EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA
903R96011
Environmental Results
Management
Acid
Rain
f
TheERBM
Prism
IRC
EPA
903/R-
96-011
Sound
Decisions
Public
Involvement
Priorities
EPA Report Collection
Information Resource Center
US EPA Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
in the Mid-Atlantic Region
-------
Introduction
Region III - the Mid-Atlantic Region
EPA's Region III, the Mid-Atlantic Region, contains
examples of most of the Nation's ecological regions. It
has a microcosm of the nation's major ecosystems,
where only deserts and arid plains are virtually
unrepresented. This diverse area, which includes the
states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia,
was one of the first settled in the country. It supports a
varied and intense agriculture, and is the center of the
original industrialized area of the United States.
Because of its history, the Mid-Atlantic Region faces
significant environmental challenges. Water high in
acid seeps from abandoned coal mines. Auto exhaust
forms smog on warm summer days. Agricultural
runoff pollutes rivers and streams. Development
threatens vital habitats. Acid rain is deposited on
fragile upland habitats and adds nutrients to the
Chesapeake Bay.
For more than 25 years, EPA's Region III staff has been
at the forefront of the effort to find balance between
protecting the environment and recognizing the impor-
tance of a strong economy.
One of EPA's most important needs is sound data to
form the basis for the delicate and complex decisions
that must be made every day to maintain that balance.
This report is the first of a two-volume study of how
Region III collects, analyzes, and uses data to make
decisions. This volume presents an overview of the
techniques we have developed to improve the quality
of our decisions and the data behind them. Volume II,
which will be prepared during 1997, will contain more
detailed information than can be included here.
For more information call:
General Information Hotline
(800) 438-2474
Publications
(215) 566-5121
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
Greetings from the Regional Administrator
EPA is charged with protecting the nation's public health and environment by enforcing a number
of major environmental statutes, including, among others, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund Laws. For many years, our basic approach was a
regulatory one; we looked no further than the requirements of the acts and tried to meet our broad
charge by maximizing enforcement under the acts.
Over time, it became clear that we were placing too much emphasis on the regulatory process and
not enough for the end product - the condition of the environment. When we realized that our
initial approach was not getting the results we needed, EPA began to adopt approaches that focused
on environmental improvement. Many of the techniques we developed did not take a regulatory
approach, and did not concentrate on industrial sources to the exclusion of other potential sources
of pollution.
In Region III, we call our particular approach Environmental Results-Based Management, or
ERBM. Using ERBM means that we focus on environmental end points and adapt our program
activities to achieve these end points. Sound data is essential to the ERBM approach.
EPA, like most governmental agencies, is inundated with large volumes of diverse data every
year. In the ERBM approach, we redefine out data needs, analyses, and uses to serve our new
program objectives.
The purpose of this report is to introduce you to the ERBM concept, to explain the data needs and
approaches that we use in ERBM, and to give you a flavor of the breadth and depth of Region Ill's
ERBM activities through a series of case studies. A later volume on ERBM is also planned; aimed at
a more technical audience, it will provide more detailed information.
Last year at this time, we produced a report, Our Mid-Atlantic Environment: 25 Years of
Progress, which focused on the state of Region Ill's environment on EPA's twenty-fifth anniversary.
It has been well received. I hope that you will find this report as useful and interesting.
Philadelphia, PA W. Michael McCabe
December, 1996 Regional Administrator
-------
Using Environmental Data
to Make Decisions
An important part of ERBM is
understanding the different types
of data and the relationship
between them. Figure 1, "EPA's
Continuum of Measures," is a
schematic representation that EPA
has developed to define the types
of information we have available to
us and the relationships between
them. The Continuum classifies six
levels of data that EPA collects
about environmental protection
activities and their impacts.
The foundation or base level is
resource and support. This
includes staff, contract and grant
dollars, legislation, public
opinion, staff morale, and all of
the other tangible and intangible
resources that help EPA accom-
plish its mission. The base level is
not considered to be part of the
continuum.
The first level or type of
information includes activities In/ EPA
and state/local environmental agencies.
This is in the form of permits issued,
inspections undertaken, enforcement
actions initiated, etc. It is the most
readily available data.
The second level includes actions
taken by sources of pollution. This
consists primarily of reports from
major permitees which are industrial
facilities that have emissions to the air
and/or water.
The third level includes measures
of emissions by sources. There are
several types of information here. One
is the measure of air and/or water
pollutants by permitted industrial
facilities. A second is the estimate of
hazardous material released based on
industry reports to the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI). The third major type
of information is estimates of
significant pollutant loadings that do
not come from specific facilities. For
example, run-off from agriculture,
vehicular emissions, and annual
estimates of soot from forest fires are
significant factors.
The fourth level includes measures
of ambient pollutant loadings. EPA has
a sound data base for maior air and
water pollutants that goes back more
than twenty years in some cases.
However, the scope of data is limited to
a relatively small number of major
pollutants.
The fifth level includes uptake of
pollutants by organisms and
ecosystems. Information here is
frequently limited to laboratory
analysis. Field tested data is difficult
to develop.
The sixth level consists of actual
environmental or human health
impacts or conditions. Most of our
analysis is based on laboratory analyses
and case-studies used to set standards.
Collecting actual data for many
impacts is very expensive and time-
consuming.
The point of the Environmental
Results-Based Management
approach is to use the best and
most appropriate data available to
make sound decisions. This data is
drawn from all levels on the con-
tinuum. All of EPA's programs also
strive to improve the quantity and
quality of the data at each level
on the continuum, so that future
decisions will be based on better
data.
Region III uses a model based on
"input," "output," and "outcome"
to classify and analyze data.
