other radiation programs. To the extent that
priority must be given to the issue of radioactive waste,
and/or to the completion of standards required under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Act, I am willing to accept a slower
rate of progress on Clean Air Act-related problems in 1980,
Nevertheless, the program plan for 1981 should present a
full range of actions to effectively implement our deter-
minations on the nature of radioactive air pollution
problems, we should assign them high priority,
Given the acknowledged limitations of our resources,
I would expect only limited EPA resources devoted in 1980
to implement EPA's general authorities to provide Federal
radiation guidance. I would much prefer that we take time
to establish an interagency committee to review the poten-
tial scope of the guidance function and assess priorities
as our major program action in the guidance area in 1980.
Implementation of the committee's recommendations would
follow in 1980 and 1981. Additional resources for EPA in
1981 could be sought where necessary to supplement the
resources of other agencies.
-------
OFFICE OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant Administrator
The priority objectives of EPA's Water and Wastewater
Management programs are to implement statutory mandates
providing for:
o Achievement and maintenance of the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
ground and surface waters, with special emphasis
on protection of public health and sensitive
aquatic ecosystems;
o Treatment, containment, and control of toxic and
hazardous materials in solid waste;
o Protection of an adequate supply of high quality
drinking water for public consumption; and
o Federal, State, and local development of integrated
environmental management systems which minimize
transfers of pollutants between media and which
identify optimal ultimate disposal strategies for
pollutants.
The objectives described above can be achieved most
efficiently in terms of both dollars and manpower through:
o Effective use of State planning and program funds
to implement water quality management, water supply,
and solid waste management goals through State/EPA
Agreements;
o Management of the $4 billion/year construction grants
program to meet the treatment needs of publicly owned
treatment works (POTW's) effectively at least cost to
all levels of government;
o Application of alternative, innovative, and cost-
effective technologies and management practices
to solve water and solid waste pollution problems;
and
o Emphasis on resource recovery, reuse, and recycling
to conserve energy, materials, and water.
-------
The objectives and man,:-,, ;,i ,u •.'L. to ?-,:hieve them
be delivered v;ti:Jn « cent .-•.,*; ' ,. . .'.it. iut,', a'-,ior. a^3
consolidation. An integi.cii.eo .",>,:.!•• >.OL <_he Agency and toi:
OWWM in particular arises because the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) clos.-j^ ta • ^ap;; in the waste disposal
cycle left by previous air and v:--ai>.-r J ,; j isl.-,- t ior bv *r"O*'iding
control for the disposal o,_ oo I iur ant ~; :•,: or o;i tliu .-.cui<.1
Since there is no "free dumping • ..:<.. i<'d , an int .-g^a^t r.
approach is necessary to detei ii< i no ;,i:e oest mix of epv .^on-
mental controls to minimize tru.-. adv•: - c~^ ^ i ^rs't,-; ,f -~ > . it.ion.
These integrative efforts *iLI •-e i.ic.n< • ,-t in the •*? y ;-^
deal with identifiable cirecus CL 'joni.^-J :•, r' ^•.i..l'.,..' ; . To,
example; many programs witni.-i OwwM &v.'• -.;n specific c ler.iicals.
When one program is dealing with < jjrocerfs to con..rol point jnd
nonpoint sources of pollution. Current WQM efforts are
concentrated on plan implementation to achieve water quality
improvements. Continuing WQM grants wilJ. only be made to
State arid areawide agencies who can show evidence of imple-
mentation.
In managing the $4 billion/year construction grant
program, the Agency will consider puLljciy-owned treatment
work systems as a structural and functional component of
human community. This should enable questions relating to
levels of performance and technology, operations and
maintenance, sludge management, pretreatment, toxics,
combined storm water overflow an.i urnan drainage ~,c be
viewed as parts of a single system.
-------
- 18 -
EPA's strategy for 1980-81, then, is to orient funding
toward meeting environmental requirements through stringent
cost-effectiveness review and to stress innovative and
alternative approaches to waste treatment, including water
and energy conservation, reuse and recycling of pollutants,
and small systems. Funds earmarked for State delegation
under Section 205(g) of the CWA will be directed toward
State assumption of program activities with high pro-
fessional quality consistent with Congressional policy and
requirements. In addition, the construction grant program
will move rapidly toward reinforcing other Agency actions
such as the control of toxics and enforcement objectives
through implementation of the municipal enforcement strategy.
Industry is a key focal point for the application of
technology and management practices to control environmental
pollution. The multiple controls on industry must be
applied in a coherent way to a single facility or industry
category to control toxic and hazardous pollutants effectively,
The available control mechanisms include spill prevention
control plans; best management practices for toxics; BAT,
pretreatment, new source performance standards, and BCT;
RCRA hazardous waste controls; and underground injection
control (UIC).
This arsenal of controls will be implemented coherently
through consolidated permitting of NPDES, RCRA Section 3005,
and UIC permits. Permit consolidation will enable concen-
tration on programmatic, environmental, and procedural
permitting elements which allow technical and legal talents
to be applied effectively and efficiently to achieve environ-
mental objectives.
All OWWM programs will emphasize conservation of our
precious natural resources: energy, water, minerals and
other materials. The resource recovery program will strive
to maximize the use of energy and materials which are
currently disposed of as solid wastes. Municipal and
industrial point source control programs will stress
reuse of wastewater and recycling of pollutants through
standards, permits, and financial assistance. In parti-
cular, the construction grants program will focus attention
on multi-purpose projects which recover energy and materials
and reuse wastewater.
Four final OWWM priority areas are: attention to
specific ecosystems; development of criteria and standards;
implementation of new OWWM public participation regulations;
and emergency response.
-------
- 19 -
o An important focus is on specitic ecosystems or
subsets of ecosystems, such c:s: .jround water as it
is influenced by the programs of (,,vW7M; wetlands
protection as it is specifically achieved by the
regulatory program under section 404, and wetlands
as influenced by such other factors as solid waste
facility siting, treatment syste.43 siting, and
others. The ocean? represent another ecosystem
which is high priority and can only be protected
by the integrated application of uWWM programs.
o Another integration of OWWM activity ranging across
all programs is in development of criteria and
standards. Water quality criteria, 404 criteria,
403 criteria, safe drinking water standards, and
hazardous substance criteria all will be looked at
as they are developed, issued and applied.
o Overall public participation regulations for water
quality, water supply and solid waste programs,
which were promulgated in February 1979, will be
implemented in 1980. These regulations support
program integration objectives by standardizing
certain public participation requirements for OWWM
programs. They should foster more effective and
constructive public involvement across these
programs.
o 1980 must see the emergency response capabilities
of OWWM integrated so that the various authorities
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Clean Water
Act are carried out in a coherent way by adequately
trained people. We must build on the emergency
response capabilities already in place under
section 311 and expand them to recognize that the
response is attentive not just to surface waters
but also to ground waters and to the landscape
and atmosphere.
-------
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
Steven D. Jellinek, Assistant Administrator
This Overview Statement lays out what I believe
to be the important priorities for achievement by the
pesticides and toxics programs for the years 1980
and 1981. As such, it represents my "guidance" to
the managers and staff of the two programs and infor-
mation of interest to our colleagues throughout the
Agency.
I have arranged the objectives for each into
"general" and "specific" categories. The specific
objectives are subdivided further into "highest"
priority, "high" priority, and "other." We have no
low priority objectives.
The general objectives are provided to give a
sense of what I believe are the thrust and tone of
the programs. The specific objectives are more in
the nature of outputs I expect to be delivered.
TOXICS—1979
General Objectives
o Continue the thrust toward institution-
building. From the organizational per-
spective:
- Secure adequate space.
Staff up to budgeted levels with
qualified professional and support
personnel, with special efforts on
increasing the number of women
and minorities.
Organize to the branch level.
-------
From the regulatory perspective;
Place more emphasis on premanufacture
review, test standards, and test rules.
Give less emphasis to existing chamical
regulation.
o Complete the development of a jviority
setting system for choosing chemicals for
testing and regulation unde1; 1SC;\ i;io
other statutes; clarify and t-stdolish the
role of the Toxic Substances Priorities
Committee in this system.
o Develop a detailed program planning system
for each DAA-ship.
o Clarify the regional role in TSCA implementation.
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
o Publish the Chemical Substances Inventory.
o Promulgate the final regulations on premanu-
facture notification; establish and operate
a system for screening and assessing notices;
and take actions under TSCA sections 5Ce)
and 5(f) to prevent or control the manufacture
of new chemicals, as required.
o Promulgate a final regulation establishing
test standards for oncogenicity, chronic
toxicity, combined oncogenicity and chronic
toxicity, and good laboratory practices.
o Propose the first section 4 test rule
requiring industry to test 20-30 chemical
substances and categories of substances.
o Propose a rule under section 8(a) to develop
basic use/exposure information on approximately
2-3,000 chemicals to aid in setting priorities
for regulation.
-------
- 22 -
Propose a regulation under section 6 banning
or limiting the use of one existing chemical
that poses an unreasonable risk to public
health.
Fully implement the program to help States
and school districts identify and control
asbestos in school buildings.
High Priority
Propose testing guidelines for premanufacture
notification.
Propose remaining test standards for health
effects and several fate and ecological
effects test standards; resolve inconsis-
tencies with pesticides testing guidelines.
Conduct health and environmental effects
assessments, monitoring, and economic impact
analyses to support regulation of new and
existing chemicals.
Follow premanufacture notices with individual
"significant new use rules" and/or individual
section 8(a) information rules for a few
selected new chemicals, as required.
Begin the development of generic follow-up
systems for "significant new use rules" and
section 8(a) information rules for new
chemicals.
Begin developing proposed regulations banning
or limiting the use of an additional 2-4
existing chemicals that pose an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment.
Complete an analysis of the issues concerning
the impact of testing costs on small volume
chemicals and, if appropriate, develop
proposed legislative solutions.
-------
Other
23 -
Continue the development of TSCA and inter-
agency chemical information systems and data
bases.
Complete the development of responsive and
effective document control data services,
and FOI procedures.
Develop model rules for information gathering
under section 8(a).
o Develop a process to review and act expedi-
tiously on carcinogens, mutagens, and terato-
gens under section 4(f).
o Initiate the development of generic approaches
to banning or controlling the use of chemicals
under section 6.
o Promulgate the PCB ban rule.
o Provide industry assistance on TSCA require-
ments.
o Distribute State grants.
o Continue development of public participation
programs.
o Support OECD and other planned international
harmonization programs.
o Propose model regulations under section 8(c)
and 8(d) to require recordkeeping and submission
of health and safety studies concerning signifi-
cant effects of chemicals.
TOXICS—1980
General Objectives
o Continue the thrust toward institution-
building. From the organizational perspective:
-------
- 24 -
Staff up to budgeted levels with
qualified professional and support
personnel, with special efforts on
increasing the number of women and
minorities.
Build effective staff teams through
management actions and training.
From the regulatory perspective:
- Fully operate premanufacture review
and test rule development.
Increase emphasis on existing chemical
regulation, both individual and generic
approaches.
o Operate a priority-setting system for choosing
chemicals for testing and regulation under TSCA
and other statutes, in conjunction with the
Toxic Substances Priorities Committee.
o Operate a detailed planning system for the
toxic substances program; initiate formal
evaluation; modify program design, as needed,
to increase quality and quantity of output;
develop, jointly with the R&D community,
specific program requirements for high
priority research; examine the need for
major legislative changes in 1981.
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
o Fully operate the premanufacture notification
review process; take actions under sections
5(e) and 5(f) to prevent or control the
manufacture of new chemicals, as required.
o Promulgate the section 4 test rule proposed
in 1979; propose and promulgate additional
test rules.
o Conduct health and environmental effects
assessments, monitoring, and economic
impact analyses to support regulation of
new and existing chemicals.
-------
- 25 -
o Promulgate the section 6 regulations proposed
in 1979 banning or limiting the use of one
chemical; propose section 6 regulations for
several additional existing chemicals.
o Promulgate the section 8(a) information rule
on 2-3,000 chemicals proposed in 1979.
High Priority
o Promulgate final testing guidelines for premanu-
facture notification.
o Propose and promulgate model rules under
section 8 (a); promulgate model rules for
sections 8(c) and 8(d).
o Promulgate the full set of health effects test
standards and the fate and ecological effects
test standards proposed in 1979; propose
additional fate and ecological effects test
standards.
o Futher develop and begin to use generic
follow-up systems for "significant new use
rules" and section 8(a) information rules for
new chemicals.
o Publish the revised chemical substances
inventory; maintain the integrity of the
inventory.
o Develop proposed regulations implementing
generic approaches to regulation under
section 6.
o Begin partial operation of TSCA and inter-
agency chemical information systems and data
bases; continue systems development.
o Review and act expeditiously on carcinogens,
mutagens, and teratogens under section 4(f).
Other
Begin reviewing existing test standards as
required by section 4.
-------
- 26 -
o Begin review of overall economic and
innovation effects of TSCA.
o Provide industry assistance on TSCA require-
ments.
o Continue to develop public participation
programs.
o Support OECD and other planned international
harmonization programs.
TOXICS—1981
General Objectives
o Achieve institutional maturity. From the
organizational perspective:
Have a stable organization in place with
technically and managerially qualified
staff.
From the regulatory perspective:
Fully operate all major program com-
ponents .
Balance emphasis on regulation of new
and existing chemicals.
o Operate an integrated priority-setting system
for choosing chemicals for testing and regu-
lation for TSCA and other statutes, in con-
junction with the Toxic Substances Priorities
Committee.
o Operate a detailed planning and evaluation
system for the toxic substances program;
explore alternatives to established regu-
latory approaches.
o If appropriate, develop and support pro-
posals for major legislative changes.
-------
- 27 -
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
Fully operate the premanufacture notification
review process at an improved level; take
actions under sections 5(e) and 5(f) to pre-
vent or control the manufacture of new chemicals,
as required.
Promulgate and propose regulations under section
6 with greater emphasis on generic approaches,
banning or limiting the use of a significantly
greater number of existing chemicals that pose
unreasonable risks to public health.
Conduct health and environmental effects
assessments, monitoring, and economic impact
analyses to support regulations of new and
existing chemicals.
Continue promulgating rules under sections 4
and 8 to obtain data to support assessment
and regulation.
High Priority
o Revise testing guidelines for premanufacture
notification to provide more specific guidance,
o Complete fate and ecological effects test
standards; review existing test standards
as required by section 4.
o Use routine, generic follow-up systems for
"significant new use rules" and section 8 (a)
information rules for new chemicals.
o Complete chemical information systems
development; operate systems, services, and
data bases at full scale.
Other
o Continue actions under 4(f).
o Maintain industry assistance.
-------
- 28 -
o Continue to develop public participation
programs.
o Support international harmonization programs.
o Continue TSCA overall economic and innovation
impact studies.
o Evaluate and refine operating programs.
PESTICIDES—1979
General Objectives
o Continue the thrust toward institution-building.
From the organizational perspective:
Secure adequate space.
Staff up to budgeted levels with qualified
professional and support personnel, with
special efforts on increasing the number
of women and minorities.
Complete the reorganization; fill senior
line positions.
From the regulatory perspective:
Place more emphasis on completing major
RPAR actions, initiating conditional
registration, establishing the registra-
tion standards process, and making
registration decisions on new chemicals
with adequate hazard data.
- Give less emphasis to large-scale
operation of the registration standards
process.
o Develop management systems for expediting
decisionmaking on high volume operations,
such as registration and registration
standards.
o Develop a detailed program planning system.
o Clarify the regional role in FIFRA implementation.
-------
- 29 -
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
Review benefits and risks of 15-20 RPAR com-
pounds identified as posing potentially
unreasonable adverse effects.
Reach 17-23 final risk/benefit determinations
on RPAR compounds.
Implement the conditional registration program.
Process 25-30 new registrations, 5,000-5,600
administrative/technical amendments and 2,000-
2,500 routine/intrastate registrations in an
efficient, effective manner.
Give registration priority to new chemicals
for which complete hazard data are submitted.
Inititate the preparation of 42-47 generic
standards, including the reassessment of
associated tolerances.
Evaluate the scientific basis of the system
for establishing tolerances, including con-
sideration of inert ingredients in order to
revise tolerance regulations.
High Priority
Provide timely and responsive guidance to the
States relative to their FIFRA section 5(f)
experimental use permits and review 180-240
section 5 registrations in a median turn-
around time of 120 days.
Review 1,000-1,500 section 24(c) special local
needs registrations and conduct overview
activities on their final actions.
Review 170-220 section 18 emergency exemptions
in a median turnaround time of 4 weeks, including
full scientific review of pertinent data.
-------
- 30 -
o Develop proposed guidelines for biological
pesticides.
o Establish 80-120 pesticide residue tolerances
and review 75-100 amendments for food and
animal feed crops after review of data and
risk/benefit analyses in a median turnaround
time of 105 days.
o Accelerate the program to classify pesticides
for restricted use. Aim for completion in
1980.
o Develop and initiate procedures to require
early testing to fill data gaps on existing
compounds instead of waiting until such gaps
are identified in the development of generic
standards.
o Integrate IPM into the RPAR process and into
regulatory actions (e.g., section 18 emergency
exemptions) when technically appropriate.
Other
o Audit 50-70 testing laboratories.
o Develop more precise procedures for handling
confidential business data.
o Conduct training program.
o Improve FOI response procedures, so that all
requests are given an initial response
within 10 days and a final response as
quickly as possible.
o Monitor for hazard prediction and significance
of potential problems.
PESTICIDES—1980
General Objectives
o Continue the thrust toward institution-
building. From the organizational perspective:
Build effective staff teams through
management actions and training.
-------
- 31 -
From the regulatory perspective:
Emphasize completion of the remaining
RPAR reviews, increasing production of
registration standards, and registration
decisions on new pesticide chemicals.
- Initiate reregistration of existing
pesticides.
o Operate priority-setting systems for selection
of chemicals for the registration standard
process and for priority registration decisions.
o Operate a detailed planning system; initiate
formal evaluation; modify program design, as
needed, to increase quantity and quality of
output; develop, jointly with the R&D
community, specific program requirements for
high priority research.
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
o Review benefits and risks of 12-17 RPAR com-
pounds identified as posing potentially un-
reasonable adverse effects.
o Reach 15-20 final risk/benefit determinations
on RPAR compounds.
o Implement the conditional registration
program.
o Give registration priority to new chemicals
for which complete hazard data are submitted.
o Reregister 1,000-1,400 products from available
generic standards.
o Complete the generic standards initiated last
year, and initiate the preparation of 40-50
generic standards, including the reassessment
of associated tolerances.
-------
- 32 -
High Priority
Provide timely and responsive guidance to the
States relative to their section 5(f) experi-
mental use permits, and review 180-240
section 5 registrations in a median turn-
around time of 120 days.
Review 1,000-1,500 section 24(c) special local
needs registrations and conduct overview
activities on their final actions.
Review 170-220 section 18 emergency exemptions
in a median turnaround time of 4 weeks, in-
cluding full scientific review of pertinent
data.
Promulgate guidelines for biological pesticides,
Establish 80-120 pesticide residue tolerances,
and review 75-100 amendments for food and
animal feed crops after review of data and
risk/benefit analyses, in a median turnaround
time of 105 days.
Other
Audit 50-70 laboratories.
Improve FOI response procedures, so that all
requests are given an initial response within
10 days and a final response as quickly as
possible.
Monitor for hazard prediction and significance
of potential problems.
PESTICIDES--1981
General Objectives
Achieve institutional maturity. From the
organizational perspective:
-------
- 33 -
- Have a stable organization in place,
with technically and managerially
qualified staff.
From the regulatory perspective:
Fully operate all major program com-
ponents.
Substantially complete RPAR.
o Operate an integrated priority setting system.
o Operate a detailed planning and evaluation
system.
o Intensify strategy for replacement of older
pesticides with unknown or hazardous effects
with new, safer pesticides and alternative
pest control actions.
Specific Objectives
Highest Priority
o Integrate the RPAR process into the generic
standards production process.
o Give registration priority to innovative,
environmentally protective compounds.
o Reregister 1,000-1,400 products from available
generic standards.
o Complete the generic standards intiated last
year, and initiate the preparation of 40-50
generic standards, including the reassessment
of associated tolerances, with attention to
detail and quality.
High Priority
o Provide timely and responsive guidance to
the States relative to their section 5(f)
experimental use permits, and review 180-240
section 5 registrations in a median turn-
around time of 120 days.
-------
- 34 -
Review 1,000-1,500 section 24(c) special
local needs registrations, and conduct
overview activities on their final actions.
Review 170-220 section 18 emergency
exemptions in a median turnaround time of
4 weeks.
Establish 80-120 pesticide residue tolerances,
and review 75-100 amendments for food and
animal feed crops after review of data
and risk/benefit analyses, in a median turn-
around time of 105 days.
Other
Audit 50-70 laboratories.
Improve FOI response procedures, so that all
requests are given an initial response within
10 days and a final response as quickly as
possible.
Monitor for hazard prediction and significance
of potential problems.
-------
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
Marvin B. Burning, Assistant Administrator
This guidance builds upon the top priority activities
set out for enforcement in the EPA Policy Guidance for
FY 1979/80. The activities described are our top enforce-
ment priorities, not a complete list of all enforcement
activities. These priorities are stated as programmatic
priorities and as management-institutional priorities, but
the two are obviously interrelated.
PROGRAMMATIC PRIORITIES
Enforcement in Emergencies
All EPA, State, and local enforcement personnel should
give top priority to any true emergencies involving sub-
stantial threats to public health and safety. Containment
and removal of the dangers is, of course, the top priority.
Follow-up on penalties for violations can be undertaken in
the course of other enforcement, rather than as an emergency,
This guidance applies, of course, to emergency enforcement
response to hazardous spills.
At this time in FY 1979, EPA personnel have as their
top priority the investigation and prevention of substantial
and imminent hazards created by existing or abandoned
chemical waste sites. Those efforts will continue as facts
may dictate. We expect a large number of civil actions of
this nature in FY 1980 and 1981.
Major Source Enforcement Effort
The major source enforcement effort against violators
of the Air Act and Water Act is our next highest priority
after emergency situations. Enforcement against these major
sources is critically important to accomplishing our environ-
mental goals. It is directed against that small minority of
major sources which failed to meet the requirements of the
Air and Water Acts by the statutory deadlines. It includes
many of the most serious and most recalcitrant sources of
pollution in the country. By bringing these sources into
compliance, with penalties where appropriate, we will keep
-------
- 36 -
faith with the great majority of firms and public bodies
which met their responsibilities and will build the
confidence necessary to continue voluntary compliance
with all the environmental laws.
In FY 1980, Regions and States will bring the major
source enforcement actions to decision by settlement,
administrative process, or court trial, including
appropriate penalties, and make or defend appeals. By
the end of FY 1980, the major source drive should be
nearly completed, with only a few actions and appeals
still pending in trial or appellate courts. In FY 1981,
actions and appeals still pending should be completed as
rapidly as possible.
Enforcement against Automobile and Truck Pollution
Because of the great public health and environmental
significance of air pollution from automobiles and trucks,
especially in urban areas, enforcement against mobile
sources of pollution will continue to be a top enforcement
priority in FY 80/81.
EPA enforcement will continue to ensure that new
vehicles meet emission standards. We will increase our
emphasis on maintaining the effectiveness of emission
control systems throughout the period of their use. To
achieve this, EPA's main emphasis will be on inspection
and maintenance systems in the major nonattainment areas
for auto-related pollutants, supplemented with Head-
quarters audits and I/M programs.
o To ensure that new vehicles meet standards, EPA
enforcement will continue our assembly line
audits, recall and warranty efforts.
o To ensure that cars in use meet standards and to
support introduction of inspection and maintenance
systems where needed, EPA will continue to focus
investigations and enforcement actions (a) on
national or regional fleets, chains, dealership or
repair facilities, or "pattern" violations and (b)
in major metropolitan areas where auto pollution
is high and I&M will be introduced. EPA will
encourage State and local anti-fuel switching and
anti-tampering efforts.
-------
- 37 -
We will use private, State, or local contracts to
carry out inspections to ensure the availability and purity
of unleaded gasoline, and the installation and operation of
vapor recovery systems on fuel delivery trucks and at
gasoline outlets.
EPA and the States, in cooperation with other agencies,
will implement any programs authorized to control the
leaded-unleaded gas price differential and other authorized
environmental/energy programs.