"Inputs" are the types of actions
that EPA can influence. "Outputs"
are the direct results of the inputs,
and "outcomes" are the ultimate
changes that occur as a result of the
outputs.
For example, "EPA/State Activi-
ties" are inputs to the pollution
control process. "Actions by
sources" and "emissions/discharge
quantities" are outputs (the direct
result of the inputs). "Ambient
Levels," "Uptake /Body Burden,"
and "Health/Ecological Effects" are
outcomes in this example.
Usually the data gaps occur at
Levels 4 (measures of ambient
pollutant loadings), 5 (uptake of
pollutants by organisms and
ecosystems), and 6 (actual environ-
mental or human health impacts or
conditions). The emphasis on
developing data at these levels is an
important long-term goal.
However, as the case studies that
are discussed in this report demon-
strate, data at all levels of the
continuum are valuable and useful.
Another common data gap is the
availability of data at the local level.
Many environmental standards are
set by using exhaustive studies of
particular problems in particular
localities. When Region III and its
states work to evaluate the success
ERBM in Region III 2
-------
of their control efforts, they need to
monitor local conditions and gather
local data. Recent attempts by
Region III to go beyond long-
established national data sets has
shown that it is difficult and
expensive to generate new data.
This further illustrates the impor-
tance of making optimum use of
existing data using the ERBM
approach.
The activities included in this
report are presented as a series of
case studies, beginning with the
Chesapeake Bay Program. Case
studies provide one of the best
ways to explain how and what was
done to respond to real problems.
Other case studies address acid
pollution activities, ozone pollution
efforts, program-specific efforts,
and the ways in which we gather
and manage information.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has
modified the continuum to better
express its objectives. The case
study from the Bay Program
includes its environmental indica-
tors based on the customized
version of the general continuum
presented here.
Later, in the section on "Environ-
mental Indicators Development,"
we present an adaptation of the
continuum which we call the Logic
Model. The Logic Model is a
planning tool that allows us to start
with a desired environmental result
and work to identify the programs
and activities that we should
undertake to achieve the desired
result.
Each case study describes how the
use of data guides decision-making.
It describes how data help us to set
priorities. This report documents
situations where Region III has
successfully used environmental
data to set priorities, how we have
used environmental indicators to
measure progress toward
established environmental goals,
and how we base the management
of our programs on these goals.
BASE LEVEL Inputs
COSTS
AND
RESOURCES
FINANCIAL
RESOURCES
CONTRACT/STAFF
MANAGEMENT
SUPPORT
CULTURAL VALUES
SUPPORTIVE OF
ERA'S MISSION
EPA
STATE
ACTIVITIES
FIGURE 1
EPA's Continuum of Measures
ACTIONS
BY
SOURCES
Outputs
EMISSION/
DISCHARGE
QUANTITIES
AMBIENT
LEVELS
Outcomes
UPTAKE/
BODY
BURDEN
HEALTH/
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
Administrative
Scientific
LRBM in Region 111 >
-------
The Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest,
most environmentally significant
estuary system in the United States.
In the 1970s, the public became
concerned about environmental
degradation in the Bay, particularly
the loss of living resources.
Congress responded by funding a
$28 million, five-year study of the
Bay.
The study identified nutrient
overloads in the Bay's tributaries as
the main source of the problem.
Programs were proposed to limit
nutrient loadings from point
sources (e.g., sewage treatment
plants), and nonpoint sources, such
as fertilizer runoff from farms.
As result of the study, the
Chesapeake Bay Program was
established. The program is
supported by the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (CBPO), which is
administered by EPA Region III
(see text box).
Monitoring the Bay
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the
most carefully monitored bodies of
water in the world. Data on all
traditional water parameters have
been taken at over 130 sites in the
watershed and the open Bay since
1984. The trends database available
from this monitoring program is
one of the best in America.
These data are used to analyze
water quality, evaluate living
resources, and understand the
overall nature of the Bay's
problems. A watershed model was
developed to study the Bay's water
quality processes and the sensitiv-
ity of those processes to external
nutrient loadings. From the model,
Bay Program participants set the
core program goal of 40 percent
nutrient reduction by the year 2000.
More recent data have been used
to validate the model and to
construct other simulation models
to assess the effectiveness of
different pollution control strate-
gies. Because these data serve as
the foundation of its efforts,
Chesapeake Bay Program staff have
established quality control and
assurances for all aspects of the
monitoring programs in the Bay.
While environmental data are
essential to program development,
they were not originally used to
inform the public of Bay conditions,
environmental problems, or the
restoration program's progress.
Data and trends in the triennial
State of the Chesapeake Bay
reports focused almost exclusively
on Bay water quality.
Environmental Indicators
In early 1991, the Bay Program's
leadership decided to make the
program more responsible and
accountable to the public by
defining and communicating the
environmental results achieved by
the restoration program. After
interviewing other EPA staff about
primary success measures, the
CBPO developed a set of
environmental indicators to
support goal-setting and to serve as
targets and endpoints for the
restoration effort.
The Chesapeake Bay Program
In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was concluded. Signatories were the
Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the Mayor of the District of
Columbia, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the
United States, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, representing
the State legislatures of the three states. All jurisdictions and agencies were to
focus their existing poEution control programs on reducing their nutrient loads
to the Bay. Subsequent agreements in 1987 and 1992 included commitments to
specific and far-reaching goals tied to restoring the health of the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a voluntary, consensus-based effort by the
participants to complement the national and state-level environmental regula-
tory programs. The Bay Program works through a series of commitiees, advi-
sory committees, and subcommittees that guide and advise the program in
aspects of the Bay restoration activities. Formal subcommittees, special
workgroups, and formal advisory committees for citizens, scientists, and local
governments are important in program development and implementation.
Because the solutions to the Bay's problems require the active involvement and
behavioral changes on the part of industry, governments, and the public, wide-
spread understanding of Bay problems and their causes is very important.
In 1984, EPA established the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) to man-
age federal funds and to coordinate the activities, study, and planning of the sig-
natory jurisdictions and the twelve other cooperating federal agencies.
ERBM in Reynn III 4
-------
A cross-disciplinary EPA quality
action team was formed to develop
success measures and to discuss
available databases and interpreta-
tion of the data. This team linked
environmental outcome measures
to strategic program goals (as noted
in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement), and the three primary
restoration objectives: reducing
nutrient enrichment effects;
protecting and enhancing living
resources; and reducing adverse
toxic impacts. The team also
arrayed the proposed measures of
success on the hierarchy of
indicators.
While EPA staff began this effort,
states and other stakeholders
helped refine the initial structure
through the Bay Program's
committee and workgroup
structure. Workshops were held in
1994 and 1995 to build stakeholder
involvement in the design and
refinement of the measures and the
communication products.
The Bay Program now uses about
30 environmental indicators to
gauge progress. Each indicator is
characterized by its position on the
six-level hierarchy. Measures range
from administrative actions, such as
issuing permits, to those that are
direct or indirect measures of
ecological or human health. The
basic hierarchy was shown in
Figure 1. The Bay program's
adaptation of the indicators hierar-
chy is shown below in Figure 2.
The three main tracks - nutrients,
living resources (e.g., Figure 3), and
toxics (e.g., Figure 4) converge on
the same objective moving up the
hierarchy towards level 6
indicators. The common measures
of greatest importance for all the
tracks are the living resource
indicators (e.g., Figure 5).
FIGURES
Bald Eagles on the Rebound
No tonjer endangered due to ban
on DOT (1972) and habttet Improvement*.
Using environmental outcome
information has affected the
operation of the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The approach has new
modes of decision-making and new
standards for accountability and
responsibility, particularly to the
public. It has enabled the Program
to communicate a clear and
consistent public message, has
accelerated goal setting (e.g., Figure
6), has sharpened the program's
ability to target resources and has
improved the program's ability to
evaluate its management strategies.
17 78 81
85 87 89 91 93 95
Year
FIGURE 2
Hierarchy of Indicators
(How We Measure Environmental Change)
FRBM /ii Kegum III 3
-------
FIGURES
Striped Bass Spawning Stock
(Baywidc Female Spawing Stock Biomass)
ss
Restoration Goal
196ttp 8* 68 88 70 JZ 74 78 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 95 96 97
Ynar
Projected Data
Other results and uses of using
environmental indicators and
outcome measures are:
support for goal setting for the Bay
program, both in the multi-year
Strategic Implementation Plan and in
annual planning and budgeting. The
Bay Program has over 25 measurable
goals in place. Resources are targeted
to measurable goals and strategic
objectives. Outcome-oriented projects
are preferred to projects with non-
measurable objectives.
development and evaluation of
program strategies. These strategies
require activity beyond traditional
methodologies. Environmental
indicators, rather than outputs, will be
used to evaluate the success of
tributary strategies.
general intangible improvements
on the Bay Program as a whole.
Focusing on results has encouraged
professional creativity in developing
solutions to Bay problems, improving
staff morale. Developing shared
definitions of environmental measures
has resulted in consistency in inter-
state goal setting and progress
measurement, and better
communication with the public.
Finally, improvements in
environmental indicators have
improved accountability.
The Bay Program's approach to
science and data requires consider-
able effort. About $2.5 million per
year is spent by EPA alone to
monitor air and water quality,
living resources, and submerged
aquatic vegetation. In fiscal year
1996, another $1.0 million in EPA
funds was spent to operate
computer simulation models to
evaluate alternate strategies. In
addition, state and local
government, other federal agencies,
and private organizations spent
many times the EPA amount in
support of these activities.
The value of this effort is in the
public communication and
understanding it brings. Over time,
increases in population and
development throughout the
Chesapeake Basin have reduced the
rate of progress toward the overall
goal of a 40 percent reduction in
nutrient loadings. Managers in
some programs are unwilling to
commit to long term goals because
of the uncertainty in year to year
activity and accomplishments.
By increasing public awareness of
the complexity of the situation, the
Bay Program's leadership hopes to
gain increased acceptance of the
fact that it will take considerable
time and effort before observable
results are available.
The lessons that the Bay Program
has learned from its experience
with indicators are:
If takes persistence to gam
acceptance for using indicators. There
are payoffs in public enthusiasm and
interest, staff morale, and internal and
external political support.
Key parties must have consensus
on the measures, data interpretation,
and use before taking action.
Not all systems need to be perfectly
modeled or understood. Data and
analytical problems will always exist.
"Ballpark" information will inspire
improvement.
ERBM m Region HI 6
-------
Indicators must have a clear end
use to be effective and linked to the
strategic goals of the organization.
Measures developed for their own sake
detract from the focus of the program.
The leadership must push for the
development and use of indicators. The
approach requires persistence, patience,
and a long-term vision of the program.
Developing outcome measures is
proceeding in several directions:
Tlie Bay Program is developing
'>///>£'/ indicators" to provide more
concise communication of the best
measures and consolidate the
information in the30existing
measures.
The Ba\i Program has placed high
priority on localizing measures, i.e.,
developing more river-specific or
sub-watershed measures rather than
Bay-wide average measures. The
public is interested in data that describe
the condition of local resources.
Another step in that direction is the
current directive to develop local
government indicators measuring
progress by government units in
advancing Bay goals.