Consolidated and Simplified Permitting
EPA is consolidating its permit programs, both to
simplify administrative steps and to get all important
environmental problems addressed in a single process. By
October 1, 1979, companies will be able to submit just
one application for all water, solid and hazardous waste
permits, go through one review, and be issued one permit.
We expect application forms for air quality permits to be
consolidated in late FY 1980 (or early FY 1981). NPDES
second round permits under the Clean Water Act will be
issued throughout FY 1980/81. We will begin to issue
hazardous waste permits in late FY 1980, accelerating in
FY 1981. We will also start issuing Underground Injection
permits in FY 1981.
In all permitting activities, we will give first
priority to large or major sources with serious adverse
health effects, including those with significant toxic
discharges.
Full Federal Compliance
President Carter has directed all Federal facilities
to come quickly into compliance with Federal, State, and
local environmental requirements.
By the end of 1980, we expect all, or almost all,
Federal facilities both major and minor sources will be
in compliance. Regions should see to it that all Federal
facilities do indeed come into compliance as soon as
possible. EPA will ensure that Federal agencies request
necessary funds for compliance by reviewing the agencies
plans included in the annual A-106 report.
-------
- 38 -
EPA is encouraging the States to assume these respon-
sibilities for Federal facilities. The States should
find the managers of Federal facilities cooperative. EPA
will assist the States in getting any disputes resolved.
Stationary Sources
Completing the Major Source Enforcement Effort contin-
ues to be of highest priority in FY 1980/81, including the
monitoring of compliance orders to ensure that sources comply
with the terms of the orders. We also want to ensure that
major sources comply with new requirements placed on them
by SIP revisions and by the ambient standards for lead, and
to enforce new source performance standards and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
As the Major Source Enforcement Effort is completed in
FY 1979/80, EPA will design and implement an improved program
of compliance monitoring and enforcement to ensure continuous
compliance.
During FY 1979, regulations will be promulgated for
administrative assessment of noncompliance penalties under
Section 120 of the Clean Air Act. This program should be
fully implemented during the second half of FY 1979 and
throughout FY 1980/81. Prompt implementation of these
penalties should assist in obtaining and maintaining
compliance with the Air Act.
Water Enforcement
Completion of the Major Source Enforcement Effort,
including actions against publicly owned treatment works
(POTW's), continues to be of highest priority in FY 1980/81.
As this effort is completed, EPA will design and implement
an improved program of compliance monitoring and enforcement
to ensure continuous compliance.
Beginning in FY 1979 and growing in importance in
FY 1980/81 will be advice and assistance to delegated States
so that State pretreatment programs can be established and
the conditions of those programs enforced. During FY 1981
the activities of assisting and advising States and POTW's,
modifying permits to incorporate pretreatment requirements,
approving POTW treatment programs, notifying affected
indirect dischargers, and determining treatment levels
should be at their peak level and of prime importance if we
are to achieve compliance by all affected POTW's and indirect
dischargers by FY 1983 or FY 1984. NPDES permits will be
issued as part of the consolidated permits program.
-------
- 39 -
Strategies for New Programs (TSCA, RCRA, SDWA, FIFRA)
In recent years, Congress has provided new programs
and has amended existing statutes to respond to the threats
of chemical poisons, hazardous wastes, and pesticides, and
to protect drinking water supplies. We must carefully
devise or revise enforcement strategies under the additional
provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the
amended provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the hazardous waste provisions
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Under RCRA, our priority enforcement activities in
FY 1980/81, in addition to responding to emergencies,
include monitoring and enforcing the notification program
(Section 3010); reviewing proposed State programs for
enforceability and adequacy; issuing permits, monitoring
permitted sites, and ensuring that Compliance Schedules
are met; and monitoring and enforcing the manifest
systems.
Under TSCA, our compliance monitoring and enforcement
will initially focus on PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, inventory
requirements and to premanufacturing notice requirements.
We will continue our special investigative efforts regarding
the accuracy and truthfulness of laboratory test data in
the toxics and pesticides programs.
Under FIFRA, during FY 1980/81 EPA will attempt to
develop cooperative enforcement grant programs with the
remaining seven States (for a total of 50) and will
continue to enforce regulations on pesticide use until
States assume this responsibility.
Under SDWA, EPA will respond to emergency situations
threatening public health and will concentrate on enforce-
ment of primary drinking water standards, particularly in
non-primary States.
Noise Control
The noise enforcement program will continue to ensure
compliance with standards and requirements for products and
procedural labeling as its top priority. Although urban
noise can often be controlled through State and local efforts,
it continues to be a Federal responsibility to ensure that
products meet the standards established under the Noise Act.
EPA Headquarters will carry out this function.
-------
- 40 -
MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES
In addition to the preceding programmatic priorities,
we have a number of management and institutional improve-
ments as top priorities. These improvements have to some
degree already been described in the programmatic priorities
and they obviously interrelate with them.
o Consolidated Permitting — EPA will consolidate
and simplify its permitting activities, mostly
during FY 1979 and totally by the end of FY 1980.
It will assist and encourage States to do so as
well.
o Industry Enforcement Strategies -- During FY 1979
and FY 1980 EPA will develop and implement industry
enforcement strategies for selected industries.
o Continuous Compliance — We will develop programs
for ensuring continuous compliance by regulated
sources, including compliance monitoring (and
information systems for recording and tracking
compliance), penalties to remove the economic
benefit of non-compliance and remote sensing
techniques.
o Improved Oversight of State Enforcement -- During
FY 1979 and thereafter, Headquarters and Regional
personnel will begin to apply standards of perfor-
mance to State enforcement activities under all
Federal grants or contracts for enforcement.
o Management and Management Information Systems --
During FY 1979 and FY 1980 as needed, we will
review our management, reporting, and information
systems (including ADP systems). Our emphasis will
be on improved accuracy, usefulness, simplicity,
and compatability.
o Improved Cooperation with Other Agencies --
During FY 1979, 1980, and 1981, we will improve
our cooperation with other agencies, such as the
Department of Justice, the other members of the
IRLG (OSHA, FDA, and CPSC), the Securities Exchange
Commission (SEC), and the Departments of Energy and
Interior.
-------
- 41 -
Innovative Methods — Throughout FY 1979, 1980,
and 1981 the Office of Enforcement will explore
innovations such as widened use of penalties to
remove economic benefits of delay, environmental
auditing, and contracts or grants with citizen
groups.
Investigating Criminal Violations — During
FY 1980/81 EPA enforcement will improve its
ability to investigate criminal violations of
environmental laws by recruiting and training
EPA investigative personnel.
-------
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
Stephen J. Gage, Assistant Administrator
During the next two years, three major objectives will
be driving the Environmental Protection Agency's research
and development program: (1) continuing the integration of
the Office of Research and Development into the mainstream
of the Agency's activities, (2) enhancing the Office's
capability to provide the scientific and technological data
the Agency will use for future regulatory and enforcement
actions, and (3) improving that data through scientific peer
review of research procedures and results, quality control
of risk assessments, and quality assurance of monitoring
data.
Much of the groundwork for achieving these objectives
has been laid during the past year. The Research Committees
have been quite successful in planning research in five
critical areas jointly with the Program Offices. A signifi-
cant Public Health Research Initiative ($37 million, 46
positions) was developed and successfully defended with
OMB through the cross-agency zero-based budgeting for toxics.
A new Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, building
on the successful experiences in scientific assessments by
the Carcinogen Assessment Group and the Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, has been proposed. Other
developments have also built a good foundation for future
action.
INTEGRATING ORD INTO THE AGENCY'S MAINSTREAM
Joint planning of the Agency's research and development
activities through the five pilot Research Committees already
provides a very valuable linkage between the regulatory
program offices responsible for developing regulations and
the ORD scientists and engineers supporting the regulatory
efforts. During early 1979, we will establish seven new
Research Committees to cover the joint planning of sub-
stantially all of the research in support of regulation and
enforcement. Each of the 12 committees will be specifically
oriented to the users of the research information, typically
Program Office Deputy Assistant Administrators or, in some
instances, Division Directors (see Attachment A).
-------
- 43 -
The new Research Committees will develop multi-year
research strategies oriented toward supporting regulatory
needs; identify research outputs required within the next
budget year (now beginning the FY 1981 cycle); seek the
required resources through the Agency's ZBB process; and
monitor and evaluate ongoing and completed research. We
must make special efforts during this formative period
to bring more fully the Agency's enforcement and Regional
programs into the joint planning process. In the interest
of cost-effectiveness, it will be necessary for the Regional
Offices to coordinate their participation and share respon-
sibility for representing Regional interests in the Research
Committee; ORD will support the Regional Offices in this
effort.
We will continue to experiment cautiously with matrix
management approaches as a means of improving the coordi-
nation and delivery of high-visibility, short-term research
outputs. Matrix management of the diesel emissions program
will continue, and we will consider establishing a limited
number of similar programs, such as in Acid Precipitation.
Closely related to the evolution of the joint research
plannng approach is the long-overdue simplification of
ORD'S planning and reporting systems. We must take this
step to bring ORD's planning and management approaches into
synchronization with (1) the five-year plan developed in the
preparation of the Agency's Research Outlook, (2) the multi-
year plans developed by the Research Committees, and (3) the
Agency's ZBB review and decisions. We must also eliminate
the redundant paperwork that absorbs too much ORD staff time,
In order to improve accountability for the research
and development efforts, we must bring into operation a
reliable tracking system for the critical outputs required
by the Program Offices as identified by the Research
Committees. As a corollary, we must also reduce to a
manageable number the outputs to be tracked. While we must
have adequate information to monitor progress of the key
outputs, we must vigorously resist spending too much time
and effort reporting preliminary and fragmented data. Good
research management means monitoring the right indicators,
not all of the possible indicators, of orderly progress
toward objectives. Too much reporting together with
overspecification of research investments will counterpro-
ductively tie the hands of the research managers and stifle
innovative research. Management flexibility must, of
course, be coupled with accountability.
-------
- 44 -
With the increased pressure for higher quality manage-
ment of several key research areas, we will be realigning
the laboratory reporting relationships to consolidate
functional or discipline groupings. These changes, which
should improve morale and productivity, will allow us to
improve the implementation of the Agency's research efforts.
Specifically, the realignment will establish an office for
health effects research management; an office to integrate
environmental transport, fate, and effects research; and an
office to integrate control technology and hazardous waste
research.
BUILDING A RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR AN IMPROVED DATA BASE
We made important progress in the past year in starting
the long-term process of building a foundation for a signifi-
cantly improved scientific and technological data base for
the future regulatory and enforcement actions of the Agency.
Planning and budgeting the Public Health Research Initiative
was a critical first step, but it was only a beginning.
We must now commit ourselves to the detailed planning
and implementation of the Initiative. Since the Initiative
represents the first significant expansion of the Agency's
basic environmental health sciences, we must wisely dedicate
it to achieving a solid understanding of human health effects
caused by both direct and indirect environmental exposures.
Because we will be drawing heavily on scientific talent in
the private sector to assist us in this effort, we must
begin immediately to seek the best scientific advice
available to help us in this planning effort.
The second critical step, a broad environmental
research initiative, must be taken immediately. Because
of the heightened awareness in the Administration of
EPA's requirements for the best scientific and techno-
logical data that can be developed for the Agency's
comprehensive environmental regulations, we now have an
excellent opportunity to seek a government-wide review of
environmental research. This review will focus on how
existing and future Federal resources can support broader
based, longer term environmental research to build an
improved data base. We must assume the leadership in
developing the conceptual framework for such efforts,
bringing to bear on the program design the best scientific
advice available. We must look to the Agency's Science
Advisory Board, the President's Office of Science and
-------
- 45 -
Technology Policy, and the National Academy of Sciences as
well as numerous individual scientists in this comprehensive
planning and review effort. We are now in the process of
developing a select set of initiatives for 1981 and beyond,
focusing on protecting humans from environmentally mitigated
pollutants; identifying and protecting critical components
of ecosystems from injury; and addressing the more global
problems of protecting our life support systems.
In parallel with these activities, we must carefully
review the longer-term research already underway in ORD to
assure ourselves that we are directing our attentions to
the most important future problems and are using the best
scientific talent we can attract to work on these problems.
We must determine if we are obtaining high quality, well-
documented results from our research grants -- the primary
mechanism we have for supporting innovative ideas. We must
make the scientific community more widely aware of our
research grants, encourage much greater competition for
those grants, and ensure that they are awarded strictly on
the basis of merit through enhanced peer review. We should
also see if alternative approaches for handling these longer
term grants can relieve the burdensome monitoring loads
placed on the individual laboratory researchers.
An invigorated, competitive grant program for longer-
term research in each research area, coupled with an expanded
Anticipatory Research Program, will provide the Agency with
an important new base of exploratory research. It is
essential that, with the significant infusion of new funding
associated with the Public Health Research Initiative, we do
not waste this opportunity to build a firmer foundation with
the help of the best scientific talent available in the
country.
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF DATA USED IN DECISION MAKING
Scientific and technological data come in many forms
and in varying quality. The credibility and integrity of
all data used in Agency decisions is a prerequisite for
any analyses. The evaluation and synthesis of the data is
an essential step in informing the many far-reaching
regulatory decisions. We have made significant progress
during the last year in providing carcinogenic risk
assessments for the Program Offices and in improving the
capability of ORD to prepare Air and Water Quality criteria
documents by establishing the new Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Offices in Research Triangle Park and Cincinnati.
-------
- 46 -
We have not yet, however, undertaken the special
responsibility assigned by the Administrator to provide
quality control of the Agency's risk assessments. With
approval of ORD's new Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment (OHEA), we must now move ahead, first to quickly
develop guidelines for the several types of risk assessments
required for the Agency's regulation development, and then
to exercise oversight to ensure that the asssessments
prepared by the Program Offices conform reasonably to the
guidelines. We must also proceed to staff OHEA with the
best qualified people we can attract from the scientific
community, significantly upgrading in this process ORD's
capability to provide consultation to the Program Offices
and, upon request, assessments of specific chemicals.
Although we in ORD have discussed the role of peer
review extensively during the past year, we must now
act in the coming year to build into all of the Agency's
scientific and technological efforts appropriate review
mechanisms. We must begin with enhanced peer review for
individual research projects. The ORD senior laboratory
management must convey to the professional staff strong
support for and assistance in periodic external peer
review of individual projects. Whenever feasible, the
results of individual projects should be subjected to
rigorous scientific or technological scruntiny through
publication in referred journals. We should also see
that the results of our grants and contracts are published
in peer-reviewed journals, slowing the growth of that body
of EPA-published "gray literature" which now constitutes
the only publication channel for too much of our work.
Publication of research results in the peer-reviewed
literature must become an important criterion for advance-
ment in all of our laboratories.
In addition to peer review of individual research
efforts, we must systematically review our research programs,
While such reviews may begin at the laboratory level, it is
usually more appropriate to conduct them at the level of the
Deputy Assistant Administrators or even of the Assistant
Administrator. Since the Research Committees will be
providing the primary focus for the bulk of our research
activities, it is logical that we direct our attention
increasingly to programmatic reviews along the lines of the
committees. We should also be mindful of other mutually
supporting programmatic areas which may provide results for
several committees, such as biological screening tests,
analytical methodologies, etc.
-------
- 47 -
Finally, we have been expanding in the past year our
efforts to provide support to Agency laboratories for
quality assurance of environmental monitoring data. We must
now assume the lead for improving the quality assurance of
all of the environmental monitoring data used in the Agency's
decisions. We must first make sure our house is in order
by requiring adequate quality assurance practices for all
environmental quality monitoring, sampling, and analytical
activities conducted in the ORD laboratories or by our
contractors or grantees. This policy should become effective
immediately. We must also require, through the Blue Ribbon
Monitoring Task Force, similar quality assurance practices
for all of the Agency's laboratories, contractors, and
grantees. Lastly, we must work closely with the Regional
Offices to bring quality assurance practices into uniform
use in all of the State and local laboratories, which
provide the bulk of the environmental quality data available
to the Agency.
-------
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Overview Statement of Priorities and Goals
William Drayton, Jr., Assistant Administrator
The Agency's central management objective remains that
of creating a national environmental program that derives
strength and initiative from decentralization and purposive-
ness and environmental coherence from effective integration.
Toward these and other ends we must strengthen our analytic
and common services in a number of areas. This guidance
deals first with that central objective, then with other
objectives connected with our analytic and common services.
AN INTEGRATED,
DECENTRALIZED PROGRAM
From its inception EPA rejected the top-down, over-
centralized, untrusting Louis XIV/Herbert Hoover form of
management common to most government organizations, a form
that has failed. Instead we are building on the philosophy
of the Federalist Papers: decentralize and democratize
within a realistic set of incentives designed to ensure
organizationally responsible results.
Not only are we doing what makes sense for EPA, but
we're setting the pace for others. That's why others in
the government have quickly recognized so many of our
reforms as models.
No matter how satisfying being out front is, however,
it doesn't make ground breaking any easier. Although
we've come a long way, we still have several years of
intense work ahead of us:
(1) We should continue to strengthen our regulation
development and zero-base budgeting. They
provide the structure that makes possible broad
involvement in the Agency's two principal cross-
cutting areas for decision making: respectively,
(a) regulation and policy development and (b)
priority setting, management, and resource allo-
cation. Regulation development is mature, and
ZBB is over the worst of its start-up pains.
Both need continuing adjustment and strong support,
-------
- 49
The Regions should contribute more heavily to
regulation development and review, especially
regarding operational and resource issues.
Last year ZBB focused heavily on process;
henceforth it should focus more on substantive
analysis: getting workload analysis fully
implemented, finding efficiencies, developing
new program initiatives, and re-examining older
programs carefully. We must also continue to
help Office of Management and Budget develop
cross-agency ZBB.
(2) We need both stronger State programs and
stronger State/EPA collaboration. State and
local officials now staff 85 percent of the
national environmental regulatory effort, and
we are seeking to delegate even more. We must
strengthen our joint environmental management
effort, especially in the following areas:
We have more than doubled the Federal grant
support to State and local units since 1977
(including the addition of the Clean Water
Act, Section 205(g) funds).
Our new State/EPA agreements should become
more than contracts: they should induce
joint planning and they should press
decision making up to the senior policy
officials on both sides. 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 implement
our Integrated Environmental Assistance
legislation to give the States the flexibility
and added resources for such refocusing,
innovation, and integration.
We should encourage personnel interchange
and training, e.g., through group IPA's.
(3) 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
-------
- 50 -
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
decentralization and EPA's linkage with State
and local government are at risk. Headquarters
analytic units must help the Regions develop
this capacity, and both sides should build
strong, continuing ties.
(4) Our managers should adopt Agency-wide career
paths. True independence, based ultimately
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
management team with Agency-wide environmental
perspective and loyalty, a critical step in our
successful integration.
(5) The Agency's grantees, programs, and managers
should be held accountable for their perfor-
mance. We do not do this core management task
at all well now. Our new personnel performance
evaluation and reward program -- probably our
most demanding management reform for the next
12 to 18 months — will make major difference.
Our review of monitoring and the new Regional
Profiles may help. OUr fundamental scrutiny
and rationalization of our many computer-based
information systems will help. A systematic
regiment of evaluations beginning at the local
and State levels and working up is critical.
Such evaluations should be backed by a informed
reporting system and tied to the promises made
in ZBB. Designing and implementing a practical,
integrated, limited-cost way of holding the
States' and our own decentralized managers
accountable is a difficult, missing part of our
management construction.
RESPONSIVE,
EFFICIENT SERVICES
We will continue implementing a number of fundamental
improvements in the Agency's services in 1980-81:
-------
- 51 -
(1) We must begin to manage EPA's personnel. The
new Civil Service Reform Act only makes this
possible: we will have to make it happen by
changing the way each of our managers does his
or her most important job.
(2) We will begin pilot tests of contracting reform
in 1979 to improve responsiveness and cut
processing time.
(3) The Agency will commit to new computers after
a thorough management review of our data needs
and of our existing and planned programs.
A SMART AGENCY
Our analytic services -- directly supporting our top
managers, helping prepare regulations, checking budget
pricing, providing legal or economic analyses, negotiating
with other agencies, and the like -- must keep up with a
growing workload and maintain a superior level of pro-
fessional 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 tools
for regulatory decision making, including benefits analysis,
Once we set a standard for controlled trading of
clean-up requirements, we can allow those we regulate to
find more efficient ways of achieving the same (o : better)
environmental result. These alternatives must also be as
administrable and enforceable as our initial approach.
Offsets (in both non-attainment and PSD areas), the bubble,
banking, brokerage, and perhaps marketable rights should
gradually all fit together into an increasingly important
complement to traditional "command and control" regulation.
If we can make this approach work on a wide scale, we will
provide our first positive incentive for control technology
innovation and significantly reduce clean-up costs (and
therefore resistance to clean-up).
-------
- 52 -
To strengthen both performance and accountability
we should strengthen our program evaluation capacity at
all levels. We should also play a stronger leadership
role in Administration debates on both economic and energy
policies; the best defense is a more sensible alternative.
-------
AIR STATE GUIDANCE
-------
AIR
MEDIA OVERVIEW
Planning Assumptions
New Source Review (NSR) — In FY 80, most States
will have EPA approved State Implementation Plans
for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD).
During FY 80, Regional Offices will curtail their
review of PSD permit applications with the princi-
pal Regional Office role in FY 81 being one of
maintaining an overview of State and Local pro-
grams with little or no direct EPA permit issuance.
EPA will make maximum utilization of contractor
support in conducting required permit review acti-
vities in 1980 until State plans are approved and
will utilize Section 105 grant funds to secure such
assistance.
Headquarters and Regional Offices will provide
specific expertise and interpretation of Agency
policy and guidance (ex. modelling) to States in
implementing the PSD program. In addition, the
Regional overview function in FY 81 will give par-
ticular attention to assuring consistency between
adjoining States. The Regional Offices with
assistance from Headquarters will be involved
in mediating/arbitrating issues relative to inter-
state impact on growth plans and use of the increment
particularly in high growth areas.
The promulgation of regulations expanding PSD
requirements to include carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, and volatile organic compound emissions
will be completed by Office of Air, Noise, and
Radiation (OANR) by the end of FY 80. OANR will
support the States efforts to insure consistent
policy in the review of new source permits and
control technology determinations by maintaining
a clearinghouse for these decisions.
During FY 80/81, the number of New Source Performance
Standard promulgations by OANR will be greatly
increased. These new emission limits will provide a
general basis for determining required case-by-case
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) by either
the State or Regional Office for sources subject
to PSD.
-------
- 56 -
In those States not delegated New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) or having an
approved SIP for PSD, Regional Offices will con-
tinue to verify the compliance and initiate enforce-
ment action against new sources including Federal
facilities subject to NSR requirements which are in
violation of procedural, permit, or emission require-
ments.
The Office of Air, Noise and Radiation and the
Office of Enforcement in FY 80 will develop procedures
for the overview and audit of State new source review
activities including engineering determinations,
modelling, public notification, surveillance, and
enforcement to assure new source compliance with both
procedural and emission requirements. This review
will also include adequacy of procedures for tracking
increment utilization, growth and impact on air
quality including Reasonable Further Progress in
attaining standards.
The consolidation of EPA new source permitting
programs will continue in 1980. Inclusion of the
air permits into the consolidated program where
direct Regional Office permitting activities are
still necessary will occur in FY 81.
Carbon Monoxide and Ozone (C0/0?) — During FY 80,
the review and possible revision of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO will
be completed. It is expected that if there is a
revision to the CO standard, it will not signicantly
change the number of major urban nonattainment areas
where the development and implementation of trans-
portation measures (including automobile inspection/
maintenance (I/M)) by the States would be necessary to
attain the standard by 1987.
In FY 80 followup actions to remedy deficiencies in
the 1978 SIP submissions will be completed by most
States and reviewed by Regional Offices. Also, the
schedules contained in the 1979 SIP for developing
mandatory I/M programs, conducting a transportation
control planning process, and enacting additional
volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations consis-
tent with the Control Technology Guideline (CTG)
documents will be met by most States in both FY 80/81.
Regional Offices will track the progress of States
in meeting these schedules with major guidance being
-------
- 57 -
provided in the development of the transportation
planning process in urban areas greater than 1,000,000
population, and the development of mandatory I/M
programs. The appropriation by Congress of any
additional Section 175 monies for support of the
transportation planning process is not expected in
FY 80 or 81.
Development of a regional ozone model will be completed
by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in
FY 81 with support from OANR. The model will serve
as a major tool in developing the appropriate strat-
egies by States for inclusion in the 1982 SIP sub-
mission for those major urban nonattainment areas
having an extension that are experiencing extensive
air quality violations and which will require imple-
mentation of complex and costly control measures to
attain by 1987. Use of the model will require in
FY 1980 the development by the States of extensive
data bases within these areas (i.e., emissions, air
quality, meteorology). The establishment of National
Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) for ozone and the
quality assurance of the data from these stations
should be completed by the States to provide the
ambient data necessary for model application.
Verification of compliance and initiation of necessary
enforcement action by the States against existing
stationary sources subject to the new VOC emission
limits included in the 1979 SIP and the additional
regulations required to be enacted by January 1980
will commence. Regional Offices will work with
States to develop a strategy for these sources and
oversee State efforts to verify and secure compliance.
The Regions will initiate necessary enforcement action
where States fail or cannot act or request EPA
assistance. The 1979 SIP is expected to increase
the number of major VOC sources subject to the SIP
by 3,000 with an estimated 6,000-8,000 additional
sources anticipated by the end of FY 81.
In FY 80, enforcement by EPA of anti-tampering and
fuel switching requirements in areas requiring man-
datory I/M programs will be initiated by Mobile
Source Enforcement Division (MSED). These actions
will assist in reducing the costs to the public of
passing a mandatory vehicle inspection. States will
be encouraged to enforce existing State anti-tampering
or fuel switching regulations or to develop regu-
lations if none exist.
-------
- 58 -
In FY 80, both EPA Regional Offices and the States
will establish more effective measures for informing
the public and securing public participation in the
strategy development and implementation process
particularly as it relates to the transportation
planning process and mandatory I/M programs.
Procedures will be established and implemented by
OANR to insure consistent application of sanctions
nationwide as required by Sections 176 and 316 of
the Clean Air Act where States fail to enact or
carry out necessary controls for the attainment of
NAAQS.
The development and promulgation of additional mobile
source emission standards required by the Clean Air
Act will be completed by OANR in FY 80.
Total Suspended Particulates and Sulfur Oxides
(TSP and S0y) — In FY 80, the required review of
NAAQS for TSP and S02 will be completed by OANR with
necessary revisions to be promulgated by EPA in FY 81.
The review of the TSP standard may result in the
promulgation of new primary ambient standard for
inhalable particulates (IP) and subsequent secondary
ambient standards for sulfates and fine particulates
during FY 81. The modification and promulgation of
additional TSP/S02 standards will require major State
efforts to revise the SIP in FY 81 with completion
required in FY 82. In FY 80, efforts to refine the
definition of the nature and extent of the TSP prob-
lem in urban nonattainment areas where re-entrained
fugitive dust is a major element will be conducted
by both ORD and the States in anticipation of the
new standards.
By the beginning of FY 80, all State or EPA-initiated
civil/criminal actions associated with the Major Source
Enforcement Effort (predominantly TPS and S02 sources)
will have been undertaken with decisions either by
settlement, administrative process, or trial completed
by the end of FY 80 and disposition of appeals com-
pleted as early as possible in FY 81. The compliance
of Federal facilities with existing SIP requirements
will also be completed by EPA or the States by the
end of FY 80. States in FY 80 will assume a larger
role in securing and maintaining the compliance of
Federal facilities.
-------
- 59 -
Delegation to the States of the non-compliance
penalty program (Section 120) initiated by EPA in
FY 79 will be undertaken in FY 80 and accelerated
in FY 81. It is estimated that the program will be
delegated to 15 percent of the States in FY 80 and
to 30 percent in FY 81.
In those cases where the States have not accepted
delegation for the non-compliance penalty program by
FY 81, Section 105 grant funds will be utilized by
EPA for implementing the program. These funds will
provide contractor assistance for implementing the
program to minimize impact on available EPA resources
in assessing penalties.
In FY 80/81 new programs devoted to ensuring that
major TSP/S02 sources that have obtained or are
presently in compliance remain in compliance will be
initiated both by EPA and the States. OE will
complete development of an improved program in FY 80
in consultation with the States and then secure
State plans for implementing the improved program
with the States focusing first on a limited number of
selected troublesome sources.
Toxics -- During FY 1980/81 emphasis on control of
hazardous pollutants will increase as result of the
Air Carcinogen Policy. Promulgation of NESHAP
standards will be accelerated. NESEAPS for benzene
and arsenic are currently planned for FY 1Q80/R1.
Goals/Priorities/Obj ectives
The goal of the program is to protect public health
and welfare through a combination of national efforts
which provide for consistent and timely progress in
rectifying existing air pollution problems and avoiding
new ones.
With respect to priorities, States were required to
submit revised Implementation Plans in January 1979
outlining their strategies for attaining ambient air
quality standards in designated nonattainment areas.
High priority will be given to correcting deficiencies
in these SIPS and to providing adequate guidance to
States in developing and implementing additional pro-
grams required for the attainment of standards. High
priority will also be given to review of ambient air
quality standards and development of supporting
analyses for revisions to the standards.
-------
- 60 -
Emphasis will be given to a program obtaining State
acceptance of full responsibility of all New Source
Review activities, providing adequate guidance for
development of PSD SIPs and maintaining an effective
national clearinghouse for NSR decisions. The
clearinghouse will be used by both Regions/States to
assure consistent policy in conducting NSR.
The NSPS program will receive increased funding in
FY 80, thereby allowing work to begin on all NSPS
on schedules consistent with the statutory deadline.
When an Air Carcinogen Policy has been established,
development of NESHAPS consistent with that policy
will become a priority item.
In FY 80 priority will be given to establishment of
technically sound NAMS/SLAMS and implementation of
quality assurance measures to establish increased
credibility to air data.
Development of regulations for PSD Set II and
visibility will receive priority in FY 80.
The highest priority in the mobile source program is
the support of I/M implementation by States and the
development of requisite technical information on
evolving aspects of I/M programs, such as its appli-
cability to newer technology control systems. Also
of importance will be the completion of the standard-
setting activities mandated by the Clean Air Act, and
the implementation of controls necessary to assure
public health protection.
During FY 1980, many standard-setting activities will
result in final rulemaking. It is expected that
during FY 1981 the standard-setting program will shift
its priority focus to the control of hazardous pollu-
tants, bioactive materials, and emissions under non-
FTP conditions.
Enforcement priorities include:
o Enforcement actions in emergency situations
involving substantial threats to public
health and safety.
o Major Source Enforcement Effort against
violators of the Clean Air Act.
-------
- 61 -
o Enforcement against automibile/truck pollution.
anti-tampering
- fuel switching
inspection and maintenance program
o Fuel compliance by Federal Facilities.
o Review for enforceability in FY 1980/81 with
respect to any continuing SIP revision work
o Section 120 noncompliance penalities
o Major source compliance with SIP revisions, and
enforcement of MSPS and NESHAPS
o Improved program of compliance monitoring and
enforcement to assure continuous compliance
Regional priorities are set forth in the Regional Guidance
section.
The objectives of the Air Program Regional Activities in
1980 and 1981 are to:
o Assure attainment of standards in accord with
the approved SIP schedules
o Assure consistent application of the law in all
States
o Increase the State responsibilities in new source
review
o Initiate enforcement actions in all appropriate
emergency situations
o Complete all civil/criminal action associated
with the Major Source Enforcement Effort
o Implement effective inspection and maintenance,
anti-tampering, and fuel switching program
o Initiate civil/criminal actions and impose
noncompliance penalties against all appropriate
major sources in violation of SIP standards,
NSPS, and NESHAPS
o Perform annual evaluations/audits of State
enforcement programs
-------
- 62 -
o Improve and have at least quarterly updates of
CDS
o Assure full compliance by Federal Facilities
o Followup on all enforcement actions and
compliance schedules
-------
- 63 -
STATE GUIDANCE
Major Program Priorities for State/Local Programs
The Administrator's Policy Guidance, Policy Overviews
prepared by the Assistant Administrators for the Office
of Air, Noise and Radiation and the Office of Enforcement,
and discussions with the Office of Research and Development
have identified major national priorities for State and
Local programs for FY 80:
Effectively Enforce Existing Emission Limitations
0 Respond to Emergency Situations involving
major threats to Public Health
0 Complete Major Source Enforcement Effort
Against Existing Sources
0 Enforce Anti-Tampering and Fuel Switching
Provisions in Areas Requiring I/M Programs
0 Develop and Implement Programs for Assessing
Non-Compliance Penalties consistent with
Section 120 of the Act
0 Accept Delegation for Enforcement of New
Source Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
0 Assure Compliance of Major Sources with New
SIP Requirements
0 Develop and Implement Continuous Compliance
Program Plan Focusing on Selected Troublesome
Sources
Complete SIP 's and Assume Responsibility for Managing
Air Quality
0 Modify and Correct Conditionally Approved
or Disapproved Sanctionable SIPs
-------
- 64 -
o Comply with 1979 SIP Schedule Schedules (and com-
mitments) to Develop Additional Controls to
Attain Standards, including Inspection/Main-
tenance, Transportation Measures, Volatile
Organic Compounds Regulation, and Studies for
Urban Fugitive Dust.
o Develop Approval SIP for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
o Maintain Effective New Source Review (NSR)
Program
o Develop SIP for Lead especially for Primary
Lead Smelters
o Develop Effective Public Information and
Participation Program
Collect Quality Ambient Monitoring and Emissions
Data
o Develop State Air Monitoring Plan
o Establish, Operate, and Quality Assure National
Air Monitoring Network Stations (NAMS)
o Replace Non-Equivalent Reference Monitors
o Collect Data for Special Ozone Dispersion
Modelling Efforts to Support 1982 SIP
o Establish, Operate, and Quality Assure State/
Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
o Validate Potentially Anomalous Data
o Conduct Annual Review of State Network
o Conduct Limited Special Purpose Monitoring in
Selected Urban Nonattainment Areas for Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP)
o Review of Ambient Networks proposed by New
Sources Seeking PSD Permit
o Submit Source Data to National Emissions Data
System (NEDS)
o Update Emissions Inventory for All
Nonattainment Areas
-------
- 65 -
The State/Local annual program plan for FY 80 nego-
tiated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will define the task needed to accomplish the national
priorities. EPA Regional Offices may supplement these
national priorities as well as this state guidance
with State specific guidance. Further, the Regional
Offices may provide more detailed information concerning
priorities and expected accomplishments. Likewise, State
and Local agencies have the flexibility to negotiate
priorities and commitments with EPA Regional Offices
which augment or replace national priorities provided
the national priorities pertinent to the agency's
responsibilities under the Clean Air Act are adequately
addressed.
As indicated in the Clean Air Act, the development
and implementation of SIPS, are clearly the responsibility
of State and Local governments. This includes the en-
forcement of SIP strategies for the attainment and main-
tenance of national standards as well as the prevention
of significant deterioration. To the extent that EPA
Regional Offices employ resources if they are required
to act in these areas, air program grant monies appro-
priated under Section 105 of the Act will be used. Dur-
ing the negotiation the State or Local agency and the EPA
Regional Office may determine that contractual assistance
would be appropriate for the achievement of certain prior-
ities or tasks. In such cases, Section 105 monies would
be used to support such contractor effort.
Existing EPA/State agreements should be consulted
to assure that long range strategies and schedules con-
tained in the agreements are consistent with the
national priorities described in this guidance and the
negotiated State/Local program plan.
Principal State/Local Activities - Air Quality Management
Develop/Enact VOC Regulations — In accordance with
the requirements set forth in the Administrator's
policy memorandum of February 24, 1978, concerning
State development of attainment SIPs, each State,
in FY 80, having ozone nonattainment areas should
assess and develop regulations (if sources exist)
for the control of VOC emissions from an additional
ten source categories for which EPA has issued a
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) document prior
to January 1979. These regulations are to represent
-------
- 66 -
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
the ten source categories and be enforceable when
submitted to EPA by January 1, 1980.
In addition, where regulations covering any of the
original eleven source categories (due in January
1979) were not enacted by the States, or were con-
ditionally approved/disapproved by EPA, the State
should likewise enact approvable regulations and
submit them to EPA as soon as possible. State and
Local program plans for FY 80 should indicate the
categories of additional VOC regulations which will
be enacted and the categories to be corrected or
modified (if necessary).
Implement Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) — In keep-
ing with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and
current EPA policy, including the Administrator's
policy memorandum of February 24, 1978, States are
required to obtain legal authority by June 30, 1979,
for the implementation of mandatory I/M program for
those urban areas receiving an extension under the
Act to 1987 or, if required by a control strategy,
for the attainment of standards by 1982. Certain
exceptions to this requirement exist as specified
in the Administrator's policy memorandum and sub-
sequent policy statements. States having EPA
approved SIP schedules and requisite legal authority
should, during FY 80, initiate the introductory
phases of the program. In some areas, the mandatory
program should commence in FY 80, where the intro-
ductory phases, the hardware, and the procedures
already exist to insure implementation as expedi-
tiously as possible. The deadlines are December 31,
1981, for decentralized systems (FY 82), and
December 31, 1982, for centralized systems (FY 83).
EPA Regional Offices will as requested provide
limited guidance to States in developing required
I/M programs. The introductory phases include but
are not limited to:
o Centralized: State-Operated Programs: Public
information efforts; coordination with the
service industry; quality control planning;
design of stations; issuance of procurement
documents; acquisition of land and equipment;
construction of inspection facilities; hiring
and training of inspectors; and adoption of
necessary standards and regulations.
-------
- 67 -
o Centralized:Contractor Operated Program:
Negotiation and issuance of procurements;
public informaton efforts; coordination with
the service industry; and adoption of nec-
essary standards and regulations.
o Decentralized; Garage Based Program; Public
information efforts; quality control planning;
Coordination with the service industry (partic-
ularly with respect to inspector training,
garage licensing, and mechanic training);
development of "referee" facilities; and
adoption of necessary standards.
States should realistically assess the start-up cost
and needs of the program. Though it is EPA policy
that ongoing I/M programs should be self-supporting
and EPA cannot provide for all of the costs of start-
ing an I/M program, EPA is prepared to provide some
assistance (including limited funding for selected
projects). In FY 80, States (1) having full legis-
lative authority and (2) which are actively pursuing
an approved schedule may be eligible for additional
funding support. Such support should be discussed
with the EPA Regional Office. State (or Local) pro-
gram plans for FY 80 should indicate if State (or
Local) agency has full legislative authority and
will be implementing an approved schedule.
Implement Transportation Air Quality Planning --
Urban areas nonattainment for carbon monoxide or
ozone which cannot attain the standard by 1982 and
receive an extension to 1987 are required under the
Act to develop transportation plans which, in con-
junction with stationary source controls, will
result in attainment of standards by 1987. Develop-
ment of transportation plans is also required in
other areas if it is part of a control strategy for
the attainment of the ozone or carbon monoxide
standard by 1982. Although funds under Section 175
of the Act were awarded directly to lead planning
agencies designated under Section 174 to develop the
transportation plans, the State and local air pollution
control agencies should play an important role in
the transportation-air quality planning process.
This role should have been defined in the division
of responsibilities prepared by the Governor under
Section 174 of the Act. The President's Budget for
FY 80 does not request any additional appropriation
-------
- 68 -
of Section 175 monies. The following activities
are important during FY 80:
o Coordinate Planning. Planning conducted with
Section 105 funds should be coordinated with
Section 175 funds. State and Local control
agencies should consult with lead planning
agencies during development of stationary
source control measures. Also, State and
Local control agencies should not limit their
role in transportation planning to review of
Section 175 grant applications, but be active-
ly involved with the lead planning agency in
development of an integrated transportation-
air quality planning process. State control
agencies should insure that State departments
of transportation are actively involved in the
process.
o Evaluate Alternative Strategies. The June 1978
joint Environmental Protection Agency-Depart-
ment of Transportation guidelines describe the
required process for the evaluation of alter-
natives. Although the lead planning agency has
primary responsibility, the State and Local
control agencies should be fully involved in
the selection of measures to insure that emis-
sion reduction targets assigned to the trans-
portation sector are achieved. Earlier EPA
guidance required that emission reduction tar-
gets for mobile and stationary sources be
negotiated between the State and the lead plan-
ning agency. In addition, a process should be
established for periodic review and adjustment
of the targets as new information is obtained.
o Implement Measures in the 1979 SIP. The 1979
SIP contains commitments to implement reasonably
available transportation control measures and
to evaluate other transportation measures. In
most cases these commitments are in the form of
schedules. State and Local control agencies
should track progress and work with implementing
agencies to insure that all measures are under-
taken on schedule. EPA Regional Offices will
provide extensive guidance to both the State
and the lead planning agency in developing and
implementing the transportation planning pro-
cess and specific transportation control
-------
- 69 -
measures within those urban nonattainment
areas having a population 1,000,000 or more.
The State (or Local) program for FY 80 should
define the specific steps the agency will carry
out to interface with the lead planning agency.
Prepare Data Base for 1982 Ozone SIP — Where exten-
sions are approved by EPA for the attainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone or carbon monoxide, States in FY 80 should
initiate certain preparatory activities for the
required 1982 SIP submission. For ozone, this
entails the development within more severe urban
nonattainment areas of detailed emission inven-
tories; ambient meteorological data bases and modelling
capabilities for the application of ozone diffusion
models developed by EPA or State developed
models approved by EPA. Urban nonattainment areas
with a design value in excess of 0.20 ppm and an
urban population of 1,500,000 or more are principal
candidates (i.e., NE corridor, California) for
application of the model. Use of the model will be
a major tool in determining in FY 82 appropriate
strategies for inclusion in the required December 31,
1982 SIP submission. State (or Local) program plans
for FY 80 should define in which major urban non-
attainment areas for ozone the baseline data for
diffusion modelling will be collected in FY 80.
Undertake TSP Field Studies and Correct Conditional
SIPs — As required by the Administrator's policy
memorandum of February 24, 1978, many of the January
1979 SIPs for TSP contained schedules for the anal-
ysis of measures for control of urban fugitive dust
where necessary to attain the NAAQS by 1982. In
most cases, the possible measures for control of
urban fugitive dust are complex with little existing
data concerning their effectiveness. Extensive
study will be necessary to determine which measures
are most effective yet practical in terms of cost
and feasibility to implement. Many of the schedules
call for analysis of the same or similar control
techniques. As a result, EPA will initiate efforts
to conduct national studies for a few of the more
promising control measures in order to prevent
duplication. With the likelihood that an Inhalable
Particulate Standard (IP) will result from the
current EPA review of the NAAQS for TSP, caution
-------
- 70 -
should be exercised in implementing any major and
costly control strategy at the present time. In
FY 80, States should initiate efforts to collect
limited data on particle size distribution in the
urban nonattainment areas where re-entrained fu-
gitive dust is a major element and where field studies
to better define the fugitive dust problem are
going to be conducted pursuant to commitments in
the 1979 SIP. This information will be very use-
ful in determining further the potential sources
and what type of control measures may be most
effective particularly upon the establishment of
an inhalable particulate standard.
States whose 1979 SIP for TSP has been conditionally
approved or disapproved by EPA should correct or
modify the SIP as expeditiously as possible includ-
ing the enactment of new or modified regulations as
required for the control of traditional emissions
from existing stationary sources (stack and fugitive
process emissions). The State (or Local) agency
program plan for FY 80 should describe what efforts
the agency will take to define particle size in
these non-attainment areas and to analyze possible
control measures. In addition, the traditional
source regulations that will be corrected or mod-
ified (if necessary) should be identified in the
program plan.
Consider Maintenance Strategies/Growth Accommodation—
In FY 80, States are likely to receive a number of
requests to modify various SIP control strategies
within attainment areas for TSP and SC>2 as certain
energy supplies become more limited. Such revisions
will consume air quality and PSD increments. In
determining whether to make these modifications to
the SIP, States should consider the need to ade-
quately maintain National Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards and to effectively manage future growth in
emissions. Caution should be exercised in developing
revisions to the SIP which would be marginal in terms
of attainment and would provide little or no assur-
ances of maintenance or flexibility in managing new
source growth.
Similarly, any effort to revise or delete specific
control measures or commitments from the attainment
SIPs for ozone as a result of the change in the ozone
standard should also be carefully considered in terms
-------
- 71 -
of the impact of the revisions on the continued
maintenance of the standard and future growth as
increments for the automobile related pollutants
are established under the PSD program. Development
of measures such as I/M and transportation measures
in areas which are presently attaining standards or
will attain them by 1982 would provide greater
assurance of the long term maintenance of standards
and provide significantly more flexibility in man-
aging future growth.
Develop State Plans for Prevention of Significant
Deterioriation -- In accordance with Part C of Title
I of the Clean Air Act and 40CFR51 (June 18, 1978),
States are required to develop and submit to EPA a
plan for the prevention of significant deterioration.
A plan for TSP and sulfurdioxide (S02) was due on
March 19, 1979, and similarly a plan for automobile
related pollutants is required nine months after EPA
promulgates PSD regulations for these pollutants.
Some States were not able to develop the PSD plan
for TSP and SC>2 on schedule because of other prior-
ities in preparing required SIPs for attainment of
standards. It is essential that these States com-
plete the plan as expeditiously as possible in FY 80.
The grants mechanism will be employed by EPA to
ensure firm commitments from States to undertake
this important program. Major EPA Regional Office
assistance will be available, to guide States upon
request in developing the required plan as well as
implementing the early stages of the program. State
program plans for FY 80 should indicate the date when
an approvable plan will be completed. Likewise, it
is important that States initiate efforts to prepare
required PSD plans for automobile related pollutants
in FY 81 upon promulgation of final regulations by
EPA in FY 80.
Develop Effective State New Source Review Programs
(NSR) — By the end of FY 80, States (and Local
agencies having NSR and/or PSD review responsi-
bilities) should have fully operational NSR/FSD
programs. In order to accomplish this successfully,
it is essential that State and Local agencies be
capable of conducting NSR/PSD reviews in effective
and timely manner including the conduct of all
Tier I reviews for PSD; the management of
offset or accommodative SIP for new source
-------
- 72 -
growth in nonattainment areas; the conduct of all
Tier II reviews upon EPA approval of the State
PSD plan; and the periodic assessment of PSD
increment consumption. In conduct of PSD reviews,
priority consideration should be given to Air Qual-
ity Control Regions (AQCR) where energy facilities
are requesting approval to construct. Within the
AQCR, reviews against the allowable PSD increment
should continue to be conducted on a first-come-
first-served basis or in a manner consistent with
the appropriate States growth policy where one has
been adopted. In FY 81, the principal EPA role in
NSR/PSD area will be one of periodic overview and
audit of State and Local programs with little or no
direct EPA permitting or sources.
Develop SIPs for Lead (Pb) — While SIPs for lead
(Pb) are due in June 1979, other priorities involv-
ing attainment SIPs may have caused some problems
for States in completing the development of the SIP
on schedule. It is important that these States com-
plete, particularly for primary lead smelters, the
required SIP as soon as possible in FY 80. It will
be particularly difficult to develop effective con-
trol measures for smelters which are feasible and
reasonable in cost. Extensive efforts will be
necessary to arrive at a suitable control strategy.
Implement Additional Air Management Tasks for FY 80
to Extent Possible — Other efforts mandated by the
Clean Air Act or EPA regulations require action by
State and Local agencies in FY 80. While these
efforts are of lower priority, State and Local
agencies should initiate, continue, or complete
as many of these requirements as possible if appli-
cable to their program.
o Several miscellaneous revisions to the SIP
are required in order to have a fully approv-
able SIP. Included are stack height, public
notification, State permit fees, State board
compensation, oxidant alert level, and
emergency episode requirements. Information
as to which of the miscellaneous SIP revi-
sions will be completed during FY 80 should
be included in the State program plan.
o A number of States pursuant to the provi-
sions of Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act
-------
- 73 -
and 40CFR62 are required to develop and
submit plans for the control of emissions
of designated (noncriteria) pollutants from
existing sources. Certain of these plans
reflect new requirements for FY 80 (sulfuric
acid mist from storage battery manufacturing
plants and fluorides from aluminum manu-
facturing plants); while others represent
plans due in FY 78 or FY 79. Submission of
completed plans is required only from States
having affected facilities. An indication
of the lll(d) plans which will be completed
during FY 80 should be provided in the State
plan.