Reflecting the growing interest in
sustainability, measures reflecting
stewardship and land use are being
emphasized. Sustainable use indicators
will help the program measure trends
in non-traditional areas such ns social
and demographic patterns. These are
being developed with significant
stakeholder involvement in the
non-profit and private sectors.
New communication tools will
use these measures reinforce the
core message of program progress.
A "People's Version" of the
indicators will be maintained in
more simplified and less technical
format. The "super indicators" will
be developed in graphical form for
media distribution in the coming
year. Annual reports of progress to
the Executive Council will use the
data as well.
to
), and
mtal
the
i
Estuary Programs
EPA oversees 28 National Estuary Programs across the US. Three of these - Delaware ia$ Dek
Maryland Coastal Bays - are overseen by Region HL Afl of the Estuary programs a*
results using existing scientific date to characterize environmental resources, and din
management plans/ including environmental indicators of progress, that have been developed for these estuaries are based on
thorough reviews of all relevant date.
For the Delaware Estuary, the environmental characterization identified three priority
issues: 1) land use, 2) habitat and living resources, and 3) toxics. Action, plani weie devel-
oped for each priority issue and were included in a CoiftjHBhensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). The action plans protect and »^tore environmental quality
by providing management alternatives and solutions to priority problems. Monitoring
will determine the effectiveness of the CCMP action plans, and wffl measart prongs in
achieving environmental results. The participation of stakeholders has been an important
part of all steps of this process.
The priority issue of "toxics" illustrates how this process has worked in the Delaware Estuary. During the envittSBnental
characterization phase, toxic substances were found in the water column, in sediments, and in estuarine organisms, and fish
consumption advisoties were in effect for various portions of the estuary. A list of toxics«bstaaee^
-------
Reducing Acid Pollution
Acid pollution is one of Region
Ill's most serious environmental
problems. Acid pollution occurs in
two forms: Acid Mine Drainage
comes mainly from coal mines that
were active years ago, but are no
longer being mined (a small portion
may come from operating mines);
Acid Deposition comes from the
deposition of acidic ions from the
atmosphere as either dry deposition
or acid precipitation.
Region Ill's leadership decided to
focus on Reducing Acid Pollution
as a major environmental priority
in 1993, based on data presented in
the environmental data study.
Separate efforts are being pursued
to address Acid Mine Drainage and
Acid Precipitation.
Acid Mine Drainage in
Region III
Acid mine drainage (AMD) is the
most pervasive water pollution
problem in Appalachia. In Region
III, this area includes the coal-
producing areas in the Appalachian
Mountains in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia,
which are shown in Figure 7.
Despite extensive studies and the
millions of dollars that have been
spent on mine drainage control
activities, the problem has not been
eliminated.
It has been estimated that Appala-
chia has over 7,500 miles of streams
impacted by AMD. Severely
impacted streams have no fish or
other aquatic life because of low pH
levels and the smothering effects of
iron and other metals deposited on
the stream beds.
FIGURE 7
Areas Underlain by Coal in Region III and Ohio
Additionally, the water quality
impacts of mine drainage on
aesthetics, fisheries, and tourism
have created less desirable areas for
visitors and recreational users,
resulting in lost business opportu-
nities.
AMD forms when rocks contain-
ing acid-producing materials are
exposed to water and air as a result
of mining. The most common
mineral is iron pyrite (fool's gold),
which occurs in the rock strata that
lie next to the coal-bearing layer.
During mining, the pyrite is
cracked and broken. Exposed to
water and air, the iron-sulfide
minerals react, in the presence of
certain bacteria, to form acid that
then dissolves other minerals in the
rock.
AMD typically has low pH (less
than 6.0) and elevated levels of
sulfates and metals such as iron,
manganese, and aluminum. These
metals, most noticeably iron, often
coat stream bottoms, resulting in
the reddish-orange, so-called
"yellow boy" stains familiar to the
residents of mining areas through-
out Appalachia.
Alkaline mine drainage (pH
above 8.0) may also be a serious
problem following mining; such
discharges are alkaline, but may
contain high levels of iron, manga-
nese, and sulfates.
EPA-OSM Partnership
Region III has formed a partner-
ship with the Office of Surface
Mining, Reclamation and Enforce-
ment (OSM) to address AMD.
OSM initiated its Appalachian
Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI) in
1994 to centralize the efforts of
various groups that are involved in
AMD cleanup. At the same time,
ERBM in Region III 8
-------
EPA Region III formulated its Mine
Drainage Initiative (MDI). The
OSM-EPA Statement of Mutual
Intent (SMI) and Strategic Plan
(SMISP) were born out of the ACSI
and the MDI as a concept for
partnership and progress in restor-
ing streams.
Because aquatic life, especially
fisheries, is very sensitive to low
pH associated with AMD, EPA and
OSM decided that AMD impacts on
fisheries would be a good baseline
environmental measure. The
results of a 1995 survey of State
biologists familiar with impacted
fisheries in their territories are
shown for Pennsylvania in Figure 8.
Similar information is available for
the states of Maryland, Virginia and
West Virginia.
The basic methodology of the
survey had the biologists color-
code the impacted streams on
USGS 1/100,000-scale topographic
maps. Only streams that the
biologists judged to have impacted
fisheries were color-coded; streams
without color codes in the study
area may or may not be impacted.
These data on impacted fisheries
are based only on metals and low
pH levels, and do not include the
adverse impacts of sediment from
mining.
Two levels of impacts were
defined. The more severe level is
"No Fish." A No Fish designation
can include streams: (1) in which a
few fish can be found surviving in
an area where a tributary dilutes
the stream, or (2) near where a large
spring may feed the stream,
enabling a few fish to survive.
The second level of impacted
fishery is "Some Fish." Impacts to
fisheries in this category include
reduced number of species of fish
and/or a reduced productivity.