Prepare for New Requirements in FY 81
o In accordance with Subpart 2 of Part C of
Title I of the Clean Air Act States are
required (Section 169A) to develop as part
of the SIP, a plan for the protection or
enhancement of visibility in mandatory
Class I areas (Section 162) where the Depart-
ment of Interior has determined visibility
to be an important value. Plans are due to
EPA nine months after the promulgation of
regulations by EPA for the protection/enhance-
ment of visibility. Regulations are currently
under development within EPA and are expected
to be proposed in the Spring of 1980. States
in FY 81 should complete the preparation of
the plans upon the promulgation of the regu-
lations.
o Section 109(c) of the Clean Air Act requires
EPA to promulgate a short term ambient air
quality standard for nitrogen dioxide if
evidence indicates that a short term stand-
ard (1-3 hours) is needed to protect public
health and welfare. At the same time, the
annual standard for nitrogen dioxide is also
undergoing review as required by the Act.
States will have nine months from the pro-
mulgation of a new and/or revised standard
to develop and submit necessary revisions
to the SIP. Proposal of a short term stand-
ard is expected by October 1979 with pro-
mulgation anticipated in the Spring of 1980.
States in FY 81 should complete the prepara-
tion of the plan upon promulgation of the
standard.
-------
- 74 -
Principal State and Local Activities - Air Quality
Monitoring
Develop and Submit State Network Plans — For
FY 80, State and Local programs in air quality
monitoring will be in transition from those ini-
tiated in response to the SIP requirements issued
by EPA in 1971 to those required by the substan-
tially revised regulations developed by the Stand-
ing Air Monitoring Work Group (SAMWG). Current
schedules call for promulgation of these regula-
tions by May 1979. In accordance with these
regulations, each State should complete, early in
FY 80, the development of a revision to their SIP
which provides for the establishment of a State
monitoring program for all pollutants for which
there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) as well as the preparation of a written
description of the network for all State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS). The SIP revision
must be submitted to the Administrator and the
SLAMS network description made available for EPA
inspection by January 1, 1980. Although prepara-
tion of the SIP revision and the network descrip-
tion is a State responsibility, the States should
consult with the Regional Offices during the
preparation of the SIP and design of the SLAMS
network. It should be noted that preparation of
a complete design and description of the SLAMS
network will require that the State and Regional
Office first reach agreement on the network for
the National Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) within
the State. By January 1, 1980, each State will be
required to designate all stations to be estab-
lished as NAMS including a schedule for placing
into operation any new NAMS. State program plans
for FY 80 should indicate the completion dates for
the required SIP revision for the State Monitoring
Program; schedules for putting new NAMS into
operation; and date for completing the written
description of the SLAMS network.
While the preceding are high priority tasks within
the monitoring area, they should not be done at the
expense of meeting such basic monitoring objectives
as generating timely ambient and source data or
making required data submissions to EPA.
-------
- 75 -
Achieve Compliance with Reference/Equivalency
Requirements — In addition to implementing the
forthcoming regulations developed by SAMWG, the
States are responsible for meeting EPA's refer-
ence/equivalency requirements for ambient instru-
mentation. These requirements (40CFR51.17a) were
promulgated in 1975 and require compliance by
February 1980. During FY 80, as in past years, the
primary obstacle to compliance with EPA's instrumen-
tation requirements will be difficulties in obtain-
ing the funding to purchase necessary replacement
equipment to meet the reference/equivalency require-
ments. State and Local control agency officials
should allocate funds for these capital expend-
itures in FY 80. While the President's Budget
requests an increase for air control program grants
in FY 80, the agencies should not view any proposed
increase as their sole source of funding for re-
quired instrumentation and should assume that only
a portion of any forthcoming grant increase would
be for instrument procurement. State or local con-
trol agency officials should attempt to obtain
funding from local revenue sources or utilize lapse
funds to address at least some of these needs. In
States where available resources are insufficient
to purchase all instrumentation needed, priority
should be given to acquiring continuous reference
or equivalent equipment for all existing NAMS. This
is especially important with regard to the ozone NAMS
in major urban nonattainment areas where application
of diffusion modelling will be required (urban areas
with design value in excess of 0.20 ppm and popula-
tion of 1,500,000 or more). By concentrating funds
in this way, more States should be able to have
acceptable instrumentation at all NAMS by January 1,
1981, the deadline at which the remaining NAMS
requirements must be met, and have adequate data for
control strategy development in the more severe non-
attainment areas. Within the State or Local program
plans, the type and location of unacceptable con-
tinuous monitors to be replaced with reference or
equivalent monitors during FY 80 should be indicated.
Establish/Operate NAMS — A key premise of the new
SAMWG regulations is to give greatest attention and
resources to those monitors in areas with the highest
pollutant concentrations and population exposures
(large urban nonattainment areas). Since these are
-------
- 76 -
typically stations within the NAMS network, the
regulations call for the NAMS to be the first
portion of the SLAMS to be fully operational with
respect to the monitoring criteria referenced in
40CFR58 (by January 1, 1981). Further, emphasis
in FY 80 should be given to the ozone NAMS located
in the major urban nonattainment areas where diffu-
sion modelling will be required. To meet this
deadline, substantial efforts in FY 80 will be
required in most States. The most significant
actions required to achieve this are:
o Develop a quality assurance (Q/A) program
meeting the criteria set forth in Appendix
A and implementation of this program at
all NAMS.
o Take actions to ensure that all existing
NAMS are physically located according to
the approved SLAMS network description and
are consistent with the monitoring objec-
tives, spatial scales and other design
criteria presented in Appendix D.
o Ensure that the siting of the monitor
probes for all existing NAMS is consistent
with the criteria presented in Appendix E
to the maximum extent possible. For each
NAMS at which the probe siting criteria
cannot be followed, the State should
thoroughly document the particular situa-
tion and submit a written request for a
waiver not later than the date of submis-
sion of its revised monitoring plan.
o Document the specific pollutant monitor for
which each "reporting organization" will be
responsible relative to calculation and
reporting of precision and accuracy infor-
mation for NAMS.
Although positive State or Local commitments are
required for each of the above action items, the
development of detailed plans for assuring the
quality of NAMS data should receive the greatest
attention at the beginning of the fiscal year.
Early action is needed because of the fact that
most State and Local agencies will have to imple-
ment a substantial number of new activities in
-------
- 77 -
order to have a quality assurance program which
meets the Appendix A requirements. Thus, no less
than the entire year will probably be needed for
detailed planning, acquiring and testing any new
equipment needed, training personnel in the new
quality assurance (Q/A) procedures, and preparing
written protocols, manuals and procedures. By the
end of FY 80, all States should have implemented a
majority of the critical components of their Q/A
program and be operating on a plan calling for the
remaining Q/A components to be phased in during
the first three months of FY 81. The State (or
Local) program plans for FY 80 should commit to
preparing and submitting to EPA by June 30, 1980,
a written program (plan) for assuring the quality
of data at all NAMS consistent with Appendix A.
Their program plan should also define the extent
to which NAMS will be meeting all requirements
of Appendices C, (Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Methodology), D, and E by the end of FY 80.
Collect Data for 0-3 Model Application — Urban
nonattainment areas with a design value exceeing
0.20 ppm and having a population of 1,500,000 or
more will generally be required to apply a disper-
sion model to prepare their 1982 03 SIP revisions.
During FY 80, control agencies should compare
available data with that needed to apply 03 dis-
persion models and initiate programs to collect
needed source data and/or short-term ambient data.
Undertake Additional Monitoring Tasks for FY 80
o Submit timely air quality data and parti-
cipate in EPA/State programs to validate
potentially anomalous data generated at all
NAMS and for selected SLAMS (for FY 80 data
and 3-5 years of historical data)
o Perform thorough annual review of the
entire State ambient network;
o Maintain strong State capabilities for
responding to air emergencies (spills
and/or episodes caused by weather);
o Conduct limited special purpose monitoring
in major urban nonattainment areas for TSP
-------
- 78 -
where re-entrained fugitive dust is a major
component in order to better define particle
size in anticipation of developing a SIP for
an inhalable particulate standard.
o Review ambient networks proposed by new
resources seeking PSD permits and surveil-
lance of the ambient monitoring done by
proposed sources to ascertain the validity
of the data.
o Update State source/emission inventories to
calendar year 1979 (to include, where re-
sources are available, enhancement of
inventories in areas of special concern).
Other efforts will require action by State and
Local agencies in FY 80. While these efforts
are of lower priority than those described above,
State and Local agencies should initiate, con-
tinue, or complete as many of these as possible.
The tasks include:
o Submit source data to EPA's National Emis-
sions Data System annually on all point
sources covered by EPA's reporting require-
ments (to include changes and an annual
update of the year of record)
o Establish systems for daily reporting of an
index of air quality in urban areas over
500,000 pop.; (to be fully operational by
1/1/81);
o Prepare population exposure analyses for
urbanized areas greater than 1,000,000
population or for the largest city in the
State in less populous States;
o Prepare written plans for the establishment
of the network for ambient monitoring of
lead. (States are encouraged to develop
these plans and discuss them with the
Regional Offices in FY 80 prior to the
submission of the lead SIP) .
o Compile and make available to the Regional
Office, detailed data on the probe siting
and nearby environment of each National
Air Monitoring Station.
-------
- 79 -
o Conduct performance audits at not less than
10% of all NAMS to field test the procedures
required in FY 81 and thereafter;
o Validate SLAMS air quality data;
o Conduct performance audits of small local
agencies' operating monitors within the
SLAMS network.
The State or Local program plan should define the
areas which will initiate actions to establish a
system for reporting a daily air quality index in
urban areas over 500,000 population by January 1,
1981. The plan should also indicate the extent to
which performance audits will be conducted on all
operational NAMS by the end of FY 80.
Principal State/Local Activities - Stationary Source
Enforcement
The major efforts in FY 1980 for the stationary
source enforcement program for the states includes
enforcement actions in situations involving substantial
threats to public health or safety; virtual completion
of the Major Source Enforcement Effort by the end of
FY 1980; support of any continuing SIP revision work;
assurance that major sources comply with new requirements
placed on them by SIP revisions; enforcement of NSPS
and NESHAPS; implementation of noncompliance penalties
under Section 120; and implementation of an improved
program of compliance monitoring and enforcement to
assure continuous compliance.
o Emergency Response
States should initiate prompt enforcement actions
in situations involving substantial threats to public
health and safety. Frequently, the removal of the
danger may not be the responsiblity of enforcement
personnel and enforcement actions have top priority
only when needed to remove the danger.
o Major Source Enforcement Effort
The states should be working towards the expenditious
conclusion of all MSEE civil/criminal actions they committed
to in the winter of 1977-1978 or thereafter. By the
end of FY 1980, MSEE should be virtually completed
with only a few actions and appeals still pending in
trial or appellate courts.
-------
- 80 -
o Federal Facilities
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made
clear that Federal facilities are subject to State
environmental requirements. EPA is encouraging States
to assume these responsibilities regarding Federal
facilities. Since the President has ordered all
Federal facilities to come into and remain in compliance
and is providing necessary funds, States should find
the managers of Federal facilities cooperative.
Careful coordination between the State and EPA Regional
office will be required as States assume more of this
responsibility. EPA will assist States in getting
disputes resolved, if any should exist.
o Enforceable SIP Provisions
The EPA Office of Enforcement is taking an active
role in the 1979 SIP revision process for nonattainment
areas and is reviewing each state submission for
enforceability. In FY 1980, the Office of Enforcement
will continue to support states in developing enforceable
regulations for any continuing SIP revision work,
including the required additional VOC regulations, and
any necessary modifications to regulations submitted
in the 1979 SIP revision process.
o Assure Major Source Compliance
State and local air pollution control agencies
should undertake appropriate enforcement actions to
ensure that major sources are brought into compliance
with the requirements of the SIP and other requirements
of the Clean Air Act. Actions to verify and to assure
compliance of existing VOC sources with the new
emission regulations submitted in the 1979 SIP revisions
should also be fully implemented. In addition, states
should assure that major sources comply with new
requirements resulting from further revisions to the
SIP. Intensive surveillance will be needed to assure
that sources meet compliance schedules as well as final
emission limits and do not contribute to a violation of
the new statutory attainment deadline (December 31,
1982). State enforcement personnel must stay abreast
of source compliance and take prompt enforcement action
including civil/criminal actions when violations are
determined to assure that compliance schedules and
final limits are met. Specific case development
inspections will be necessary to adequately document
violations for appropriate enforcement action.
-------
- 81 -
o Noncompliance Penalties
In the last quarter of FY 1979, EPA will implement
the noncompliance penalty program required by Section
120 of the Clean Air Act which will seek administratively
imposed penalties that remove the incentive for continued
noncompliance by major sources. In FY 1980, EPA will
work closely with States to facilitate delegation of
this new program to the States and provide appropriate
assistance when needed. States which have adequate
legal authority will be able to secure delegation from
EPA to implement the program by the end of FY 1980. EPA
will work closely with any State that wishes to secure
necessary legislation so that delegation can be obtained
as expeditiously as possible.
o Continued Source Compliance
Also of importance is the continued compliance of
sources. It is EPA policy that states conduct periodic
(at least once per year for major sources) inspections
to assure continued source compliance.
The compliance status of all major sources (existing
SIP sources which include sources with NSR/PSD permits, and
also, NSPS and NESHAPS sources) at the beginning of FY 1980
should be provided to EPA. Inspection means the verification
of the compliance status for all emission points within a
facility for all regulated pollutants and determination of
compliance by the facility with all enforceable procedural
requirements. In FY 1980, States should expect that efforts to
ensure the continued compliance of sources will increase as
initial compliance efforts are completed. In FY 1980, EPA
will complete the design and implement an improved program
for compliance monitoring and enforcement to ensure the
continued compliance of sources.
o CDS Updates
The CDS is the primary EPA system for storing and
managing information on all major stationary sources
subject to the Clean Air Act requirements particularly
as that information relates to the determination of
compliance with these requirements. State and local
agencies have the primary responsibility for gathering
and documenting this information and must therefore
provide periodic updates to CDS (at least quarterly) in
a timely manner to insure that effective use of the system
by EPA can be accomplished. State (or local) program
plans for FY 1980 must indicate the frequency and the
mechanism the agency will utilize to update CDS.
-------
- 82 -
o State Planned Program Accomplishments
The following represent program accomplishment
measures for the Stationary Source Enforcement portion
of the State program plans. The states and Regional
offices will continue to have flexibility to negotiate
additional specific program accomplishment measures for
inclusion in the state plan. The following measures are
the minimal information needs of the Agency.
1. Status of state actions relating to the Major
Source Enforcement Effort (MSEE). States committed to
civil/criminal action, DCO's, compliance determinations,
and other actions in the winter of 1977 - 1978 give
the present status of these actions.
2. Number of civil/criminal actions against major
existing SIP sources other than MSEE actions. This activity
would include those actions against major SIP sources which
are not a part of the MSEE.
3. Number of civil/criminal actions against new
sources in violation of NSPS, NSR, PSD regulations.
4. Number of civil/criminal actions against sources
in violation of NESHAPS regulations.
5. Number of Section 120 noncompliance penalties
assessed. A penalty is assessed when the state and violating
source has agreed upon schedule of payments.
6. Number of inspections of major SIP sources (includes
existing sources and sources operating with NSR, PSD permits),
All major SIP sources must,be inspected annually and the
compliance status updated. An inspection means verification
of compliance status for all emission points within a
facility for all regulated pollutants and determination of
compliance by the facility with all enforceable procedural
requirements.
7. Number of NESHAPS sources inspected. Instructions
the same as for major SIP inspections.
-------
- 83 -
8. Number of new source permits issued. Report
the sources receiving an NSR or PSD permit separately and
sources receiving both an NSR and PSD permit report under
NSR permit.
Footnote:
There can be exceptions to this annual verification of
each source. In cases where an inspection of one source
guarantees compliance by other sources, it is not necessary
to verify the status of each individual source. For
example, if ten sources are burning only low-sulfur oil and
receive all oil supplies from one distributor, and if
inspection of that distributor will verify the compliance
status of each of those ten sources, only the one inspection
of the distributor must be made. Other such exceptions
may be approved by the Regional office in accordance with
established Agency policy.
Principal State/Local Activities - Mobile Source Enforcement
° Anti-Tampering/Fuel Switching -
Because of the substantial auto-related air
pollution emanating from automobiles and
trucks in the urban non-attainment areas, state
enforcement of the tampering and fuel switching
prohibitions should receive priority attention
in FY 80. There is evidence of significant
problems with deterioration of emission
control systems while in use, improper or
insufficient vehicle maintenance, tampering,
and the use of leaded gasoline in catalyst
equipped vehicles whose systems are deactivated
by lead. Increased emphasis should be given
by States to maintaining the effectiveness
of emission control systems on the auto and
trucks throughout the period of their use
by addressing these problems. Enforcement of
anti-tampering and fuel switching provisions
is also intended to support I/M programs by
retarding further emission deterioration of
the vehicle fleet before the programs begin.
Public resistance to I/M programs may increase
proportionately with the percentage of the
fleet that would ultimately fail an I/M program
-------
- 84 -
due to the cost of repairing emission control
components necessary to pass inspection. If
resistance is to be avoided, tampering and fuel
switching must be controlled. To achieve this,
States should emphasize enforcing the tampering
and fuel switching prohibitions in the major
non-attainment areas requiring I/M programs,
where enforceable State regulations presently
exist. To provide for maximum deterrent
effect, enforcement efforts should be aimed at
major chains of repair facilities, fleet
operators, new car dealerships, and gasoline
retailers. Where enforceable regulations do not
exist, States are encouraged to seek enactment
of regulations for anti-tampering and fuel
switching which can be implemented in conjunction
with I/M programs. The EPA Office of Enforcement
is available to provide assistance to States
in developing these regulations.
I/M Proqtjm Audits
EPA will conduct audits of operational I/M
programs in FY LI. In conuucting the audits,
EPA will evaluate state procedures to assure
that subject vehicles are tested and repaired
(if necessary) by means of appropriate
enforcement mechanisms. EPA recommenus the
withholding of vehicle registration as the
most effective mechanism for denying, operation
of non-complying vehicles. States should
be aware that the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 made Federally owned vehicles subject to
the same requirement as other vehicles in an
I/M area.
Suggested State Planned Program Accomplishments --
The following represent suggested program accomplishment
measures for the Mobile Source Enforcement portion
of the State program plan. The States and Regional
Offices will continue to have flexibility to negotiate
specific accomplishments for inclusion in the State
plan.
1. Number of Stage I vapor recovery inspections.
(No start level, quarterly reporting.)
2. Number of Stage I vapor recovery enforcement
actions. (No start level, semi-annual updates.)
3. Number of tampering inspections. (No start
level, reported quarterly.)
4. Number of tampering enforcement actions.
(No start level, semi-annual updates.)
-------
- 85 -
5. Number of Stage I vapor recovery enforcement actions
— An enforcement action is the issuance of a notice
of violation, compliance order, and/or filing of a
complaint in the district court when appropriate.
6. Number of tampering inspections — A tampering
inspection includes a determination as to whether
there has been a removal or rendering inoperative
of emission controls on a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine, whether the person(s) who did it
were prohibited under law, and development of
sufficient documentary, and physical evidence to
support a prosecution, if necessary.
7. Number of tampering enforcement actions — An
enforcement action can include the issuance of a
notice of violation, traffic citation and/or filing
of a civil or criminal complaint in the appropriate
court.
Definition — Stage I Vapor Recovery Inspection —
an inspection to determine to whether or not the
required equipment and systems are installed and
connected during operations. The inspection is for
the purpose of determining the presence of:
o Underground storage tanks.
o Proper couplings and fittings (for connection
with vapor return hose).
o Submerged filled pipe (not more than 6 inches
from the bottom).
o Restrictive devices or ventlines (to ensure
use of vapor return hose).
And includes the observation of gasoline transfer
operations where possible, to determine if vapor
return hoses are actually used.
-------
- 86 -
Principal State and Local Activities - Public Information/
Participation
Effective public information and participation pro-
grams are essential to the success of State and local
governments in meeting the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. It is clearly the intent of Congress that public
participation be a major element in the development and
implementation of strategies for the attainment and main-
tenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
the prevention of significant deterioration. The 1977
Amendments emphasize these needs and include a number
of requirements for public education or public partic-
ipation and citizen involvement in the decision-making
process.
State and Local agencies should develop and submit
to EPA by January 1, 1980, a description of the agency's
proposed public information and participation program
including a statement of major objectives; the principal
iaecho.Ai.sms to be employed to achiev these objectives;
the resources which will be allocated to the program;
support requirements needed from EPA; and the procedures
used for coordinating activities with other State and
Local public information and education programs con-
ducted under various EPA requirements (i.e., Metropolitan
Planning Agencies). Particular emphasis on public infor-
mation and participation efforts associated with inspec-
tion/maintenance programs, transportation control programs,
programs for prevention of significant deterioration, and
the public notification program required by Section 127
of the Act is essential. Also, it is important that
effective public information efforts describe what ac-
tions have or are being taken to counter potential
restrictions on the growth of cities experiencing major
nonattainment problems. Such efforts include: the
interpretation of the Clean Air Act requirements and
deadlines in a reasonable manner (i.e., schedules for
development of I/M programs and implementation of
transportation measures); establishment of policies
to minimize the impact of sanctions and growth limita-
tions where good faith efforts are made; and the
initiation of specific programs to help cities achieve
both air quality and economic development objectives
(i.e., Air Quality Technical Assistance Demonstration
Grants, Section 175 planning grants to Local govern-
ments and provisions for the banking of excess emission
-------
- 87 -
reductions). Staff from EPA Regional Office public
affairs will monitor and oversee State public information
and participation activities as part of the annual mid-
year and final State evaluations. State or Local pro-
gram plans for FY 80 should indicate the date by which
the description of the agency's public information and
participation program will be developed.
Suggested State Projected Program Accomplishments
The following represent suggested program accomplish-
ment measures for the Air Monitoring portion of the State
program plans. The States and Regional Offices will
continue to have flexibility to negotiate specific program
accomplishment measures for inclusion in the State plan.
1. Identification of the respective "reporting
organization" responsible for calculating and
reporting precision and accuracy data for each
NAMS within the State —"Reporting Organization"
is defined in Section 3 of Appendix A to 40
CFR 58. To meet this accomplishment the State
must, as a minimum, prepare and submit to EPA a
list by pollutant of all National Air Moni-
toring Stations (NAMS) and their SAROAD site
identification codes and identify for each
NAMS the "reporting organization" to be re-
sponsible for calculating and reporting
precision and accuracy information.
2. Update the State's source/emission inventory
to calendar year 1979 by 6/30/80 — The mini-
mum needed to satisfactorily meet this
accomplishment would be updating of the
source/emission inventory to reflect calendar
year 1979. Where additional resources are
available, States are encouraged to also
undertake programs to enhance inventories in
non-attainment areas, e.g., emission inven-
tories needed for the 1982 SIP revisions for
03 and CO or other areas of special concern.
-------
- 88 -
3. By 9/30/80 submit to EPA information to update
the point source inventory within the National
Emissions Data System (NEDS) to calendar year
1979 — The updating requirements for point
sources subject to EPA's reporting require-
ments are contained in 40 CFR 51.322 and 51.323
(to be published as final rulemaking in 5-79).
In addition to updating the year of record for
each source, other changes relating to new
sources, sources no longer operating and signif-
icant changes to emissions must be also reported
to NEDS annually.
4. Number of performance audits of pollutant moni-
tors performed by the State (by pollutant) --
As defined in 40 CFR 58, App. A., States will
be required to audit each NAMS pollutant moni-
tor annually starting in 1981. To meet this
above accomplishment for FY 1980, States must
audit at least 10 percent of their NAMS annually
and in total conduct no fewer performance audits
than were done in FY 79.
5. Number of unacceptable continuous analyzers
replaced with reference or equivalent monitors
expressed as a ratio to the total number of
analyzers needing replacement (by pollutant)—
The State should identify the number of analyzers
not currently meeting reference or equivalency
requirements within the entire SLAMS Network
and report quarterly how many have been re-
placed on a cumulative basis (by pollutant).
-------
WATER QUALITY STATE GUIDANCE
-------
WATER QUALITY
MEDIA OVERVIEW
Major Objectives
During 1980/81 the Water Quality Program will aggressively
pursue the following three central objectives which are
encompassed in this Guidance:
o To aggressively control pollution discharges in
order to protect public health and sensitive
ecological systems such as wetlands;
o To share responsibilities with States and localities
while encouraging public participation in water
quality management; and
o To manage the program in an efficient manner.
Clearly, the driving force in the Water Quality Program is
to control pollution, to protect public heatlh and the
environment. As our knowledge has increased regarding the
effects of toxic pollutants on human life, so too have we
intensified our efforts on controlling toxic pollutants
from entering the environment. Similarly, the significant
improvements in our understanding of aquatic resources,
especially wetlands and shallow water areas, is paralleled
by increased legislative attention to protect these
resources through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
It is essential that responsibilities are shared between
Federal and non-federal authorities to maximize our efforts
on improving water quality, to limit redundancies in
Federal and non-federal programs, and to utilize the best
mix of resources to identify and solve our environmental
problems. Because of the critical nature of the Water
Quality Program and the large number of dollars the program
utilizes, it is essential that the program be managed
efficiently to maximize environmental benefits. This can
be achieved through an integrated planning and implementation
process within the Agency as well as integration with other
Federal agencies and States and localities.
Major Planning Assumptions
Inherent in the priority activities for FY 80/81 for
achieving media objectives are the following major planning
assumptions:
-------
- 92 -
Construction Grants
o The Construction Grants appropriation will be
$3.8 billion in FY 1980 (available by October 1,
1979), and $4 billion is requested in FY 1981,
with the allotment formula for both years the
same as in FY 1979.
o The Congress will enact a one-year extension of the
allotment period for FY 1979-1982 Construction
Grants funds, increasing the period of availability
to three years for all appropriations authorized
in the Clean Water Act.
Spill Prevention
The Spill Prevention and Response Program, while
continuing in the general program direction established
during the last two years, is experiencing some major
changes in emphasis to allow response to hazardous
spills. The principal assumptions for program
planning in FY 1980 are:
o Publication of final Hazardous Substances Reg-
ulations, revised to incorporate the October 1978
amendments to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act,
is expected in the Spring of 1979.
o The list of 299 hazardous substances which must be
reported in the event of a spill and which will
require EPA spill emergency response will be
expanded by 1981.
o Based on voluntary reports, the program estimates
about 700-1,200 hazardous spills, involving one or
more of the 299 substances, will occur annually.
Ocean Disposal
o All interim Ocean Disposal Permits are to be
phased out by the end of 1981, by regulation.
All dumping of harmful sewage sludge is to stop
by the end of 1981, by statute.
Dredge and Fill
o Transfer of Section 404 Dredge and Fill Program
responsibility to qualified States will begin in
FY 80 and increase in FY 81. Approvals will remain
low until later years (reflecting both a waiting
-------
- 93 -
period while EPA finalizes regulations and the
lead time for States to develop their programs),
but EPA will be heavily involved in assisting
interested States in program development.
o The total Dredge and Fill permit load will
increase gradually from the current level as
EPA enforcement activities increase. This change
results from better surveillance methods and more
citizen participation and increasing attention to
the total acreage and stream mileage being actually
regulated.
Water Quality Management
o Funding of continuing planning will be limited to
those areas in which substantial implementation of
the initial approved plan is taking place.
o Funds will be available for continuing planning
under Section 208 in FY 81 with emphasis on com-
pletion of planning in high priority problem areas.
Permits Issuance
The FY 80/81 Guidance is premised on three major
assumptions:
o FY 80/81 priorities will be essentially the same
as in FY 79, that is emphasis is placed on issuing
and reissuing permits to control major sources
of industrial and municipal pollution, including
Federal facilities.
o Additional priorities which must be addressed
within the context of decreasing resources are
implementation of the permits consolidation
effort and implementation of the National Pre-
treatment Program.
o Clean Water Act amendments require consideration
of new variances such as the Section 301 (i)
municipal time extension, the Section 301 (g)
water quality variance, and the Section 301(h)
marine waiver.
Media Priorities
Program plans in FY 80/81 will emphasize activities that
are designed to better assess environmental problems, and
to develop and implement programs to solve and prevent
environmental hazards.
-------
- 94 -
Essential to an efficient pollution control program is
the ability:
o To identify potentially harmful pollutants;
o To assess the effects of levels of pollutants on
aquatic organisms, other food chain organisms,
and man,
o To assess the transport and fate of pollutants
in the environment;
o To monitor for potential pollution problems; and
o To evaluate improvements in water quality.
Much is known about conventional pollutant indicators such
as biological oxygen demand and bacterial counts. However,
our ability to assess toxic pollution problems is hampered
by the large number of toxic pollutants in the environment
and the necessity of using highly sophisticated and
expensive technology to monitor pollutant levels. Currently
there is much ongoing work to resolve these problems.
Program plans demonstrate an integrated effort by the Office
of Research and Development and the Office of Water and
Waste Management to improve problem assessment capabilities.
Concurrent with our activities designed to identify and
assess environmental problems, the Water Quality Program
is aggressively pursuing activities to solve our water
quality problems while limiting environmental impacts to
other media. Major Water Quality Program thrusts for
1980/81 are in response to the mandate of the Clean Water
Act of 1977.
Program plans represent a coordinated effort by the Office
of Water Program Operations, Office of Water Planning and
Standards and Office of Enforcement, working in concert
with States and localities to:
o Control industrial and municipal dischargers of
pollutants through technology-based controls.
o Control nonpoint source pollution and prevent
and clean up oil and hazardous spills.
o Protect sensitive ecological systems such as
lakes and wetlands.
-------
- 95 -
o Utilize Water Quality Standards and environmental
quality based effluent controls, where necessary,
to assure protection of public health and
environment.
o Enforce environmental control requirements.
The implementation of these priorities will be characterized
by their integration within the Water Quality Program and
integration with other Agency activities directed at
improving environmental quality. Information gleaned
from problem assessment activities will be critical to
the continuing evolution of solutions and strategies.
Industrial and Municipal Dischargers
In 1980 and 1981 the control of industrial and
municipal dischargers of pollutants will remain the
keystone to water programs control activities. The
1980 program will also include additional pollutant
studies (e.g., "hot spots" analyses) that will con-
centrate on selected areas of industry where monitoring
data indicate high cancer incidence or potential water
pollution problems would persist after the imple-
mentation of effluent limitations. The studies will
lead to the development and implementation of additional
controls. Efforts also will continue in 1980 to
identify other toxic pollutants and industries that
should be addressed in effluent guidelines.
By 1984, industrial sources of toxic pollutants will
be required to meet technology-based toxic effluent
discharge limitations for both direct and indirect
wastewater discharges. This effort entails detailing
the presence or absence of 65 toxic pollutants or
classes of toxic pollutants. An in-depth economic
analysis of each industry also must be conducted
to ensure that regulations are economically achievable
and equitable. This program will peak in 1979 and
1980 and continue through 1981 with final promulgations
and court defenses.
Municipal point source control activities are addressed
principally through the Waste Treatment Facility
Construction Program. This program is of major
importance to reduce water pollution problems resulting
from conventional pollutants, such as suspended
solids, bacteria, and oxygen demanding loads that
degrade our waters and continue to pose problems to
public health and the environment. The long range
goal of the Construction Grants Program is to eliminate
-------
- 96 -
the municipal discharge of untreated or inadequately
treated pollutants and thereby help restore or
maintain the quality of the Nation's waters. A
large number of amendments to Title II of the
Clean Water Act created incentives for use of
environmentally justifiable, innovative and
alternative technologies in municipal treatment
systems; established funding for States to assist
them in adopting and managing Construction Grants
Programs; made special considerations for the needs
of small communities; and increased emphasis on water
reuse and recycling, recovery of energy, and confined
disposal of pollutant wastes to prevent their migration
to the water.
Through the passage of the Clean Water Act the Congress
reaffirmed its intention that States have a major and
continuing role in environmental programs. The year
1980 will mark the start of 3 new era in planning,
implement I:-^ and managing environmental programs at
the Recioncil ana State levels. State/EPA Agreements
will present consolidated approaches to solving
water supplv, solid waste, and water pollution control
problems. Tiie integration of these program areas
will be a major step toward the objective of compre-
hensive environmental planning and management.
Activities aimed at integrated management are being
initiated in 1979. EPA is requiring all States to
develop comprehensive State/EPA Agreements to cover
Clean Water Act programs including consolidation of
Sections 106, 208, 303, and the Clean Lakes provisions
of Section 314.
State/EPA Agreements will be the result of a negotiation
process between each State and its respective EPA
Region. The Agreements will describe activities that
States and EPA will undertake during the coming year.
An agreement will be the result of an assessment of
the environmental problems faced by an individual
State, development of a long-term strategy to solve
those problems, and a determination of critical steps
to take during the next year.
Each State/EPA Agreement will reflect important decisions
on environmental and programmatic problems, State and
EPA priorities, timing, and responsibilities. It
also will be a management tool which focuses attention
on the evaluation and accomplishment of major
environmental efforts.
-------
- 97 -
Initial Water Quality Management Planning will be
completed by all States and areawide agencies by
the end of 1979. The continuing planning effort by
local and State agencies in 1980 will focus on the
highest priority problem areas with special emphasis
on toxics. The Agency will stress implementation
of the initial plans and require that substantial
implementation occur as a condition for future
funding.
The key change in program management to ensure Section
208 plans are being carried out is the development
of the State/EPA Agreement process. State imple-
mentation will utilize funds provided under Section 106
Program Grants to accelerate establishment of regulatory
programs and to provide for monitoring to assess the
adequacy of clean-up efforts.
Implementation of the Construction Grants Program
requires integrated Agency and State efforts with a
large delegation of responsibilities to the States.
The program strategy for 1980 recognizes that there are
limited funds available to meet these pollution control
needs and that the funds available must go toward
assisting municipalities in meeting the most critical
needs in the shortest possible time. Accordingly,
the EPA strategy for 1980-1981 is: (a) to orient
funding toward meeting the environmental requirements
of the Act through stringent cost-effect review on
a project-by-project basis, and (b) to stress
innovative and alternative approaches to waste
treatment, including emphasis on water and energy
conservation, waste water reuse and recycling of
pollutants, and small systems. Funds specifically
earmarked for State delegation under Section 205(g)
of the Act will be directed toward maximizing
State assumption of program activities in the shortest
possible time. In all cases, State delegation will
be part of an overall agreement that will ensure that
EPA policies and environmental objectives continue to
be met.
EPA will continue to pursue program strategies that
provide sufficient certainty and stability to States
and municipalities to facilitate effective planning
and management at all levels. The 1980 appropriation
request of $3.8 billion is a critical component of
this management need.
-------
- 98 -
The State Management Assistance Grant Program
authorizes the use of two percent or $400,000,
whichever is greater, of each allotment to cover
the cost of delegation to the States of the
Construction Grants Program and (to the extent that
funds suffice) the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Permit, Dredge and Fill, and
Section 208 Management Programs. EPA's long-term
goal is to allow the States, rather than EPA, to
assume responsibility for day-to-day management of
Construction Grants activities. The timing and
extent of delegation to each State depends on the.
State's ability to operate a program that meets the
necessary competency requirements and policy direction
mandated by the law and EPA objectives. A grant is
given to a State when it can show that it is able to
assume delegated responsibility for a substantial
portion of Construction Grants program activities.
Approximately 26 States are expected to receive
State Management Assistance Grants during 1979,
which will allow gradual phase-in of most program
activities as the States staff up and are trained
to accept each task. Most of the remaining interested
States will have entered into preliminary negotiations
during 1979 leading to a grant in 1980 and 1981.
Resource benefits from this State delegation strategy
should begin to be evident in 1981.
Control of Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint source pollutants are a continuing cause of
water quality degradation. A substantial number of
the nation's waterways will continue to fail to meet
their intended uses unless nonpoint source programs
are developed and controls enacted. Nonpoint
source problems require further identification;
control techniques must be developed and tested;
and cost effective, best management practice
systems designed and demonstrated. Substantial
efforts will be directed to the identification and
evaluation of these practices both with Agency resources
and in conjunction with other Federal agencies.
It is a priority to continue to develop and assess
methods of controlling urban nonpoint source
pollution and additional methods for controlling
rural nonpoint source pollution.
-------
Hazardous jLHAJJLs
In 1980, th-2 Agency will ir.vplemcrt :<-G expand its
Spill Prevention ^nd Response Procrara to cove:' not
only oil spills but also the discharge of those
substances determined to be hazardous by EPA. The
Agency is currently developing and will promulgate
regulations for hazardous substances designations,
removability, harmful quantities, and rat.es of
penalty. An Environmental Emergency Response Team
has been established to provide immediate on-the-
scene expertise in handling, clean up, and disposal
of most critical oil and hazardous substance spills.
Protection of Ecological Systems
Wetlands
In FY 80 and especially FY 81 the Wetlanls Protection
Program will have a high priority within the Office
of Water and Waste Management. Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act provides the principal protective tool
and may underpin other non-Federal activities for
protection of wetlands. EPA shares the responsibility
for implementing Section 404 with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and in the future, with the States.
A significant increase in Section 404 responsibility
for EPA will occur in 1980 as the Agency provides
a significant degree of the substantive review on
at least the most significant environmental permits,
whether issued by the Corps or the States, and
responds to the variety of new program developments.
Under the 1977 Act, the Corps will continue to allow
dredge and fill material discharge in the traditionally
navigable waters. States may assume permit respons-
ibility in other waters, if they are qualified. EPA' s
role in this process is large and includes respons-
ibility for issuing regulations, establishing State
program approval criteria, reviewing and acting upon
applications from States, and providing continuing
oversight for both States and the Corps permit programs.
EPA is currently drafting two sets of regulations
for State assumption of permitting responsibilities.
The regulations are for program approval and State
program operations.
-------
- 100 -
Lake Protection
The Clean Lakes Program is authorized by Section 314
of rfche Clean Water Act. The program provides grants
to States for: identification and classification
according to euthrophic condition of all property
around freshwater lakes; procedures, processes, and
methods to control sources of pollution; and pro-
cedures for restoration.
Program plans demonstrate continual efforts directed
at efficient control of lake pollution problems and
activities designed for lake quality enhancement.
Water Quality Standards and Environmental Quality
Based Effluent ControIsT
Water qual:hv standards are a means for States to
protect the ambient quality of their waters. Section
303 of the Clean Water Act requires States to review
Water Quality Standards every three years and to
submit new and revised standards to the Administrator
for approval. If standards are unacceptable to the
Administrator, the EPA can promulgate State standards
where States fail to comply with Federal regulation.
At present, many State standards do not contain
criteria for toxic substances. Even where States do
have certain criteria for toxics, NPDES permits
frequently are not written to meet such criteria.
In FY 80/81 EPA is considering revising the Federal
standards regulations so that States may be required
to adopt numerical criteria for a minimum list of
toxic substances. The Office of Water Planning and
Standards is further attempting to remedy this
through technical assistance on wasteload allocation
procedures and methods of implementing bioassay
criteria in Water Quality Standards. An additional
priority here is to develop a strategy for the use
of Section 307(a) toxic effluent limits where BAT
requirements are sufficient to protect public health
and environment.
Enforcement
Enforcement activities play a central role in implementing
an effective pollution control program. Toxic pollutant
and hazardous materials enforcement wll be pursued through
enforcing reissued permits, bioassay inspections, pre-
treatment requirements, Section 404 requirements, Section 311
-------
- 101 -
hazardous substances requirements, and use of Section 504
emergency powers. In 1980, the Permit Program will initiate
its issuance of permits based on promulgated effluent
guidelines for toxic pollutants.
Implementation of the pretreatment requirements demon-
strates the importance of >'working liaison between the EPA
and localities. The Clean Water Act of 1979 requires that
POTW's must develop programs to enforce the EPA's National
Pretreatment Requirements. Following the 1978 promulgation
of Federal pretreatment guidelines, the program will begin
to shift in 1979 and 1980 to the local level. Toxic
pollutant controls will proceed through incorporating
pretreatment requirements in municipal permits for control
of indirect discharges. Enforcement resources will be
devoted to the pretreatment programs, consider requests
for modification of pretreatment standards, and modify
municipal permits to incorporate pretreatment requirements.
The Water Quality Program will rru.ke a major initiative
to limit the redundancies of the regulatory process and
to provide for more efficient program management. In
1980 the Permit Program will work to consolidate National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
under the Clean Water Act with Hazardous Waste permits
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
Underground Injection Control permits under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Consolidation of these permit programs
will eliminate duplicative permit issuance reporting
requirements for affected facilities.
Emphasis will continue in 1979 and 1980 on the Municipal
Enforcement Strategy first formulated in 1978. As with
other water quality programs, this strategy is an attempt
to integrate program activities of the Grants, Enforcement,
and NPDES Permit Compliance Programs, to better coordinate
and reinforce planning and scheduling of municipalities to
meet the goals of the Act. The principal effort in 1979
and 1980 will be to implement a program of action through-
out EPA and the States, leading to:
o Integrated municipal permit and grants schedules;
o Compatible information systems;
o Internally consistent operating procedures; and
o Coordinated grant and enforcement sanctions for
noncomplying municipalities.
-------
- 102 -
The overall result is expected to be more effective and
expeditious actions toward the compliance of municipalities
with requirements established in the Act.
Permits Issuance
The major objectives of the FY 1980/81 Permits Program
will be to maximize the control of toxic pollutants
through the initiation of the second round permitting
effort and the implementation of the National Pretreatment
Program; to accomplish a major regulatory and management
reform initiative by streamlining the permit process to
allow for consolidated procedures, organization and permit
format; and contribution to the major source enforcement
effort through implementation of the National Enforcement
Strategy.
Under separate cover, OWE will provide more detailed
guidance on integrating permit program priorities
with particular reference to pretreatment activities.
o Toxic control through second-round permits -- NPDES
second-round permits unde"r the Clean Water Act
will begin to be issued in FY 80 and will be issued
throughout FY 80/81. The reissuance of expiring
permits to these industries, including Federal
facilities, covered by the NRDe ;o^oent decree
("primary" industries) will be of particular
importance as it will impose BAT/toxic limitations
on the significant sources of toxic pollutants.
Emphasis on permits issuance will be prioritized
in FY 1980/81 as follows: major primary industries
which could be sources of highly toxic substances,
major secondary industries, remaining (80%) minor
primary industries, and minor secondary industries.
0 Regulatory and management reform through consolidated
permitting -- EPA is consolidating its permit pro-
grams, both to simplify administrative steps and
to facilitate addressing all environmental concerns
through a single process. By October 1, 1979,
EPA will consolidate permit issuing, i.e., permit
drafting, paper flow and initial point of contact,
for NPDES permits; Hazardous Wastes permits;
Underground Injection Control permits; Ocean
Dumping permits; Air New Source permits; and other
permit-like programs in one place in each of its
Regional Offices. Regulated facilities will be
able to submit one application for all water, solid
and hazardous wastes related permits; go through
one review; and be issued one permit.
-------
- 103 -
o Toxic control through pretreatment — The pre-
treatmentprogram is expected to take on increasing
importance in 1980. Pretreatment activities in
FY 1980 should be addressed generally according
to the following priorities: 1) provide assistance
to States in developing State pretreatment programs
and approve such programs: 2) review and make
determinations on requests for local pretreatment
program approval; 3) develop compliance schedules
for insertion in NPDES municipal permits requiring
the development of a local pretreatment program/-
and 4) work with States and municipalities in
identifying industrial users subject to categorical
pretreatment standards as such standards are
promulgated.
o Major source enforcement through implementation of
the Municipal Strategy — The National Municipal
Policy and Strategy published in FY 1979 sets forth
priorities for reissuing expiring major municipal
permits. This policy directs that municipalities
requesting time extensions for compliance with
secondary treatment requirements (Section 301 (i)
extensions) be given priority in permit reissuance.
The 301 (i) compliance extension is a major
mechanism for bringing non-complying municipalities
into compliance with the law thus contributing
significantly to the Agency's major source enforce-
ment effort.
Research and Development
Much is known about conventional pollutant indicators such
as biological oxygen demand, and bacterial counts.
However, our ability to assess toxic pollution problems
is hampered by the large number of toxic pollutants in
the environment, and the necessity of using highly
sophisticated and expensive technology to monitor pollutant
levels. Currently there is much work ongoing to resolve
these problems. Priority activities (not necessarily in
priority order) in 1980/81 include an integrated effort
by the Office of Research and Development and the Office
of Water and Waste Management to:
o complete the publication of water quality criteria
for 65 classes of toxic pollutants, to assess
impacts of those pollutants on aquatic species
and human health, and to determine acceptable
levels,
-------
- 104 -
o select additional priority pollutants and develop
criteria,
o develop wet weather criteria for pollutants to
account for nonpoint source contributions during
high flows,
o add carcinogens and chronically toxic pollutants
to the hazardous substance list,
o develop recreational water quality criteria,
o expand selected water quality predictive models to
include toxics and sediments in assessing transport
and fate of pollutants,
o develop rapid screening tests for characterization
of toxic pollutants in complex effluent,
o assess effects of specific pollutants, pollutant
transformation products and combinations of
pollutants on marine biota,
o develop simulation techniques, including microcosms,
to predict pollutant stress on marine biota and
ecosystems,
o develop a simple implementable, technique for
assessing wetlands transition zones, and
characterization of productivity of wetlands, as
a tool for assessing the quality of wetlands,
o improve solid phase bioassay techniques to test
toxicity of dredged and fill material,
o develop broader spectrum and more cost-effective
methods for screening and quantifying organics in
water and wastewater with increased emphasis in
FY 81 on nonvolatile organics,
o develop more cost effective multi-element and
chemical specification methods, with emphasis
in FY 81 on solids,
o perform multi-media toxic and hazardous material
problem assessments in local areas in response to
public health concerns, in absence of State or
local capabilities,
o continue study of toxic materials in publicly
owned treatment works in order to develop compre-
hensive urban toxic pollutant control strategies.
-------
- 105 -
continue development of methodologies to assess
impact of nonpoint source pollution, and perform
nonpoint source assessments,
integrate Agency monitoring efforts for priority
pollutants, including establishing a single
data base system and approved quality assurance,
develop, evaluate, and report on a practical lake
(quality) evaluation index (LEI) procedure to
assist lake managers in interpreting lake problems
and selecting corrective actions,
assist Regions and States to develop toxic pollutant
monitoring capabilities to support State/EPA
Agreements, toxic wasteload allocations, water
quality standards, permit setting, and permit
compliance monitoring,
continue exploratory research to identify potential
pollutant problems in the future and to develop
potential controls for pollution problems; to
develop technologies that minimize pollution
production.
sludge: evaluate innovative and alternative
technology projects; improve data on exposures of
organics, metals, and pathogens from land appli-
cation; develop beneficial uses, including energy
recovery technologies, evaluate detoxification
methods,
small flows/land treatment: demonstrate central
management of onsite systems; extend overland
flow systems to colder climates; evaluate toxics
management in land application systems; investigate
higher rate nutrient update systems,
investigate process development for treatment
systems for small communities and combined sewer
overflow management and technology; evaluate
conservation/reuse demonstrations and high rate
biological removal of specific pollutants; and
develop surrogate control parameters,
initiate a major program for development and
demonstration of reuse/recycle technologies and
to reduce intermedia impacts of wastewater
treatment.
-------
- 106 -
WATER QUALITY
STATE GUIDANCE
Construction Grants
The primary State emphasis for the Construction
Grants Program in FY 1980 will continue to be the
negotiation and implementation of State delegation
agreements under Section 205(g). Delegation agree-
ments will be reached only when EPA is certain that
the recipient State has the necessary competency and
policy direction to be responsible for day-to-day
and project-by-project management of the program.
Currently, most States have either received a Section
205(g) grant or are involved in negotiations leading
to such a grant. In all the cases, the initial grant
defines only the beginning of a phase-in period that
lasts from two to four years. By FY 1980, most States
will be heavily involved in staffing and training
activities related to the delegation.
The Construction Grants Program in FY 1980 and
FY 1981 will put principal emphasis on program imple-
mentation and management; few (if any) legislative
changes are anticipated. Although the overall goal
of the program remains intact, the new thrusts arising
from the Clean Water Act of 1977 will significantly
alter EPA's management strategy. The highest manage-
ment priority effort in the near term is to shift the
program toward decentralized management, with State
delegation and use of Corps of Engineers resources
receiving maximum emphasis. Effective management in
this decentralized environment will require develop-
ment of improved program management systems, and much
of the FY 1980 effort should concentrate in this area.
Effective management, in this context, will include
the following major components:
o Full implementation of the 1977 Amendments
and new initiatives, with primary emphasis
on environmental managemet, sound program
planning, and project integrity. Particular
attention must be given to the facility
planning area, where most of the key environ-
mental decisions are made. Obligation goals
and delegation strategies are to be developed
within this primary emphasis.