All of these data have been
entered into EPA's Geographic
Information System (GIS), and are
available in a wide variety of
formats and data layers for analyti-
cal and planning use.
Implementation of the Statement
of Mutual Intent and Strategic Plan
began in federal Fiscal Year 1996.
OSM and EPA staff have been
meeting jointly with other federal
agencies, states, and watershed
groups to define roles and
strengthen the existing strategic
plan. Once a comprehensive
inventory of activities is docu-
mented, the information can be
shared with all interested parties.
Developing the SMISP centered
on establishing goals that would
marshal the available resources of
all stakeholders to clean up
pollution from abandoned mine
sources. These goals included: (1)
compiling technical and environ-
mental data on stream conditions
and remedial techniques, (2)
guidance on how to organize a
clean-up effort, (3) sources of
potential funding, and (4) network-
ing and technology transfer
opportunities.
EPA also initiated active AMD
cleanup programs in the Shaw Run
and Quemahoning Creek
watersheds in Pennsylvania and
the Cheat River in West Virginia.
These cleanups stressed partner-
ships with state government and
local watershed associations.
Many of these decisions are being
made based on data displays on
maps generated by the GIS. Any
data that include latitude and
longitude coordinates can be
located and illustrated as informa-
tion on a computer-generated map.
ERBM in Rr$ion 111 9
-------
For instance, if a stream has been
sampled for water quality and
measurements have been made of
flows, this information can be
displayed on a watershed map.
Additionally, water quality data
can be "filtered" in any number of
ways to show data of particular
interest. For example, one could
locate all places where the water
quality of a stream is below pH of
6.0 and flows are less than 250
gallons per minute (gpm) by asking
the GIS this query. A map is
generated on the computer screen
locating streams in the area meeting
the conditions of the query (pH less
than 6, flows greater than 250 gpm).
By adding data on active and
abandoned mine locations, AMD
discharges, geology, land use,
roads, topography, property owner-
ship, etc., to the GIS, groups trying
to clean streams have an extremely
powerful tool with which to ana-
lyze the scope
of AMD
problems and
prioritize
cleanup efforts.
EPA Region III has begun to
enlarge its GIS data base beyond
the fisheries impacts described
above. The remediation projects
and watershed association locations
listed in the earlier tables have also
been created as a GIS layer by EPA,
as shown in Figure 8. West Virginia
and Pennsylvania have also
enhanced their GIS capabilities and
increased their data layers. A
cooperative effort among the states
and OSM to add their GIS data
layers into EPA's GIS repository has
been spearheaded by EPA.
OSM, in cooperation with the
Stoneycreek Conemaugh Rivers
Improvement Project (SCRIP), is
developing a pilot GIS for two
watersheds of the Conemaugh
River in western Pennsylvania
(Shade Creek and South Fork) that
will demonstrate the potential for
the use of GIS in planning stream
cleanup. If successfully
demonstrated as a planning tool,
this GIS will be the prototype for
other groups beginning to scope
out their watersheds' mine
drainage problems.
An important aspect of AMD
cleanup is remining abandoned
mines for salvageable coal.
Remining can assist reclamation
and AMD reduction efforts.
Although the Clean Water Act
allows less stringent limits for
remining, it also requires
compliance with water quality
standards. EPA and OSM are
committed to promoting effective
remining programs in the states.
Eliminating barriers to remining
and increasing environmentally
acceptable incentives for the
practice are important steps that
allow industry to remine more
abandoned mines and provide
reclamation and pollution reduc-
tion in the process. The Energy
Policy Act of 1992 requires OSM to
propose rulemaking for some
remining incentives. OSM and EPA
are seeking input on an expanded
list of barriers and incentives.
Acid Deposition in
Region HI
The Mid-Atlantic Region is a
critical recipient of acid pollution
from the atmosphere through either
acid rain or the dry deposition of
acid. Acid is formed through the
release of sulfur oxides, principally
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) into the
atmosphere. These pollutants mix
with water vapor to form sulfuric
and nitric acids that, when depos-
ited into lakes and streams, increase
acid levels in these aquatic
ecosystems to levels that are not
conducive to sustaining healthy
levels of plant and animal life.
Some lakes and streams are so
acidic that virtually no life exists
within them.
The main sources of atmospheric
SO2 and NOx are the combustion
of fossil fuels (mainly coal) and
internal combustion (e.g., automo-
bile) engines (Figure 9).
The National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program, which
conducted a survey in the mid
1980's, indicated that the
continental center of minimum
annual average rainfall pH (highest
acidity) was in western
LRBM in Region III W
-------
Transport Q-lnd/Mfg - Ind. Combust. ^ - Other Combust. ^- Other
Pennsylvania. The record lowest
measured rainfall pH for one
rainfall event occurred in West
Virginia, a rainfall with a pH of 2.0
in 1978, compared with pH of 6.5 to
7.0 for "normal" rainfall.
The National Park Service and the
Forest Service have declared that
areas designated Class I (most
environmentally sensitive to
pollutant loadings) in the
Mid-Atlantic Region are impaired
by acid rain. This impairment
includes impacts to visibility, which
is affected from the presence of
sulfate particles in the air. These
Class I areas include designated
national park and wilderness areas.
Using data collected from an
established long-term monitoring
program, it has been estimated that
68% of visibility impairment is from
atmospheric loadings of sulfates.
SO2 emissions are dropping as a
result of the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments. Figure 10 compares SO2
emissions for 445 facilities that were
affected by Phase 1 of the amend-
ments. It shows that the facilities
exceeded the 1995 target for
reducing SO2. However, the
academic community has predicted
that, even after the provisions of the
Title IV Acid Rain provisions of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
are implemented nationally, the
Mid-Atlantic Appalachian Region
may continue to be an area of the
country still adversely impacted by
acid deposition (Figure 10).