-------
- 107 -
o Efficient utilization of available EPA, State,
and Corps resources to ensure maximum produc-
tivity for the effort expended. Delegation
to States and use of Corps resources are to
be pursued to the maximum extent possible
(with environmental and fiscal integrity,
however, continuing to be limiting factors).
o Full implementation through the State Priority
System of long term project planning mech-
anisms at the State and Federal levels, to
ensure that use of State allotments is level
over time, and not constrained by inadequate
projects ready for funding during any given
time period. The purpose of the priority
system is to provide first funding for those
projects with the most critical pollution
control need. The Agency is to actively
encourage State Agencies to fund those projects
most necessary for meeting the enforceable
requirements of the Act.
o Effective use of newly developed management
tools — such as the Municipal Strategy, outlay
management system, the Regional Construction
Grants Management System (PCGMS), the
Construction Grants Resource Needs Model, and
the priority system -- to improve coordination
of program effort among programs and Agencies.
The State/EPA Agreement will provide the
environmental and management structure for
coordinating activities at the State level.
o Implementation of program guidance on opera-
tional requirements during all three steps
of the grants program.
For purposes of FY 1980/1981 program planning, the
following program assumptions are to be adhered to:
o The appropriation will be $3.8 billion in
FY 1980 (available by October 1, 1979) and
$4 billion in FY 1981, with the allotment
formula for both years the same as in
FY 1979.
o The Congress will enact a one-year extension
of the allotment period for the FY 1978 funds,
increasing the period of availability to three
years for all appropriations authorized in the
Clean Water Act.
-------
- 108 -
o The Corps agreement for Step 3 management,
now scheduled to end during FY 1981, will
be extended for three years, to allow use
of Corps resources as long as necessary.
o The limitation on State use of funds under
delegation (Section 205(g)) of 2% of each
appropriation will continue but will be
available for obligation for three (not two)
years.
Operations and Maintenance
Operational requirements are to receive high priority
in FY 1980. Beginning in FY 1979 and continuing through
FY 1980, EPA will be developing a series of guidance
packages to clarify operational requirements of the
construction grants program. The States should ensure
that construction grants are not closed-out until there
is acceptable evidence that POTWs are capable of being
operated reliably at levels set forth by their NPDES
discharge requirements. Increased effort should also be
directed at identifying existing POTWs that do not
comply with NPDES permit requirements and conducting
performance evaluations when needed.
Specific State priorities include:
o Implement policy guidance (issued during FY
1979) and (1) use of operational checklists;
(2) operational reviews of facility plans and
P&S and (3) conditioning Step 3 grants or
grantee compliance with plans of operation
schedules.
o V7ork with EPA to use grant sanctions as
necessary t,o ensure grantee response to
operational requirements and to ensure
grantee commitment to adequate O&M for
completed projects.
o Conduct O&M inspections and follow-up inspec-
tions, as necessary, before close-out of the
Step 3 grant.
o Conduct one-year O&M inspections on closed-
out projects to verify performance and/or
flag problems.
-------
- 109 -
Water Quality Training
The States and municipalties have the responsibility
for developing balanced programs of water quality
training. Programs should include analysis of workforce
and training needs and development of training resources
supporting Section 205 program delegaitons and POTW
operations.
States should identify gaps where private sector
and institutional training resources are inadequate or
not available to achieve program objectives. Federal
resources and assistance to fill these gaps should be
requested in the areas of instructor training and
operational technology development.
State and local workforce development and training
activities should include:
o Assessment of staffing and training needs to
implement delegated Section 205 programs.
o Conduct of Water Quality Training programs.
o Requests for NTOTC assistance for training
courses, course packages, and instructor
training to fill needs unmet with State or
private resources for Section 205 program
delegation and POTW personnel training
programs.
o Assessment of POTW staffing and training
needs to meet performance requirements.
o Conduct of POTW operator training and certi-
fication programs to meet identified needs.
o Development of Section 109(b) State Training
Centers and programs.
o Development of State Training Coordinating
Committees.
-------
- 110 -
Water Quality Management
Management
o Manage Statewide programs and oversee the
areawide programs to bring about implemen-
tation of certified and approved WQM plans.
o Complete State certification requirements
for all initial plans.
o Initiate action to change the designation
status of areawide planning agencies where
implementation of the plan is not occurring
or where other evidence of capability is
lacking.
o With the areawide agencies, address more
carefully the financial and fiscal impli-
cations of WQM plan alternatives. State
and areawide agency work plans must include
adequate resources to assess the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of
proposed plans to ensure cost-effective
solutions to nonpoint and point source
problems.
o As appropriate, delegate authority for
planning activities and pass funds through
to areawide or local agencies.
o With the Regional Offices, fully develop the
WQM portions of the FY 81 State/EPA Agree-
ments, which will cover not only Water
Quality programs, but also Solid Waste and
Drinking Water Programs; fully develop five-
year strategies and water quality problem
assessments on which to base WQM aspects of
the Agreements.
o Assess the quality of the State's publicly
owned freshwater lakes.
o Provide for, encourage, and assist public
participation in all State activities,
consistent with 40 CFR Parts 25 and 35.
-------
- Ill -
o Provide continuing evalution of designated
management agencies, especially those respon-
sible for national priority problem areas and
implementation of regulatory programs.
o Review proposed Construction Grants awards and
NPDES permits for consistency with certified
and approved WQM plans.
o Complete 1975-78 triennial review of Water
Quality Standards.
o Develop comprehensive annual Water Quality
Management work plans and State/EPA Agreements
that include a State's program for lake quality
enhancement as an integral part of a State's
water quality planning strategy. Indicate
fiscal resources required to address State lake
restoration needs on a project priority basis.
o Ensure that implementation of approved WQM
plans occurs through management of State agency
control grants (Section 106), agricultural
controls costs sharing (208(j)), Clean Lakes
(Section 314) grants, and the commitment of
State and local funds.
o Work to promote the development of self-sus-
taining State, areawide, and local institutions
capable of maintaining a continuing planning
process.
o With the areawide agencies, emphasize the
identified national priorities during work
plan development; that is, urban storm runoff,
AWT review (especially regarding Water Quality
Standards, wasteload allocations, stream
classification, and effluent requirements),
agricultural runoff, ground water management,
and septic system management.
o Emphasize, with the areawide agencies, the
importance of water conservation and ground-
water protection in the development and
implementation of WQM programs.
-------
- 112 -
o Document project planning, management, and
implementation needs for a five-year period
(FY 81-85) to enable Headquarters to set
national priorities based on needs, plan
future funding requests, assist the States
with management resources, and develop policies
on the optimal use of 106, 208, and 314 funds.
The States should document their needs, and
update them annually in the five-year strategy
update.
o Promptly certify all completed portions of
State or areawide WOM plans addressing
agricultural pollution so that the control
measures (BMP's) identified can be eligible
for cost-sharing under the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP) (208(j)) administered by USDA.
o Develop work programs for continuing funding
under Section 208 which contain measureable
outputs leading to technically, politically,
and financially implementable solutions for
identified high-priority problem areas.
o Integrate WQS strategies and general program
activities into State/EPA Agreements.
o Review NPDES permits and Area/State Water
Quality Management Programs.
o Begin review of WQS for the next mandated
triennial review with special emphasis on
possible inclusion of toxic criteria and
general upgrading of stream uses to achieve
the goals of the Act.
o Participate in the development of revised
Federal regulations on WQS (40 CFR 130.7)
by commenting on draft Federal proposals.
o Identify the need for additional policy
guidance on specific problem areas or
program-related research and develop-
ment needs.
o Review NPDES permits, AWT projects, and Water
Quality Management Plans to ensure achievement
of, or implementation of Water Quality Standards
or as a mechanism to identify future needs in
WOS.
-------
- 113 -
o Participate in the development of State/EPA
Agreements by ensuring the program strategy,
integration with other programs, and proce-
dures for adding to or revising WQS are
fully understood and are operational.
o Review all stream and criteria variances
with a view towards moving variances and
upgrading water quality to protect 1983 goal
uses.
o Based on EPA criteria and guidance, carefully
selected State and areawide WQM agencies will
conduct AWT planning on prototype projects
with grants awarded in FY 79 to evaluate
lower-cost alternatives to AWT. These agencies
will concentrate on "Up-front" work related to
facility planning, such as Water Quality
Standards issues, wasteload allocations, and
size and location of treatment works.
o Selected State or areawide agencies should
receive funds to develop comprehensive
pretreatment programs in FY 80 in accordance
with 40 CFR 403.
o Selected State or areawide agencies should
receive funds to initiate major groundwater
studies for national policy formulation and
as examples for an aquifer designation/ground
water protection program.
106 Grants
o States must have adequate 504(b) authority
and must develop contingency plans for environ-
mental emergencies under Section 504(b)(7).
The States must also prepare legislation
providing appropriate contingency funding.
o Based on State/EPA Agreements and completed
205(g) delegation agreements, States should
renrogram funds among highest priority
activities identified in the Agreements,
especially hazardous and toxic materials
monitoring, spill prevention, implementation
of WQM plans, and support to State compliance
and enforcement activities.
-------
- 114 -
208 Grants
o Direct Section 208 grants in FY 80 soley to
nonpoint source control activities.
o Through State RCV7P committees, effectively
manage the allocation of funds to approved
projects and oversee the implementation of
BMP's in the areas selected.
o With the areawide planning agencies, develop
a process for upgrading facility portions of
certified/approved WQM plans, especially with
respect to population and economic projections,
service area and capacities.
o Additional States should develop regulatory
programs for nonpoint source pollution and
septic system management in FY 80.
o Seven States or areawide agencies should
conduct MIP's (model implementation projects)
for agricultural runoff; 12-15 new MIP's will
be chosen from State nominations and initiated
in FY 80.
o States with authority to administer section
404 permit programs should develop Statewide
208 Dredge and Fill regulatory programs,
consistent with EPA priorities and guidance.
Clean Lakes Grants
For those States choosing to participate in the
EPA Clean Lakes program, priorities will be to:
o Assist local units of government in under-
standing lake water quality problems, defining
actions required to control lake pollution and
enhance lake quality, and develop appropriate
plans and management procedures to implement
effective lake protection and restoration
programs.
o Prepare and/or review and submit to the EPA
Regional Administrator completed proposals for
grants assistance pursuant to the technical and
administrative requirements under 40 CFR Part
35.16000.
-------
- 115 -
o Properly monitor and manage awarded Clean
Lakes grant projects to meet program objec-
tives and project milestones.
State activities are expected to include the
following:
o Complete by January 1, 1982, a classification,
according to trophic condition, of their
publicly owned freshwater lakes that are in
need of protection or restoration. Funding
and guidance is made available by EPA for
these purposes through Federal Register notice
(43 FR 29617, July 10, 1978). This action is
required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 35.1630.
o Identify and prioritize Clean Lake project
requirements (both phase 1 and phase 2 grants)
on a fiscal year basis and include this ranking
of Clean Lakes programs needs in the annual
State Water Quality Management work plan and
State/EPA Agreement that is submitted to the
Regional Administrator. Criteria are stipu-
lated in the Regulations (40 CFR Part 35.1600)
to assist States in establishing priorities
and these should be followed. The specific
rationale, or any changes in an established
rationale, used by a State in presenting their
final project priorities must be included in
the annual work plan. Specific project work
statements should be developed and proposed in
a manner that will best implement the approved
State Water Quality Managment Strategy and the
provisions of the State/EPA Agreement. A State
funding priority must be included in any grant
application submitted to EPA or the application
will be returned to the State.
o States should discuss each project proposal
development, both phase 1 and phase 2 grants,
on a continuing basis with both EPA Regional
program coordinators and the local units of
government, if they initiated project develop-
ment, to ensure all regulatory requirements,
both technical and administrative, have been
met. Also, in the preparation of the more
complex project applications, project site
meetings (at least one) should be conducted
among all concerned parties.
-------
- 116 -
o States must manage projects, or ensure that
they are managed, to make sure that all grant
requirements are being met technically and on
time in conformance with a project's milestone
schedule. A continuing oral communication
should be developed between the State (or
grantee) and the EPA Regional project officer
so that necessary corrections to a project's
scope of work can be made in a timely and
effective manner. Water quality monitoring
is an essential part of all awarded projects,
and States must make a deliberate effort to
ensure essential and effective monitoring is
maintained. All monitoring should conform
to EPA standard procedures. States should
carefully review all monitored data for its
accuracy before it is reported to EPA according
to established EPA quality assurance procedures.
The water quality data should be entered into
STORET on a quarterly basis and be used not
only to evaluate project effectiveness, but
also to assess the overall status of each
State's ambient water quality pursuant to
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
o Each State, at the conclusion of implemented
Clean Lakes projects, should review the water
quality condition of the project lake and
adjust, if necessary, the State water quality
standards appropriate to the lake to reflect
the improved water quality and water use.
o Develop 404 programs and submit for approval.
o Initiate or improve existing wetlands regulatory
programs.
o Improve 401 certification process.
o Develop, or improve, monitoring of Dredge and
Fill activities.
Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis
In Water Quality Monitoring, the following State
priorities and guidance apply:
-------
- 117 -
Implementation of the Basic Water Monitoring Program
(Basic Program)
o In FY 80 the States should assume full respon-
sibility for the Basic Program. The Regions
and States should update the implementation
strategy and monitoring schedules. Since the
Basic Program must remain consistent with EPA
program emphasis, the States should expect
reasonable modifications to the program.
o In FY 80, a complete State national ambient
monitoring station network should be operating
following the criteria outlined in the Basic
Program. It is important that each Region
work closely with the States to ensure that
these stations are operated properly and to
stress the need to report data in STORET-
compatible form.
o In FY 80, the States should again emphasize
intensive surveys conducted under the Basic
Program. The States should also work closely
with the areawide planning agencies to conduct
intensive surveys that will meet their needs.
It is important that an abstract be prepared
for each intensive survey to be maintained in
the Region with a copy transmitted to Head-
quarters. Expanded Basic Program intensive
survey guidance will be issued in FY 79.
The States should place a stronger emphasis on
intensive surveys in FY 80 in order to meet the
following needs:
o Following a new Congressionl resolution, all
major AWT decisions will require a strong
technical justification in FY 80 before they
can be approved by the Administrator. The
States should, therefore, improve their
technical capabilities for conducting waste-
load allocations in establishing other water
quality-based controls.
o Technically sound environmental data on an
area-by-area basis will be required to develop
strategies for toxic and non toxic pollutant
controls (including WLAs) in geographic areas
where BAT and BPWTT will not be adequate to
meet water quality goals, and where national-
-------
- 118 -
level Section 307(a)(2) or other controls are
not available or are inappropriate. Biological
and non-biological data are needed to identify
these areas to determine relative importance
and controllability of various sources, and
to recommend control strategies. The problem
assessments associated with this activity
should be coordinated with Headquarters multi-
media studies and studies to determine the
effects of specific effluent levels (dilution
studies). Headquarters will continue to work
with the Regions and States to help identify
toxic "hot spot" areas.
Since they provide a much broader picture of
causes and effects, intensive surveys should
be used by State programs to address multi-
media, multi-source problems, e.g., control of
hazardous waste disposal sites under RCRA and
its impact on surface and groundwater quality,
the effects of BAT on drinking water quality,
etc. Since a primary objective of this
Guidance is to protect public health and
sensitive aquatic ecosystems, the State should
emphasize biological monitoring as part of
their intensive surveys.
Quality Assurance
o in FY 80, conformance with the Agency's Quality
Assurance Policy and Management Plan will be
mandatory. In implementing water monitoring
program priorities, the States and the areawide
Water Quality Management agencies must ensure
that each agency and contract laboratory is
carrying out data collection, sample analysis,
and data reporting activities in strict
accordance with EPA's Quality Assurance Plan.
Section 305(b) Report
o In FY 80, the States should follow the expanded
Section 305(b) guidance issue in FY 79. The
States are also encouraged to work through the
Section 305(b) process to report, by stream
reach or segment, all known ecosystem changes
such as the disappearance or reappearance of
indigenous populations of biological organisms.
This information, with additional information
collected through Headquarters, will place the
Agncy in a better positin to report on the
total effects of existing pollution controls.
-------
- 119 -
Water Quality Enforcement
For FY 80, the highest program priority will
continue to be initiation of enforcement actions
in response to emergency situations involving
substantial threats to public health and
safety.
Every effort must be made during FY 80 to
resolve all pendng enforcement referral cases
against municipal and nonmunicipal permittees
in violation of the July 1, 1977 deadline. All
case referrals are to be made by the end of FY
1979.
States must ensure that major municipal and
nonmunicipal facilities, including Federal
facilities, maintain compliance with CWA
Statutory requirements. It must also be
ensured through effective compliance monitor-
ing and inspection programs and approriate
follow-up enforcement actions, that municipal
and nonmunicipal permittees maintain continuous
compliance with the requirements of the law.
Additional attention should be given in FY 80
to planning for and conducting a DMR quality
assurance program and performance audit inspec-
tions.
In response to new initiatives in the area
of toxics and hazardous substances control,
State programs must begin to develop plans for
implementing compliance monitoring inspection
and enforcement programs to meet pretreatment,
hazardous substances and "second round" permit
toxic requirements.
Efforts during FY 80 must also include plans
to initiate and/or maintain all ADP systems
necessary to (1) track and manage State com-
pliance and information to EPA Regional offices
at specified intervals (i.e., cases referred,
tried, settled, etc.), including all information
necessary to carry out the Municipal Enforcement
Strategy (State reporting requirements/comments
attached.)
States must ensure compliance by Federal
facilities with State environmental require-
ments.
-------
- 120 -
Water Enforcement - Permits Issuance
o NPDES State activities in FY 1980 should follow
the priorities established for Regional Offices
in FY 1980. Emphasis should be placed on
issuing BAT/toxic permits to industrial sources
in the primary industries. In addition,
resources should be devoted to reissuing major
expiring municipal permits to include 301(i)
determinations on municipal time extensions,
where appropriate, and the compliance schedules
for the development of pretreatment programs,
where appropriate. The major change in NPDES
State program requirements between FY 79 and 80
will be an increased emphasis on pretreatment
activities. Those NPDES States which need
legislative changes in order to comply with
the pretreatment requirements set forth in the
Clean Water Act and associated regulations must
apply for State pretreatment program approval
in FY 1980. Those NPDES States which received
pretreatment program approval in FY 1979 should
devote FY 1980 resources to developing compliance
schedules for municipal permittees required to
develop pretreatment programs, assisting these
municipal permittees in developing approvable
programs in accordance with the compliance
schedule, and making determinations on whether
to approve or deny local pretreatment programs.
In addition, States with approved pretreatment
programs should provide resources to monitor
compliance by industrial users not subject to
POTW control to ensure that such users are in
compliance with any Federal categorical pretreat-
ment standards with compliance dates in FY 80
or earlier.
o The Clean Water Act amendments of 1977 removed
any prohibition on States issuing permits to
Federal facilities. Several States have made
the necessary changes in their approved programs
to enable them to permit Federal facilities.
Remaining approved States are encouraged to work
with EPA to clarify their authority in this
area so that they may begin permitting Federal
facilities.
o NPDES States should set aside or establish
resources to complete high priority, presently
outstanding Section 316(a) and (b) requests
where environmental benefits are most likely
to be realized.
-------
- 121 -
WATER ENFORCEMENT
Planned State Program Accomplishments
1. Number of compliance sampling inspections of major municipal
permittees. (commitment - quarterly)
2. Number of compliance sampling inspections of major nonmunici-
pal permittees. (commitment - quarterly)
3. Number of compliance evaluation inspections of major permittees,
(commitment - quarterly)
4. Number of compliance evaluation inspections of major nonpermit-
tees. (commitment - quarterly)
5. Number of compliance sampling inspections conducted using
biomonitoring screening for toxic substances. (commitment -
quarterly)
6. Number of compliance sampling inspections for toxic substances.
(commitment - quarterly)
7. Number of performance audit inspections of major municipal
permittees. (commitment - quarterly)
8. Number of performance audit inspections of major nonmunicipal
permittees. (commitment - quarterly)
9. Number of compliance evaluation inspections conducted for DMR
QA followup. (commitment - quarterly)
10. Number of NPDES AOs issued. (commitment - quarterly)
11. Average amount of time (days) it will take to respond to
major NPDES permit violations. (commitment - quarterly)
12. Number of major municipal permittees not in compliance
with schedule requirements. (commitment - quarterly)
13. Number of major municipal permittees not in compliance
with effluent requirements. (commitment - quarterly)
14. Number of major nonmunicipal permittees not in compliance
with schedule requirements. (commitment - quarterly)
15. Number of major nonmunicipal permittees not in compliance
with effluent requirements. (commitment - quarterly)
-------
- 122 -
16. Number of municipal NPDES violations referred by State to
State Attorney General. (commitment - quarterly)
17. Number of nonmunicipal NPDES violations referred by State to
State Attorney General. (commitment - quarterly)
18. Number of responses to emergency situations involving
substantial threats to public health and safety. (reporting
requirement - quarterly)
-------
- 123 -
PERMIT ISSUANCE
PLANNED STATE PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1. Number of major permits in "primary industries" reissued or
extended.
2. Number of major permits in "secondary industries reissued.
3. Number of major funded POTW permits issued or reissued, (not
301(i) modifications).
4. Number of expiring major municipal permits modified to
incorporate compliance schedule time extensions pursuant to
section 301(i).
5. Number of municipal POTW pretreatment programs developed
and/or approved.
-------
DRINKING WATER STATE GUIDANCE
-------
DRINKING WATER
MEDIA OVERVIEW
The goal of the drinking water program is to protect
the public health by assuring the safety of the drinking
water.
This is primarily the responsibility of State and local
governments. However, Congress has determined that the
Federal Government should share in this responsibility by
assisting, reinforcing, and setting standards for State and
local efforts.
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires (1) primary health
related drinking water regulations requisite to protect the
public health, (2) public water systems supervision programs
(PWS) to assure compliance with the regulations, (3) under-
ground injection control programs (UIC) to help protect
underground sources of drinking water, and (4) the provision
of emergency assistance. The Act envisioned that the States
would have primary enforcement responsibility for both the
PWS and UIC programs. Moreover, the Act was designed to
encourage voluntary compliance with the regulations.
The program activities will focus on implementation of
the primary drinking water regulations in non-primacy States
and on Indian lands, assistance on the implementation of the
trihalomethane and synthetic organics regulations; maintaining
a strong management program in primacy States to assure
primacy implementation; continuing efforts to encourage the
remaining States to achieve primacy; emergency assistance;
financial assistance to States; research, development and
implementation of additional regulations to control other
contaminants in drinking water; issuance of variances and
exemptions; implementation of a program to protect under-
ground sources of drinking water; the initiation of enforce-
ment actions in recalcitrant cases to ensure compliance;
review of sole source aquifer petitions; implementation of
an integrated ground-water policy and strategy; implementa-
tion of State/EPA agreements, permitting and enforcement
guidance for the UIC program, legal strategies for Regional
and State overview programs, providing legal and adminis-
trative support in initiating formal enforcement actions,
issuing UIC permits, providing technical and legal support
in response to emergency actions.
Planning Assumptions
The planning and operating guidance for FY 1980 is
based upon the following assumptions:
-------
- 128 -
o Currently proposed organic regulations
will be promulgated in Summer 1979.
o Revised drinking water regulations will
be proposed in early FY 1980.
o UIC regulations will promulgated by
January, 1980.
o By FY 1981, all 57 States will be
listed as requiring underground
injection control programs. They will
then become eligible for grants. The
following list shows for each year, the
number of States first becoming eligible
in that year.
- FY 1979 - 23 States listed.
- FY 1980 - 18 States listed.
- FY 1981 - 16 States listed.
o Consolidated permit regulations will
be in effect in FY 1980.
o EPA will utilize the grant allocations
for underground water source protection
of listed States (1) that do not apply
for grants or (2) that indicate that they
will not assume primacy for the UIC
program.
o Sole/principal Source Aquifer (1424(e))
regulations will be promulgated in Spring,
1979.
o In FY 1980, EPA will implement public water
systems supervision programs in 12 States:
Indiana, Pennsylvania, Oregon, District of
Columbia, South Dakota, Wyoming, Illinois,
North Carolina, Vermont, Utah, American
Samoa, Northern Marianas.
o A legislative amendment extending the
compliance schedule for exemptions will
be adopted.
These assumptions represent the best projections
based upon information currently available.
Media Priorities
The media priorities for FY 1980 and FY 1981 provide
general national guidance on the relative priorities of the
program. These priorities may differ from one Region to
another depending upon each Region's particular situation.
Regions maintain the flexibility to pursue priorities which
satisfy the needs of their unique situations.
-------
- 129 -
Priority 1 activities are:
to initiate enforcement actions in
response to emergency situations
involving substantial threats to
public health.
to establish maximum contaminant
levels and/or treatment techniques
to assure the safety of drinking water.
to implement the organics regulations.
to maintain a strong management
program in primacy States, including
overview of State enforcement activities.
to take enforcement actions, as necessary,
in non-primacy States.
to develop a coordinated groundwater
policy and strategy by the third
quarter of FY 80 which encompasses
all activities mandated by the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and Clean Water Act.
to encourage listed States to assume
primary enforcement responsibility for
the UIC program.
to continue efforts to encourage States
to assume primacy for the PWS program.
to manage the State grants.
to respond to emergency situations.
to pursue enforcement action against
public or private entities determined
to be totally or partially responsible
for emergency situations.
to implement and enforce a program for
assuring compliance with the primary
drinking water regulations in non-primacy
States and on Indian lands.
to conduct research into the health
effects and treatment of trace organics
and alternate disinfectants.
to maximize program effectiveness and
integration through the consolidated
permits program, State/EPA agreements,
etc.
Priority 2 activities are:
to protect designated sole source aquifers,
to develop UIC implementation plans on
Indian lands.
to provide technical and legal support
in enforcement actions, as requested,
in primacy States.
-------
- 130 -
to investigate the relationship of
inorganic contaminants and asbestos
fibers on health.
to increase public awareness and public
participation.
to provide technical and legal
support to States as requested.
o Priority 3 activities are:
to develop cooperative groundwater
research program responsive to
program needs.
to initiate enforcement actions in
primacy States where a State is unable
or fails to do so.
to conduct research on direct and
indirect additives.
to develop a policy on home water
treatment devices.
State Supervision Program Guidance
In fiscal year (FY) 1980 the State Public Water System
Supervision Program Grants will total $29.45 million - an
increase of $3.05 million (11.5%) above the FY 1979 amount
of $26.4 million. The increase exceeds expected inflationary
rates; therefore, current activities can generally be
expanded. Specifically, the following increased emphasis, or
new activities, should be emphasized during FY 1980.
o Initiate enforcement actions in response to
emergency situations involving substantial
threats to public health.
o Increase follow-up for systems in non-
compliance with the State Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.
assure public notification.
assure monitoring and reporting
of all systems.
follow-up enforcement activity
shall include compliance assurance
for variances and exemptions issued
by the State to community water
systems.
o Maintain primary enforcement responsibility.
maintain laboratory certification
programs.
-------
- 131 -
supply technical assistance with
respect to implementation of the non-
community public water system program.
o For States which have not yet assumed primacy,
continue efforts to assume program
responsibility.
o Implement the organics regulations.
o Initiate activities to meet the requirements
of the public participation regulations
and of the guidance issued pursuant to the
regulations.
o Increase surveillance of non-community
public water systems.
o In primacy States, expand compliance assurance
activities to include non-community water
systems.
o Emphasize State/EPA agreements with respect
to water supply considerations.
o Maintain PWS enforcement activity related
reporting requirements.
Planned State Program Accomplishments (Public Water System
Program)
o Number of PWS variances issued.
o Number of PWS exemptions issued.
o Number of MCL violations of State primary drinking
water regulations.
o Number of other violations of State primary
drinking water regulations.
o Number of PWS compliance actions initiated
against MCL violations.
o Number of PWS compliance actions initiated
against monitoring and reporting violations.
State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance
The major efforts of the groundwater protection program
will be focused on two separate activities. The States will
be in the process of finalizing the Surface Impoundment
Assessment and beginning the implementation of the Under-
ground Injection Control Program (UIC). In FY 80, grants
for the UIC program total $7,795,000. These grants are
available to those States listed by the EPA Administrator as
requiring a UIC program. However, those States listed must
implement a program which meets the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The following is specific guidance on
special efforts to be emphasized in order to carry out a
groundwater protection program under the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
-------
- 132 -
o Initiate enforcement actions in response
to emergency situations involving substantial
threats to public health.
o Finalize Surface Impoundment Assessment and
complete report.
o State/EPA Agreements - integrate environmental
programs through grant coordination, permit
consolidation and Memoranda of Understanding.
o Underground Injection Control Program
Development.
Prepare proposed UIC program description,
Obtain legislative authority and
verification by State Attorney General
of State's legal authority for a UIC
program.
Prepare Memoranda of Agreement with EPA.
Solicit public comment (public hearing)
on proposed UIC program.
Request program approval (Governor).
o Begin issuing UIC permits.
o Compile Injection Well Inventory.
o Prepare strategy for enforcement actions
in situations involving violation of UIC
program requirements.
o Develop UIC compliance assurance program
for implementation in FY 81, incorporating
data evaluation, monitoring and inspection
efforts.
o Maintain UIC enforcement related reporting
requirements.
Planned State Program Accomplishments (Ground Water
Protection Program)
o Number of emergency action responses
relative to investigation of imminent
and substantial endangerment to public
health.
o Number of permits issued.
-------
SOLID WASTE STATE GUIDANCE
-------
SOLID WASTE
MEDIA OVERVIEW
The Solid Waste Media is concerned with the national
management of three Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) programs: the Subtitle C (hazardous waste) program/-
the Subtitle D program for the management of wastes not
classified as hazardous; and the Technical Assistance Panels
program, designed to support the two foregoing efforts by
providing implementation assistance.
Media Priorities
The first priority of the Solid Waste Media is the
national management of the hazardous waste program. All
Subtitle C regulations are expected to be promulgated by
December 31, 1979, and to become effective in July 1980.
The major hazardous waste activities of the Solid Waste
Media are responding to emergencies (highest priority),
issuing guidance for implementing the regulations, assisting
in the defense of the regulations against court challenges,
authorizing and overseeing State programs, conducting
Federal enforcement activities, and identifying, evaluating
and enforcing against facilities which may pose imminent
hazards (to be referred to as problem sites).
The second priority is the national management of the
Subtitle D program. In 1980, high priority activities will
include management of the land disposal site inventory,
State program development and management of grants under the
President's Urban Policy program.
The third priority is the Technical Assistance Panels
program.
Planning Assumptions
The Solid Waste Guidance for 1980 is based upon the
1980 President's Budget. This budget does not include
adequate resources to handle the priority activities listed
earlier. There are substantial resource shortages in many
areas, but particularly for identifying, evaluating and
enforcing against abandoned or problem hazardous waste
sites. There are, however, several uncertainties regarding
resources for handling abandoned or problem sites that could
significantly alter this Guidance. This section will describe
the assumptions used within the limits of the 1980 President's
budget, and will also describe in some detail the uncertainties
that exist regarding resources for solid waste in FY 1980.
-------
- 136 -
Base Level Assumptions
o Schedule of Regulations:
Promulgation
Section of RCRA Date
3001, 3002, 3003, 3004 12/31/79
3005, 3006 10/31/79
4004 and 1008 (a) (3) 07/31/79
1008 (a) (1) 01/31/80
4002(b) 06/30/79
405 (Clean Water Act) 08/31/80
0 FY 1980 Grant Levels;
Hazardous waste - $18,600,000
Solid waste - $10,000,000
Urban Policy program - $13,950,000
(See Table 1 for State allocations)
0 Subtitle D grant funding;
Declining at a rate of $2 million
per year for 5 years
To fund high priority activities
only (inventory, State regulatory
program, State plan development)
No pass-through unless clearly
supporting high priority activities
0 Permitting function will be split in all
budget documents (irrespective of Regional
organization)
Abatement and Control will handle
technical reviews
Enforcement will handle administrative
processing and compliance monitoring
-------
- 137 -
FY 1981 Stat-.Grant Allocations
Subtitle C Subtitle D
ALA8A.'1A
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
rJORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROL HA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
PUERTO RICO
NORTHERN MARIANAS
VIRGIN ISLANDS
362,328
160,146
235,848
125,736
1,472,562
183,604
222,084
93,000
93,000
433,414
316,944
93,000
103,044
870,108
572,880
173,724
164,610
322,524
610,080
93,000
253,890
395,994
761 ,856
223,386
127,224
290,160
106,764
93,186
93,000
93,000
553,722
93,000
1,043,088
365,118
93,000
1,015,188
172,794
245,334
1,014,816
121,272
272,862
93,000
478,020
1,855,722
119,040
93,000
237,150
271,932
343,542
353,028
93,000
93,000
93,000
105,276
93,000
93,000
159,100
50,000
81,300
88,800
921 ,300
102,000
140,000
50,000
50,000
313,500
212,000
50,000
50,000
513,400
239,900
130,500
103,800
148,700
167,700
50,000
181,200
262,800
410,000
175,800
102,400
216,000
50,000
68,500
50,000
50,000
331,100
50,000
842,400
234,700
50,000
492,000
118,200
96,600
544,900
50,000
119,700
50,000
181,200
517,200
50,000
50,000
214,700
157,500
80,600
204,100
50,000
50,000
50,000
125,300
50,000
50,000
C D
REGION I 1,018,350 602,800
REGION II 1,795,086 1,348,800
REGION III 2,035,398 1,121,400
REGION IV 2,728,434 1,471,400
REGION V 3.796,446 2,035,200
REGION VI 2.857,332 941,900
REGION VII 721,680 518,800
REGION VIII 693.408 352,000
REGION IX 2,173,410 1,253,600
REGION X 78.0,456 354,100
TOTAL 18,600,000 10,000,000
TOTAL
18,600,000 10,000,000
-------
- 138 -
0 Penalty policies, enforcement strategies
and implementation plans will be prepared
during FY 1980
0 No specific funding is provided in 1980
President's budget for the discovery and
evaluation of abandoned and problem hazardous
waste sites
1979 Reprogramming -- Although no specific funds have
been provided in either the 1979 or 1980 budget for the
discovery, evaluation and enforcement activities associated
with abandoned hazardous waste sites, considerable
activity of this type is presently ongoing. It has
been estimated that approximately 30 workyears of
effort are being expended on this activity, utilizing
Headquarters and Regional solid waste enforcement, and
surveillance and analysis resources. The effort is not
spread evenly among the Regions, but appears to be
related to the number of problem sites per Region.
Two enforcement cases related to problem or
abandoned sites have currently been filed, and eight
more are expected within FY 1979. In the next 18
months, it is anticipated that another 12 to 18 cases
will be evaluated, and remedied either through voluntary
action by the owner or through Federal and/or State
actions, including litigation. An increase in resources,
estimated at an additional 20 manyears of effort, will
likely be expended on this effort. This would bring
the total Regional effort on problem abandoned sites to
50 manyears. It appears that even without official
recognition of this priority charge, the current
reprogrammed resources will continue to function on the
abandoned site problem. This implies, however, that
resources will be unavailable to implement the regulatory
program.
Request for Supplemental Fund.s — EPA is requesting
supplemental resources of $108.8 million and 113 positions
for FY 1980 to undertake an active program of discovering
and investigating, as well as responding to emergency
actions and conducting enforcement actions concerning
abandoned and inactive hazardous waste facilities that
present an imminent hazard to public health or the
environment.
The proposed program will have five parts: discovery,
reconnaissance investigation, full investigation,
enforcement and where essential, emergency action. The
program will be implemented by the EPA's Regions and,
in fact, by the States wherever possible. To accomplish
-------
- 139 -
this, EPA has already established a new institutional
structure of national and Regional coordinators and has
issued a change in programmatic priorities that will
result in the reprogramming of approximately 50 workyears
into this program. Also, EPA is preparing to convene a
three-day workshop to orient the appointed coordinators
and train participating personnel. Although EPA has
some experience in acting on abandoned/inactive site
incidents, the techniques for investigating cases,
protecting the safety of investigating personnel,
documenting data and preparing cases are still to be
perfected and many of the personnel that will be investigating
and bringing enforcement action on abandoned/inactive
sites will need additional training and experience.
The discovery of abandoned/inactive sites will
basically involve receiving (or otherwise obtaining)
and recording leads on suspected sites. Currently
there is no formal mechanism for the discovery of
problem sites. Most of the known problem sites have
been identified through informal communications with
States and through citizen complaints. This portion of
the program will systematize the documentation of
information received from various sources. It will
also involve several low-cost efforts to search for
undiscovered sites. The discovery component of the
program will be institutionalized and carried out
throughout the 18 months of the program and thereafter.
The reconnaissance investigation component of
the program will involve making a preliminary investigation
of those sites identified as suspected problem sites in
the discovery phase of the program. Supplemental funds
of $1.5 million in FY80 are requested for this work.
The full investigation component of the program
involves conducting extensive field investigations, in-depth
sampling and analysis, and other related studies on
sites identified by the reconnaissance investigation as
being potential significant hazards.
It is projected that approximately 300 sites can
and should be investigated over the next 18 months. At
a cost of 5.5 workyears per site, this workload (930
workyears) would far exceed the current resource capacity
of EPA and would even exceed EPA's capacity to hire and
train personnel if additional personnel were authorized.
Accordingly, it is proposed to use as many as 30 contractors
under level-of-effort contracts to supplement State and
-------
- 140 -
Regional resources under case-by-case task orders to
conduct full investigations. There are contractors
available for such an effort.
It is assumed that 225 sites can be investigated
by the States, but with varying amounts of EPA assistance
from the above-described contracts. The remaining 75
sites would be fully investigated by EPA also using
contractors. It is further assumed that all of this
effort would be performed in FY 1980 following discovery
and reconnaissance activities in FY 1979. Using these
assumptions, the full investigation component of the
program will cost $53.2 million. To manage the contractual
effort, and provide quality assurance, a limited number
of in-house experts, 43 additional positions and $1.7
million will be required. Accordingly, supplemental
resources of 43 positions and $54.9 million are requested
for FY 1980.
The enforcement component of the program will
involve bringing suits to require responsible parties
to take corrective actions. This phase encompasses the
preparation of legal cases and the additional technical
work and investigations necessary to support such
cases. It is assumed that following full investigations,
the States will assume responsibility for enforcement
action through State courts in 50 cases, with varying
amounts of EPA assistance, and that EPA will pursue
action on 50 cases under Federal authorities. Using
workload experience to date in similar enforcement
actions, 60 additional personnel and $2.4 million will
be required in supplemental funding for FY 1980.
The emergency response component of the program
will involve Federal funding of clean-up actions deemed
necessary to immediately contain extremely hazardous
situations. This will include action such as the
removal of drums of chemical wastes from navigable
waters and drainages into navigable waters (e.g.,
Louisville, Kentucky), the segregation and removal of
drums of chemicals that pose a fire or explosion threat
or which are leaking into the environment, and the
temporary containment of subsurface migration of toxic
chemicals through the construction of drains or other
means (e.g., Love Canal). These actions will not cover
permanent remedy. They will be employed where
a responsible party is not available or refuses to take
the emergency action. Whenever possible, recovery of
costs will be sought from available responsible parties.
Also, enforcement/injunction actions will be concurrently
taken wherever possible.
-------
- 141 -
Of the projected 300 sites that will be fully
investigated, it is assumed that 20 sites will require
critical emergency response. At an assumed average
cost of $2 million, $40 million will be required. It
is proposed that 75 percent of these 20 emergency actions
can be taken under the response authority of Section
311 of the Clean Water Act and that the remainder will
have to be addressed under Section 504 of that Act.
Accordingly, $30 million is requested to supplement the
Section 311 fund and $10 million is requested to fund
the Section 504 authority. Five additional positions
are requested to manage these clean-up actions which
are very complex and long-term compared to oil and
hazardous materials spills.
In addition, it is assumed that at least five
sites will require emergency response requiring application
of innovative technology. The La Bounty site in
Charles City, Iowa, is a good example. To deal with
these situations, 5 additional positions and $10 million
are requested.
In summary, 10 positions and $50 million are
requested for emergency response actions.
Overall, the following supplemental resources are
requested for the proposed program:
FY 1980
Component pos $1,000
Discovery
Reconnaissance Investigation - 1,50Q
Full Investigation 43 54,900
Enforcement 60 2,400
Emergency Response 10 50,000
III 108,800
It should be noted that this proposed 18 month
program is designed to address only a small part (300)
of the estimated potential universe of significantly
hazardous abandoned/inactive sites. Continuing activity
beyond FY 1980, at the same or higher level, is expected,
-------
- 142 -
STATE GUIDANCE
Abatement and Control
Fiscal Year 1980 will mark the States' initial movement
toward implementing hazardous and non-hazardous waste manage-
ment programs under Subtitles C and D of RCRA. EPA Regional
Offices and States are required to develop comprehensive
State/EPA Agreements covering these RCRA programs, along
with programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean
Water Act. The agreements will replace piece meal environmental
problem-solving with comprehensive environmental planning
and management. The Office of Solid Waste will issue, in
April, specific guidance outlining the States' responsibilities,
as in past years. The following is an overview of the RCRA
Guidance.
States will be urged to seek authorization and begin
implementing hazardous waste programs in FY80. The regula-
tions to be proposed under 40 CFR Part 123 (Consolidated
State Program Requirements for RCRA, UIC and NPDES) detail
requirements for determining whether a State program is
equivalent to the Federal program and has adequate enforce-
ment provisions. Authorization will be given to all States
meeting these requirements. States will also be eligible
for financial assistance for their efforts toward seeking
authorization and implementing their programs.
Subtitle D encourages the States to develop non-hazardous
waste regulatory programs. However, RCRA does not mandate a
Federal program or provide Federal enforcement authority
when States do not wish to operate their own program. In
FY80, financial assistance will be available to assist
States in developing and implementing such programs. The
need for Federal assistance is expected to decline as State
programs mature, and financial assistance will therefore be
phased out over a five-year period (FY80 through 84).
Therefore, States must limit use of the funds to highest
priority activities - completion of the disposal site inventory,
development and implementation of State regulatory programs,
and substantial forward progress in development of State
solid waste plans. Regions should work closely with the
States to help them develop mechanisms to replace the declining
Federal financial assistance.
Subtitle C Activities
In FY80, most States will continue developing their
hazardous waste management programs. Their primary activities
will include establishing the necessary legislative and
-------
- 143 -
regulatory structure; conducting the required public partici-
pation activities; taking any other steps necessary to
initiate an equivalent program; and developing application
packages for authorization.
Depending on the state of development of individual
programs, States will also begin implementing enabling
legislation and regulations; establishing the necessary
resources to conduct a permit program and operate a manifest
system; and conducting surveillance and enforcement activities.
States having grant monies in excess of the amount
needed for regulatory development are urged to undertake
surveys to identify and investigate old hazardous waste
sites which may cause future problems to public health or
the environment. However, the RCRA grant regulations do not
provide for funding of the actual remedial actions. Pending
Congressional action to create a superfund, this will remain
a State responsibility.
In FY80 and 81, States will be eligible for Interim
Authorization and Authorization under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Although the regulations under 40 CFR Part 123 detail
requirements for Federal hazardous waste program equivalency,
few State programs presently meet these requirements.
Therefore, Interim Authorization provides a grace period
during which existing but inadequate State programs can be
developed to meet the full Authorization requirements.
Interim Authorization will be available for only two years,
beginning six months after promulgation of the Section 3001
regulations.
Federal funding under Section 3011 will be available
for States to develop and/or implement hazardous waste
management programs. States which are ineligible for auth-
orization may still be funded to develop a program for
authorization in FY80 and beyond. Only those States which
totally divorce themselves from the program will not qualify
for grant funds. Developmental activities will receive 100
percent Federal funding, while implementation activities
will be provided 75 percent funding. Each Regional Adminis-
trator will determine what constitutes a developmental
activity.
OSW has established mandatory and optional requirements
for the Interim Authorization and Authorization categories.
(These requirements are discussed in detail in the RCRA
Guidance.) States must work toward the completion of at
least two of the mandatory outputs for funding eligibility
in FY80. Any or all of the optional outputs may be under-
taken in conjunction with mandatory outputs. States need
-------
- 144 -
not undertake all mandatory outputs at once, while the
completion of all mandatory outputs will not disqualify them
from funding of optional outputs. The appropriate outputs
for individual States will be determined by negotiations
between State and Regional Office staffs.
Subtitle D Activities
In FY80 and 81, States continue to be eligible for
funding under Subtitle D of RCRA. The grant requirements
are submission of a work program, designation by the Governor
of a single State agency to carry out or coordinate distri-
bution of the work program, and allocation of the funds
within the State only to the appropriate agency or agencies.
The specific requirements to be addressed in the work program
are discussed in detail in the RCRA Guidance. Final work
programs must be submitted to the Regional Administrator by
August 1, 1979, and must comply with the Guidelines for
Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Manage-
ment Plans which are expected to be promulgated in June
1979. It is recognized that the Regional Administrator will
need to be flexible with regard to the dates of submission
for the draft and final work program depending on the actual
promulgation date of the guidelines. Federal funding will
not exceed 75 percent of the total allowable work program
costs, except for inventory activities, for which 100 percent
funding will be provided.
The three highest priority State activities to be
funded in FY80 under Subtitle D will be to develop and
implement regulatory powers for land disposal, conduct the
disposal site inventory, and to develop State solid waste
plans. Local and Regional planning and implementation are a
low priority, and will be funded only if maximum progress is
being achieved on the other activities.
In FY80, States are required to demonstrate their legal
ability to close or upgrade facilities which fail to meet
the RCRA Section 4004 Criteria. This will include the
development and implementation of regulatory powers (legisla-
tion, regulations and procedures) necessary to close or
upgrade open dumps and to prohibit the establishment of new
open dumps.
The disposal facility inventory, required by RCRA, will
continue in FY80. In conducting facility evaluations for
the inventory, the States will identify solid waste disposal
facilities; develop a basis for deciding which sites to
evaluate and classify first; collect information necessary
to make classifications; make classifications; notify facility
owners/operators of their facility's classification; and
report this information to EPA Regional Offices.
-------
- 145 -
OSW will promulgate guidelines for the development and
implementation of State solid waste management plans (Section
4002 (b)) in June 1979. In FY8Q, States should complete and
move toward submitting an approved State plan by December
1980 (18 months after promulgation of the guidelines),
The States will continue to participate in the President's
Urban Policy resource recovery program. Their activities
will include designating applicants as implementing agencies
under Section 4003 of RCRA; reviewing the pre-applications
of grantees; coordinating with Regions and grantees to
ensure consistency with State Plans; and providing input
into the grantees' workscope development.
The States will continue to provide public participa-
tion in the development of their hazardous and nonhazardous
waste programs, as required in 40 CFR Part 25.
Enforcement
It is the intent of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act that the States implement the Subtitle C require-
ments, including enforcement, operating under hazardous
waste management programs authorized by the EPA. EPA will
provide financial and technical assistance to such States in
developing and conducting those programs and will maintain a
general oversight role. In States without such authorized
hazardous waste management programs, EPA will be responsible
for hazardous waste enforcement functions.
Program Priorities — In FY 1980 States will be assisted
and encouraged to develop, implement, and maintain
hazardous waste enforcement programs having priorities
parallel to those observed by the Federal program,, in
addition to any priorities designed to meet specific
State concerns. Specifically the States should include
the following priorities:
0 Emergency response —- Enforcement actions
should be initiated in emergency situations
involving imminent and substantial endanger-
ment to human health or the environment^
° Identification and evaluation of waste disposal
s_ites -- The States should undertake a program
to identify and evaluate all hazardous waste
disposal facilities which may pose an imminent
hazard to human health or the environment,
and to take appropriate legal actions.
-------
- 146 -
PROJECTED PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS - Abatement and Control
Hazardous Waste Management
*1. Number of existing permits
*2. Number of permit applications received
*3. Number of draft permits issued
*4. Number of final permits issued
*5. Number of permits appealed to Director
*6. Number of permits under judicial review
*7. Number of draft permits/permit applications
forwarded to EPA for review
*8. Number of appealed permits issued
*9. Number of permits suspended, denied, revoked
*10. Number of permits modified
*11. Number of EPA permit comments refuted/withdrawn
*12. Number of facilities suspected or reported as
not in compliance
*13. Number of facilities which were closed or
ceased operation
*14. Number of emergencies (fires, explosions, deaths,
injuries, and significant discharges, releases,
or spills)
*15. Number of manifests/manifest reports processed
*16. Number of international shipments (by receiving
country)
*17. Number of tons of hazardous waste received from
out-of-state (by sending State)
*18. Number of tons of hazardous waste shipped out
of state (by receiving State)
*19. Number of tons of hazardous waste treated
*20. Number of tons of hazardous waste in storage
*21. Number of tons of hazardous waste disposed
*22. Number of public hearings/meetings held
Solid Waste Management
1. State plan submitted to EPA
*2. Number of disposal sites:
to be classified
in classification process
classified
*Quarterly and/or annual totals
-------
- 147 -
PROJECTED PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS - Enforcement
1. Number of enforcement actions initiated in
response to hazardous waste emergencies
2. Number of court actions initiated for injunctive
relief
3. Number of inspections conducted of generators
who store, treat, or dispose on-site
4. Number of inspections conducted of generators
who store, treat, or dispose off-site
5. Number of inspections conducted of storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities
6. Number of inspections conducted of transporters
7. Number of administrative actions or civil
penalties taken against violators of State laws
8. Number of civil actions initiated under State
law
9. Number of criminal actions initiated under State
law
10. Number of violations detected
11. Update of inventory file
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES STATE GUIDANCE
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
MEDIA OVERVIEW
Planning Assumptions
The FY 1980 toxic substances abatement and control'
program activities and outputs are based on assumptions
about resource status and on program activity level.