FIGURE 10
SO2 Emissions
445 Phase 1 Affected UHlrty Units
1980
1985
1990
1995
Acid deposition, particularly
NOx, in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed can cause increases in
the Bay's nitrification levels.
Resultant effects to the Bay's
ecology, particularly eutrophica-
tion, affect the ability of this
ecosystem to maintain adequate
levels of oxygen in the water, and
also affects the growth of
submerged aquatic vegetation.
Both of these, in turn, affect the
ability for sustained reproduction
of shellfish and finfish populations.
It is estimated that twenty-five to
thirty-five percent of the total
nitrogen loadings to the
Chesapeake Bay are atmospheri-
cally related.
The Mid-Atlantic Region is a
major producer and consumer of
fossil fuels. The use of coal for
power generation has increased in
the United States by 60% over the
last 20 years. The Mid-Atlantic
Region is also a major source of
acid rain precursors. For example,
Pennsylvania is ranked third in the
country for sources of electric
utility SO2 emissions, the fourth
largest source of total SO2
emissions, and the fifth largest
source of all acid rain precursor
emissions (SO2 and NOx). On a
per capita basis, West Virginia has
the nation's greatest emissions of
acid rain precursor emissions.
Four of the Mid-Atlantic Region's
States are among the nation's top 10
States in acid rain precursor
emission density (tons per square
mile). A significant portion of the
acid deposition is also transported
into the Region from sources
located in the Midwest, and from as
far away as the western and
southwestern portions of the
United States.
Region Ill's overall Acid Pollution
Goal is to reduce acid pollution to
protect and enhance the
environment. To accomplish this,
the Region's Air Program is
implementing a planning effort to
-------
better define the problem and to
create interim targets to meet the
long-term goal. The plan contains
six objectives designed to address
the current nature and extent of the
acid deposition problem.
The objectives are:
Gathering, developing, and
implementing techniques and data
systems for measuring the progress
(outcomes) of acid deposition activities,
and for weighting SO2 and NOx
emissions based upon their importance
to the acid deposition problem in the
Mid-Atlantic Region.
Reducing emissions of 502
generated regionally through the
implementation of various SO2 control
strategies and measures.
Reducing NOx emissions
generated regionally through the
implementation of various NOx control
strategies and measures.
Reducing the amount of S02 and
NOx emissions that are generated
outside the Mid-Atlantic Region, but
are transported into the Region.
Through the use of energy
conservation practices and energy
efficient technologies, reducing energy
dependence and corresponding
reductions in S02 and NOx.
Designing and implementing
effective public educational and
outreach programs that inform the
public of the health and ecological risks
of acid rain precursor emissions and
what the pubic might do to contribute
to reducing these effects. Building
public and private sector partnerships
that foster energy conservation.
The planning process started by
focusing on establishing baseline
data on SO2 and NOx in Region III.
Good baseline data are needed to
define the scope of the problem and
to allow reduction targets to be set.
Progress in meeting reduction
targets for SO2 and NOx will
become interim environmental
indicators during the time that the
reduction strategies are being
implemented. Also during that
time, outcome measures will be
defined and baseline data set for
them.
All of these Regional actions are
meant to build on the strong
foundation set by the implementa-
tion, nationally, of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. We are
undertaking them because these
pollutants have a greater impact on
Region III than they do on most of
the rest of the country.
The data in Figure 10 show that
implementation of the national
program is beginning to have a
measurable impact on SO2
emissions nationally. We are
analyzing ambient data to see if
comparable reductions in SO2 and
acid deposition levels are observ-
able in Region III.
The impact of these reductions
spreads to other programs as well.
For example, NOx is also a major
contributor to the ground level
ozone problem discussed in the
next section of this report.
Data and Environmental
Indicators
Data needs and the use of
environmental indicators are driven
by the need to define and assess the
results of environmental stressors
upon environmental conditions or
systems. They may be health-
related, or ecologically-related, or
both.
There are many data bases that
will influence the direction and
outcomes of the Acid Pollution
Strategic Goal. There are also
various environmental indicators,
both currently available and under
development, that are useful in
assessing the progress in reducing
acid rain precursor emissions and
corresponding environmental
impacts.
Examples of data that are
available include annual source
emissions inventories that
distinguish and characterize
changes in emissions trends. Also
available are ambient air concentra-
tions of SO2 and NOx, measured as
NO2, that are compared to the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards that are designed to
protect public health and welfare.
Measured pH levels in rain water,
which typify acidic concentrations,
are also available. Acid deposition
rates, measured as sulfates and
nitrates, are also available.
Environmental indicators data
available from the Chesapeake Bay
Program characterize changes in
submerged aquatic vegetation
acreage in the Bay and track low
dissolved oxygen levels. These are
used to assess the effects of
eutrophication in the Bay.
ERBM in Region III 12
-------
Ground Level Ozone
Region III is currently experienc-
ing significant ambient air quality
problems with ground level ozone,
commonly called smog. Human
health problems associated with
smog are increased respiratory
ailments such as asthma,
emphysema, and other chronic
illnesses. Quality-of-life issues
include paint and rubber break-
down, crop damage, and haze (also
associated with acid pollution) that
decreases visibility. Environmental
problems are mainly damage to
vegetation in forests.
Ground level ozone also contrib-
utes to the atmospheric deposition
of compounds in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, which results in
increased nitrification of the Bay,
affecting the growth of submerged
aquatic vegetation and reducing
oxygen levels critical to the
reproduction of shellfish and finfish
populations. It is estimated that 25-
35% of the total nitrogen loadings
to the Bay's watershed are
atmospherically-related.