The significant programmatic assumptions are related
to actions external to the toxic substances program.
The major one is that we will receive 400 premanufacture
notifications annually for review. We expect that the
Interagency Testing Committee will continue to make
recommendations for priority testing up to the statutory
limit of 50 chemicals. We are assuming that we will
receive industry substantial risk notifications at the
same rate as up to now. Requirements for industry
assistance are assumed to remain fairly constant
overall. We expect that many of the actions the
Agency takes initially will be the subject of petitions
and suits and that this will require significant pro-
gram effort to respond. We have assumed that section 28
State grant authority and funding authorizations will
not be extended beyond FY 1979 by Congress. We assume
that imminent hazard actions under TSCA section 7 will
be nonexistent or nearly so. These assumptions will also
apply to FY 1981. No legislative changes are assumed
for FY 1980.
Abatement and control resources for the Regions
will provide for a minimal program level. Only a
small amount of resources are provided for necessary
actions resulting from regulations. Coordinative
resources are provided for Regional integration, but
it is assumed that other media will provide resources
for activities to control toxic chemicals which are
being integrated. No resources are provided for toxic
chemical emergencies or other activities not required
to support legislatively mandated functions.
Output levels are based on the assumption that the
program operates at the full programmed resource
level in both FY 1979 and FY 1980. This assumes that
we will be able to locate, hire, and integrate into
our organization large numbers of people with neces-
sary skills and use our contract money effectively.
This in turn depends on having adequate space when
needed and necessary administrative support.
-------
- 152 -
Finally, because this is a new program, we
have had to base many output levels on models of
resource needs and projections of program design rather
than on actual experience.
The toxic substances enforcement program antici-
pates that by the end of FY 1980, the Agency will have
promulgated several TSCA section 4 testing standards,
including oncogenicity, chronic toxicity, and combined
oncogenicity and chronic toxicity standards. In addi-
tion, a section 4 testing rule, requiring the submis-
sion of test results data relating to health and
environmental effects, will have been promulgated and
20-30 chemicals selected for testing under this regu-
lation. Standards for providing test data in support
of a premanufacturing notice under section 5 will also
have been promulgated, and a number of section 5(e)
and 5(f) rules or orders will have been issued. An
additional section 6 rule is expected to become effective
by the end of FY 1980. Under section 8(a), the Agency
will have promulgated a use/exposure rule gathering
information on 2000-3000 chemicals. In addition to
individual section 8(a) information rules for a few
selected new chemicals, model rules will be issued under
sections 8(a), (c), and (d). Finally, regulations
governing the importation of chemicals will be in
place.
FY 1981 will bring additional chemical control
regulations under section 6. New section 4 testing
rules and new rules and orders under section 5(e) and
5(f) are also expected. Furthermore, additional
section 8(a) reporting regulations will be finalized
by the close of FY 1981.
The enforcement resources necessary to adequately
monitor compliance with these program activities will,
for the most part, be cumulative. We assume that
resource allocations to existing programs will decrease
with time. The net effect of the promulgation schedule,
however, will be to increase the demand for enforcement
resources.
-------
- 153 -
Research and development planning assumptions will
be identified through the research committee mechanism
which is being established presently for the toxic sub-
stances media.
Media Priorities
The FY 1980 and 1981 toxic substances programs re-
flect increasing levels of program activities and out-
puts. These expanding activities are based on the
necessary foundations for program operation such as a
chemical selection and priority setting system, assess-
ment process, premanufacture review process, including
testing guidelines for new chemicals, and data manage-
ment systems and capabilities for the most part being
in place and functioning. These activity levels also
require that expedited procedures be in place for such
activities as reporting and recordkeeping rulemaking
and for control'actions on new chemicals, which must be
taken quickly in order to be effective.
In FY 1980, we will continue establishing these
toxic substances abatement and control program founda-
tions while more fully operating most aspects of the
program. We will put priority on making the premanufacture
review program fully operational, in order to review
new chemicals and take action on those that may be
hazardous before their release into the environment.
We will also emphasize development of rules to obtctin
testing data upon which to make chemical assessments
in support of regulatory actions. We will begin to
increase our emphasis on control of existing chemicals
which are identified as hazards through our assessment
process. We will operate a priority setting system
for choosing chemicals for testing and regulation under
TSCA and other statutes, in conjunction with the Toxic
Substances Priorities Committee. In FY 1981, we will
emphasize full operation of all major program components.
We will place a balanced emphasis on regulation of new
and existing chemicals based upon the information base
we establish in FY 1979 and 1980. We will operate an
integrated priority setting system for choosing chemicals
for testing and regulation under TSCA and other statutes
in conjunction with the Toxic Substances Priorities
Committee. Public participation in these key programs
will be emphasized in both years.
-------
- 154 -
The Office of Enforcement will concentrate its
FY 1980 and FY 1981 resources on the enforcement of
those regulatory programs which provide the most
effective means of (a) abating threats to public
health or the environment due to chemical contami-
nants, (b) gathering accurate and comprehensive data
concerning the universe of potentially harmful sub-
stances, and (c) monitoring compliance with existing
standards to determine that regulated chemicals are
handled as required, and (d) assuring the integrity
of the regulatory program. Based on these criteria,
the following priority hierarchy has been established.
Emergency Response -- Since emergency situations
by definition present a direct and substantial
threat to public health or the environment, co-
ordinating Agency response to such imminent
hazards will be the highest priority for the
Office of Enforcement. The Office of Enforcement
will bring actions under section 7 of TSCA
for such injunctive relief as may be necessary
to remedy the risk at hand. Moreover, the
Office of Enforcement will actively enforce the
requirement under TSCA section 8(e) that persons
immediately report any emergency incidents of
environmental contamination. Finally, every
effort will be made to use, where appropriate,
emergency response tools available under other
environmental statutes such as the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
Premanufacture Notification - TSCA Section 5 --
Because the premanufacture notification require-
ment contained in section 5 of TSCA can be used
both to gather information and to reduce the
risk of hazardous chemicals being introduced into
commerce, monitoring compliance with this require-
ment is a high priority. The proper implementation
of the section 5 screening mechanism will allow
the Agency (a) to prevent hazardous substances
from reaching the marketplace, and (b) develop a
more accurate profile of the chemical industry.
-------
- 155 -
Chemical Control Actions - TSCA Sections 6, 5(e),
and 5(f) — Chemical control regulations con-
stitute the primary means by which the Agency
directly controls risks to public health and
the environment. Section 6 rules on PCBs, CFCs,
and any other substances in effect will receive
special attention. Since rules or orders
issued under TSCA section 5(e) and 5{f) (in con-
junction with the review of premanufacture notices)
also impose chemical-specific controls, the en-
forcement of the terms of such rules or orders
will receive the same priority as that assigned
to other chemical control enforcement activities.
Information Gathering - TSCA Sections 4 and 8 —
TSCA sections 4 and 8 provide the principal
authority for obtaining information regarding
chemical toxicity and exposure. Since a violation
of section- 4 or section 8 does not directly
endanger health or the environment the enforcement
of these programs receives a lower ranking than
the compliance monitoring activities described
above. The Office of Enforcement recognizes,
however, that since the success of other TSCA
sections depends upon the integrity of the data
received under sections 4 and 8, the Office of
Enforcement must provide the resources necessary
to assure that the information received under
these programs is valid and complete.
Imported Chemicals Control - TSCA Section 13 •—
A smaller portion of resources will be used
to inspect imported chemicals at U.S. ports of
entry. The Office of Enforcement will monitor
imported chemicals in cooperation with the U.S.
Customs Bureau. Developing a specific protocol
to control imported substances will also be a
part of the strategies devised to enforce each
of the programs listed above.
Federal Facility Enforcement — By the end of
FY 1980, it is expected that all, or almost all,
Federal facilities which are major sources will
be in compliance with applicable TSCA regulations
and most minor source Federal facilities will
also be in compliance. Regions should assure
-------
- 156 -
that all Federal facilities do indeed come into
compliance as soon as possible, and no later
than the end of FY 1980.
Apart from the enforcement of the substantive
mandates of TSCA, the Office of Enforcement will enhance
the efficiency of its compliance monitoring management
system during FY 1980 and 1981. Among the many pro-
grams which will be implemented to achieve this objec-
tive, the Office of Enforcement will focus on the
following activities.
Multi-Media Enforcement — The Office of
Enforcement plans to implement an intra-agency
multi-media approach to toxic substances enforce-
ment. As appropriate, the Office of Enforcement
will use both the enforcement tools and
the resources available under other EPA-
administered programs to integrate compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities.
Inter-Agency Cooperation — To further expand
inspectional resources, the Office of Enforcement
will work with participating agencies of the
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG) to
(a) develop cooperative joint, referral, and
crossover inspection programs, and (b) coordinate
complementary compliance monitoring programs.
Evaluation of the TSCA Enforcement Program --
The Office of Enforcement will continue to
evaluate and refine its compliance monitoring
and enforcement programs in FY 1981. As part
of this procedure, the Office of Enforcement
will establish a formal, automated system of
processing information generated through
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
It will also conduct a periodic review of
Regional programs and will establish a Regional
team to evaluate Headquarters performance.
Research and development priorities for toxic
substances will be established jointly by the research
committee participants.
-------
- 157 -
Major Objectives
The abatement and control program objectives are
to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act's
policy that (1) adequate data should be developed with
respect to the effect of chemicals on health and the
environment and that the development of such data should
be the responsibility of those who manufacture and
process the chemicals, and (2) adequate authority should
exist to regulate chemicals which present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment. These
objectives include the information related activities
of developing test standards and applying them to
specific chemicals by rule to obtain test data from
industry, establishing reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to obtain existing information on chemical
substances, setting requirements for submission of
information by industry on new chemicals and significant
new uses, monitoring for field data, implementing
and operating data management systems, and exchanging
nonconfidential information with other programs,
Federal agencies, States, public interest groups, and
the general public. It also includes scientific assess-
ments of effects, exposures, and risks for new and
existing chemicals based upon this information and
technical determinations of control options, including
economic considerations. Control related activities
include taking formal actions on the manufacturing,
processing, distribution, use, and disposal of new
and existing chemicals under TSCA authorities, refer-
ring action to other programs or agencies, and taking
nonregulatory approaches.
The fundamental objective of the toxic substances
enforcement program is to protect public health and
the environment from unreasonable risks posed by
chemical substances regulated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The risk abatement process will be
accomplished through:
(1) The implementation of a program to prevent
or respond to toxic substances emergencies and notices
of substantial risk,
(2) The achievement of compliance with the substan-
tive requirements of TSCA and regulations promulgated
thereunder,
-------
- 158 -
(3) Assuring that information gathered under TSCA
is accurate and complete so that correct assessments
of toxicity and exposure can be made, and
(4) The expansion of inspectional resources
and improvement of the TSCA enforcement management
system.
Research and development objectives will be
established through the research committee for toxic
substances.
-------
- 159 -
STATE GUIDANCE
Abatement and Control
EPA is committed to using the powers of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in an integrated
manner with other Federal authorities, State and local
authorities and programs, and with nongovernmental actions.
The Agency expects that cooperation and coordination with
these programs on information gathering and control
actions will result in more efficient and effective response
to chemical substance risks.
As part of this overall approach, EPA recognizes the
special expertise and abilities of the States. The
States often have information on health and ecological
effects, exposure, use, etc. for chemicals which are
produced or used in their areas. The monitoring or
epidemiological information compiled by State govern-
ments may be valuable to the national toxic substances
program in identifying and characterizing risks that may
be more appropriately controlled by actions at the State
level than by Federal action. While regulations under
TSCA will be directed primarily to national problems,
EPA will share nonconfidential data that would be useful
to State governments in developing regulations to address
substances that present a particular hazard in a geo-
graphical area. EPA, through its Regional Administrators,
will make every effort to coordinate with State and
local officials.
Section 28 of the Act authorizes a program of
financial assistance to States "for purposes of
complementing" the Federal program by addressing
problems on which EPA "is unable or not likely to
take action under" TSCA. EPA announced the availability
of this assistance, and details of the program in the
Federal Register August 28, 1978. This first solicitation
brought applications from nine States, of which six
were funded in whole or part. States interested in
applying for the next round of awards must submit
applications postmarked on or before May 27, 1979.
Cooperative agreements awarded under the first solicitation
included proposals to:
o Automate existing data from a toxic
substances survey ("registry"), and
augment those data from a variety of
sources. The resulting data base will
-------
- 160 -
be used, among other things, to
develop a State emergency response plan.
o Identify, characterize, and plan for
the management of toxic substances
problems. The State will establish
priorities among such problems as are
identified, and will develop a plan which
includes a detailed strategy for managing
them. Part of the plan will be to outline
the roles of both governmental and
nongovernmental agencies, and to define
current or proposed inter-governmental
relationships in managing toxics problems.
o Expand a small (25 substances) volatile
organic air monitoring program to include
metallic particulates, a small number of
heavy hydrocarbons absorbed onto
particulates, and a broad characterization
of volatile hydrocarbons.
o Study a formaldehyde vapor problem,
including determining the source of such
emissions.
Awards for the first round totaled approximately $1.7
million; approximately $1.3 million remains available for
award from the FY 1978 and FY 1979 appropriations in the
second round of competition.
Enforcement
Plans to implement a cooperative enforcement grant-
in--aid program with the States have been suspended until
such time as the Federal toxic substances enforcement
program is fully implemented. Thus, no FY 1980 State
Guidance has been developed.
-------
PESTICIDES STATE GUIDANCE
-------
PESTICIDES
MEDIA OVERVIEW
Planning Assumptions
The Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, which amended
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), will make the regulation of pesticides more
efficient, more effective, and more timely. All
registration (section 3) guidelines will be completed
and in force by the second quarter of FY 80 and new
regulations, where appropriate, will be in effect at
this tine and fully enforceable. The following
assumptions reflect the new directions and resumed
activities that those amendments have made possible.
Studies required by the FIFRA as amended on methods
of pesticide applications and minor use pesticides will
be completed the third quarter of FY 79, but at this
time, we do not anticipate the results to cause any
major realigning of OPP's regulatory activities. Ef-
forts to refine and improve the Agency's tolerance-
setting mechanisms will continue through FY 80 and
FY 81; no radical departures affecting Agency or
registrant resources are anticipated. Legal chal-
lenges to the trade secrets and data compensation
provisions in the 1978 FIFRA amendments are anticipated.
OPP and the Office of General Counsel expect these to
be resolved in EPA's favor.
The Generic Standard development process will be
fully productive by the beginning of FY 80. RPAR will
be merged into the generic standards in FY 81 when the
original RPAR commitment to 65 chemicals has been
completed.
Until pesticide generic standards are developed,
EPA will be granting conditional registrations. Con-
ditional registrations will allow the Agency to process
applications for registration of nev; products which
are like one already registered. Ultimately, OPP will
review all products comprehensively when they are
reregistered under generic pesticide registration
standards.
-------
- 164 -
"Me-too" products and new uses of "old" chemicals
will be eligible for conditional registration if EPA
determines that enough information is available to
evaluate unique hazards that nay be posed by the new
uses. The Agency will also issue conditional registra-
tion of new chemicals in the public interest if risk
during the period required to complete and submit
additional studies is not unreasonable.
States will have broader authority and responsi-
bility for registering Section 24(c) "Special Local
Weeds" pesticides without requiring EPA's approval.
Regions will assist States in establishing their 24(c)
programs and will provide early guidance and screening
to States on individual 24(c) applications. Final
review/disapproval will remain a headquarter's function,
EPA will use broad discretion granted by the 1978
amendments to waive the submission of efficacy data.
OPP will evaluate this during 1980 and, if it does not
prove to be effective, will reconsider this approach.
In any case, the Agency will continue to consider
efficacy when performance of the product bears upon
public health.
In FY 1980 EPA will complete (except for updating)
the process of classifying uses by regulation, apart
from the registration process. This will help to
realize the objectives of the applicator certification
program with regards to restricted use products.
The effort to develop grants-in-aid with States
and Territories for enforcement will be continued. By
the end of FY 1980, 43 States will have cooperative
grants-in-aid, and by FY 1981 the number of grants will
increase to 50.
The Office of Enforcement will initiate a new pro-
gram (Investigations of Nationally Targeted Pesticides
Public Health Incidents) during FY 1979 to focus upon
all aspects of the manufacture, distribution, use, and
disposal of certain restricted use pesticides. This
effort will be given continued er.pahsis in FY 1980.
-------
- 165 -
By the end of FY 1980, it is expected that all, or
almost all, Federal facilities which are major sources
will be in compliance and nost minor source Federal
facilities as well. Regions should see to it that all
Federal facilities do indeed come into compliance as
soon as possible, and no later than the end of FY 1980.
Research and Development will be integrated into
supporting pesticide activities in 1980. Furthermore,
ORD will receive its planning priorities from the
Pesticide Research Committee and specific requirements
from OPP.
The Federal Certification progran in Colorado and
Nebraska will continue at least through FY 1931.
OPP will be staffed up to budgeted levels with
qualified professional and support personnel. Both
Regional RPAR and Special Registration Decision Units
are eliminated connencing in 1980.
Priorities
FY 80 priorities will emphasize the cor.pletion of
the remaining RPAR reviev;s, completion of registration
standards initiated in FY 79 and reregistration of
existing pesticides based on these registration stand-
ards, registration of new environmentally protective
pesticide products for which complete hazard data are
submitted, expanded enforcement involvement on the
part of the States, and increased response to emergency
situations which involve substantial threats to public
health and safety.
FY 1981 priorities for the pesticide program will
be similar to those for FY 1980. RPAR will be substan-
tially completed and integrated into the registration
standards process. Highest priority will be registra-
tion of new environmentally protective pesticide
products. Continued completion of registration standards
and reregistration of existing pesticides based on them
will also be emphasized. Cooperative enforcement grants-
in-aid are expected to be developed in all or most States
by the end of FY 1981.
-------
- 166 -
In those States which have Federal certificetion
programs, enforcement activities will be in support of
efforts directed toward developing approved plans.
Federal personnel will continue to be responsible for
enforcement of applicator certification in Colorado and
Nebraska.
Major Objectives
In FY 80 the Agency plans to review benefits and
risks of 12-17 RPAR compounds identified as posing
potentially unreasonable adverse effects and reach 15-20
final risk/benefit determinations on RPAR compounds;
implement the conditional registration program; give
registration priority to new chemicals for which com-
plete hazard data are submitted; reregister 1,000-1,400
products from available generic standards; complete the
generic standards initiated last year and initiate the
preparation of 40-50 generic standards, including the
reassessment of associated tolerances.
Major objectives, reflective of the special
registration program, will be for Regions and Head-
quarters to provide timely and responsive guidance to
the States relative to their Section 5(f) experimental
use permits and review 180-240 Section 5 registrations
in a median turnaround time of 120 days; review 1,000-
1,500 Section 24(c) special local needs registrations
and conduct overview activities on their final actions;
review 170-220 Section 18 emergency exemptions in a
median turnaround time of 4 weeks including full scien-
tific review of pertinent data.
Guidelines for biological pesticides will be promul-
gated. The Agency will establish 80-120 pesticide
residue tolerances and review 75-100 amendments for food
and animal feed crops after review of data and risk/
benefit analyses in a median turnaround time of 105 days
The laboratory audit program will be continued;
50-70 laboratories will be audited.
FOI requests will be given an initial response
within 10 days followed by a final response as quickly
as possible. Monitoring for hazard prediction and
significance of potential problems will continue, but
will be more closely tuned to support the regulatory
process .
-------
- 167 -
The abatement and control objectives for 1981 re-
nain the sane as for 1980 except that the RPAR process
will be integrated into the generic standards process
and increased ercpahsis will be given to registration
of innovative, environmentally protective compounds.
The Federal Enforcement role will continue to be
one of oversight, guidance, an support of non-Federal
enforcement effects in States and Territories. The
program will also focus upon all aspects of the manu-
facture, distribution, use, and disposal of certain
restricted use pesticides.
During the next two years, four major objectives
will be driving the Environmental Protection Agency's
research and development program. These are (1) con-
tinuing the integration of the Office of Research and
Development into the mainstream of the pesticide
activities by supporting the Pesticide Research
Committee that was jointly developed by ORD, OPP,
Office of Enforcement and regional representation,
(2) enhancing the Office's capability to improve the
scientific and technological data for use in future
reculatory and enforcement actions, (3) improving
that data through scientific peer review of research
procedures and results, quality control of risk assess-
ments, and quality assurance of monitoring data, and
(4) providing specific data in response to OPP's
immediate needs.
-------
- 168 -
STATE GUIDANCE
ABATEMENT AND COKTPOL
State Program Priorities
Given that guidance should he as its nane inplies
and not prescriptive in nature, what follows is a
seauential priority listing and summation of activities
in which States efforts can be most helpful to the
implementation of FIFRA.
o Certification and Training — States need to
taketheir certification and training
program to the second generation level.
This translates into several specific
activities:
- Validation of examinations and other
certification mechanisms.
Cualitative evaluation of training
programs.
Correction of deficiencies in the
certification and training program
identified through the validation
and evaluation processes.
- Development of new training programs
to satisfy special needs.
Consideration for standardizing
competency requirements across
State lines for specialized pest
management groups, e.g., food
processors, cooling tower operators,
and railroad right-of-way operators.
- Consideration and implementation of
new or improved certification and
training methodologies in order to
enhance safety and effectiveness of
pesticide use.
-------
- 169 -
Special Registration — Provisions of FIFRA
and experience have placed a significant
responsibility at the State level in the
implementation of emergency exemptions
(Sec. 18), special and local needs registra-
tion (Sec. 24(c)), and experimental use
permits (Sec. 5(f)). To perform these func-
tions effectively, the States will have to
commit high-level scientific and technical
resources to hazard reviews and evaluations.
EPA and the States should also enhance
their consultation and coordination activi-
ties, working principally through the Regional
offices.
-------
- 170 -
State Specific Guidance
State-specific guidance has traditionally
been written by the Regional Offices within the
franework of broad national priorities, based
on their unique knowledge and understanding of
individual States. As this system has worked
well, and need not be changed, no attempt to
set out guidance specific to any State v/ill be
nade here.
Enforcement
State Program Priorities
In response to the continuing concern over
the dangers inherent to public health and the
environment caused by improper use or application
of pesticides, EPA will encourage the States to
enforce compliance with label directions for use.
Furthermore, the States are expected to be
actively involved with the Investigations of
Nationally-targeted Pesticide Public Health
Incidents.
State Specific Guidance
Through the mechanism of state grants-in-aid
the States will pay particular attention to pro-
ducts which are or will he classified as
restricted. Pursuant to the Federal Pesticide
Act of 1978, amending the FIFJRA, the States will
be granted primary authority to enforce pesticide
use violations. In those States which have not
developed use enforcement programs, the Office of
Enforcement will continue to enforce such viola-
tions. In those states which have developed use
enforcement programs, the Office of Enforcement
will provide oversight, guidance, and support.
In addition, the amendments grant EPA the
authority to enforce use violations when the
States cannot or do not take appropriate action
30 days after a violation has occurred. Further-
more, under new Sections 26 and 27 of the
-------
- 171 -
amendments, FPA may resume prinary enforcement
activities for use violations when a state has
failed to assume its enforcenent responsibilities.
These regulations are expected to be implenented
no later than FY 1980.
In connection with the proposed Investigations
of Nationally Targeted Pesticide Public Health
Incident, State personnel will initiate establish-
ment and books and records inspections at all
producing sites; conduct use observations; and
respond to emergency situations involving the mis-
use of restricted use pesticides, and/or other
pesticides.
836 886
------- |