Ozone is the most pervasive air
pollutant problem in Mid-Atlantic
Region, and the Region has more
geographic areas experiencing
ambient air quality violations from
ozone than any other EPA Region
(Figure 11). Violations of the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone vary
in degree of severity from area to
area, but are most prevalent in such
major metropolitan areas as
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and
Philadelphia.
Region III made Reducing Ozone
Pollution a high regional priority in
1993. Much of the activity directed
at achieving this goal is associated
with the programmatic activity
mandated nationally by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The Region's Air Program is using
the planning process described in
the section on acid pollution to
address ozone. The goal of the
process is to: "Ensure that the
ambient photochemical oxidant
levels (measured as ozone) in the
Mid-Atlantic Region are
maintained at a sufficiently low
level to protect the health of all
citizens, to promote agriculture and
forestry, and to promote an
environment that will support a
rich diversity of plant and animal
life."
The plan includes six objectives
designed to assess the ground level
ozone problem, to focus on data
analyses and interpretations to
understand the problem, and to
assess "real time" reductions in
ozone precursor emissions (VOCs
and NOx) more accurately. The
objectives are similar to those
shown in the preceding section on
acid pollution.
The major constituents of ground
level ozone are volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx). Industrial
operations and vehicular traffic are
the greatest contributors of ozone
precursors, but there are many
other sources. VOCs are princi-
pally formed from operations such
as refineries, petrochemical facili-
ties, printing and surface coating
operations, household products,
dry cleaners, and automobile
exhaust (Figure 12).
NOx is formed principally
through the combustion of fossil
fuels and, again, automobile
exhaust. The presence of sunlight
and high ambient temperatures
(i.e., above 70 degrees Fahrenheit)
are the other essential ingredients
in the formation of ground level
ozone (Figure 13). Finally, ozone
recognizes no geographic or territo-
rial boundaries, and may be
transported for hundreds of miles
from its point of origin.
Ozone and its precursor emissions
were identified as national
problems when the original
NAAQSs were developed under
the Clean Air Act of 1970. The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
reinforce the need to address the
significant health and ecological
impacts of ground level ozone. The
Act relies principally on the
implementation of ozone control
l-'RBM in Region HI 1,5
-------
strategies and regulations at the
State and local level.
Reducing VOCs as an ozone
precursor emission also has second-
ary benefits. Some VOCs are also
considered to be toxic air pollut-
ants. Examples include benzene
generated from gasoline
manufacturing and dispensing
operations, perchloroethylene used
as a dry cleaning solvent, and
common household solvent-based
cleansers.
In addition, there are multi-media
activities that can influence ozone
formation. For example, cleaning
waste water at treatment plants can
result in the release of VOCs. As
the contaminated water is aerated
to "strip" solvents from it, the
solvents are volatilized (changed to
vapor) and released into the
atmosphere. These VOCs
ultimately combine with NOx to
form ozone.
The NAAQS for ground level
ozone is 0.12 parts per million
(ppm) measured over a one-hour
period. Levels above 0.12 ppm are
considered injurious to human
health and the environment.
Ambient levels of ozone are
measured continuously, using
ambient air monitoring equipment,
throughout the Mid-Atlantic
Region. Historic trends in ground
level ozone concentrations are
analyzed to evaluate progress in
although the ozone season in the
Mid-Atlantic Region usually
extends from April until September.
There are many data sets that will
influence the direction and outcome
of the Ozone Strategic Plan. There
are also environmental indicators,
either currently available or under
development, that will be useful in
assessing progress.
Examples of available data
include annual emissions invento-
ries, ambient ground level ozone
levels that are collected hourly
during the ozone season, and data
on driving trends, patterns, and
vehicle-miles traveled annually.
These are particularly important
in assessing the ozone problem
because, as stationary sources of
FIGURE 13
Number of Unhealthful Days
Selected Cities
i Baltimore
«»" Philadelphia
w Pittsburgh
Washington, DC
Wilmington
80 81 82 83 84 85
reducing VOC and NOx emissions
and corresponding ozone air
quality levels. One of the difficul-
ties in comparing the reductions in
emissions of VOCs and NOx and
reduced levels in ground level
ozone concentrations rests in the
fact that these concentrations are
weather-dependent. Typically, hot
and sunny summers are most
conducive to increased ground
level ozone concentrations,
90 91 92 93 94 95
VOCs and NOx are controlled, the
number of total miles being driven
has been increasing. Even though
vehicles are more efficient and
produce less pollution than in the
past, the increase in vehicle-miles-
traveled offsets other reductions.
Health-related data on the effects
of ozone violations are not readily
available. The type of information
that needs to be developed includes
-------
data on the rate of respiratory
incidences reported during the
ozone season, in a form that can be
correlated with ozone concentra-
tions.
Some of the data bases are driven
by statutory or regulatory require-
ments. For instance, ambient air
quality data trends are calculated
from data collected to meet the
requirement that States
continuously monitor ambient
ozone concentrations. Other data
bases result from voluntary, non-
regulatory actions. For example,
under EPA's Green Lights
program, public institutions and
private firms are voluntarily
switching their indoor lighting to
more energy-efficient systems.
These conversions result in reduced
releases of NOx. NOx emission
reductions can be calculated based
upon the number of kilowatt hours
saved. Regardless of how the data
are obtained, the ultimate goal is to
develop outcome-based measures
that portray conditions and systems
as accurately as possible under
real-time conditions.
In summary, as part of meeting
the Region's Strategic Goal for
Ozone, EPA and its stakeholders
will have to develop new sources of
data on environmental conditions
and health effects. Some of this
information is available from
existing data bases, but much of it
will have to be collected from new
sources.
EPA's Green Lights
Program
EPA's Green Lights Program is a
voluntary, non-regulatory program
designed to reduce pollution
through cooperation between the
public and private sectors. Green
Lights encourages the widespread
utilization of energy-efficient
lighting systems and technologies
in public, private, and commercial
buildings. To participate in the
Green Lights program, an organi-
zation agrees to
survey its
domestic
facilities and
upgrade the
lighting
systems,
where it is
profitable to do so,
within five years. EPA assists
participants in obtaining the most
current information about energy-
efficient lighting and technologies,
and helps them determine which
technologies are most suitable for
their individual situations. Green
Lights has currently enrolled 40%
of the Fortune 500 companies, in
addition to 2,000 other public,
business, and industry partners,
both large and small. Region III has
423 participants who are reducing
their lighting expenses by half, and
who have already avoided using
239 billion kilowatt hours of elec-
tricity per year.
The reductions achieved through
these energy technology transfers
are equivalent to the planting of
73,817 acres of trees and taking
36,037 automobiles off the road per
year. The City of Philadelphia has
committed to upgrade approxi-
mately 8 million square feet of
space with energy-efficient lighting.
To date, 1.6 million square feet of
space have been upgraded. These
efforts have earned Philadelphia
the award of 1996 Green Lights
Partner of the Year in the City
Government category.
In the aggregate, these reductions
have resulted in reducing air
discharges equivalent to 381 million
pounds of carbon dioxide (Figure
14), 4.1 million pounds of sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and 1.3 million
pounds of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
(Figure 15). Carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas responsible for
global warming, while SO2 and
NOx are the primary precursors of
acid deposition. In addition, NOx
is a principal constituent in the
formation of ground level ozone
and contributes to increased
nitrification, and resultant
increased eutrophication, in coastal
waters such as the Chesapeake Bay.
ERBM m Region 111 !'
-------
Program-Specific Activities
The preceding descriptions of the
integrated use of various kinds of
data to focus the specific goals of
the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Acid Pollution Program, and the
Ozone Pollution Program are
highly visible examples of Region
Ill's commitment to using Environ-
mental Results-Based Management
Techniques in the Mid-Atlantic
region. However, ERBM is a very
useful tool in other important,
though perhaps not so publicly-
visible, programs carried out by
Region III. The next several pages
introduce a series of examples, or
"case studies" that demonstrate the
widespread use of data in orienting
program-specific activities within
Region III.
CASE STUDY: Pequea
and Mill Creeks
Comprehensive
Watershed Initiative
Pequea and Mill Creeks
watersheds are southeastern
Pennsylvania watersheds in
Lancaster and Chester Counties
(Figure 16). The watersheds total
135,000 acres; land use in the
watersheds is predominantly
agricultural, with 63% of the land
devoted to cropland and 13% to
pasture. The watersheds are home
to approximately 55,000 dairy
cattle, 5,500,000 poultry, and
122,000 swine. These watersheds
are recognized as high priorities by
State, Federal, and local agencies,
being listed in the top 10% of
Pennsylvania's nonpoint source
(NPS) priority watersheds,
identified on Pennsylvania's 303(d)
list, and given priority status in the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Ground Water Protection Program,
and the Public Drinking Water
Supervision Program.
According to the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection (PaDEP), more than 58
stream miles in these watersheds
have been degraded by agricultural
NPS pollution. The primary
pollutants are nutrients and sus-
pended solids.
Nitrate nitrogen has been detected
above 10 mg/1 (the Federal
drinking water standard) in 43% of
samples from Pequea Creek.
State and local coordinating
committees have been formed to
implement a comprehensive
watershed initiative. These
committees have been meeting
regularly for several years. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS),
Cooperative Extension, Farm
Services Agency, EPA Region III,
the US Geological Service (USGS),
PaDEP, Pennsylvania Department
of Agriculture (PDA), the Lancaster
Conservation District (LCCD),
several private crop management
consulting organizations, and the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Com-
mission are the principal members
of the committees.
ERBM in Region III 16
-------
The following goals have been
established:
USDA chose the Pequea and Mill
Creeks watersheds as a hydrologic
unit area in February 1991. Under
this designation, USDA agencies
provide accelerated technical and
financial assistance to farmers in
the watershed for the implementa-
tion of best management practices
(BMPs) to protect the ecosystem.
The watersheds are being used in a
cooperative computer modeling
effort between the PaDEP, Bureau
of Land and Water Conservation,
Penn State University, and NRCS.
Land use, farming practices and
other data will be used in the
development of the National
Agricultural Pesticide Risk Assess-
ment (NAPRA).
NAPRA evaluates the potential
offsite impacts from pesticide use
by comparing the concentrations of
pesticides in runoff and leachate to
established maximum allowable
contamination levels set by State
law. Significant efforts have been
made providing education, train-
ing, technical assistance, and cost-
sharing for BMP installations.
Since 1991, there have been
approximately 70 public service
announcements on local radio
stations, numerous newspaper
articles, and at least 3 field days
conducted each year for farmers.
Nutrient management and pesti-
cide certification meetings have
been held with private vendors. In
addition, monitoring was initiated
for evaluating the cause/effect
relationship of implementing
stream fencing.
A Wellhead Protection project for
two public water supply well fields
within the watershed is also being
developed. These well fields
provide drinking water for the New
Holland and Blue Ball municipali-
ties. An EPA laboratory has
conducted a fracture trace analysis
from aerial photography and,
through this, has delineated
potential protection areas. Local
township and borough officials,
LCCD and PDA are inventorying
the existing sources of contamina-
tion within these protection areas,
and are developing ordinances to
protect the pubic wells from
contamination. In addition, EPA
Region Ill's Ground Water
Protection program is spearheading
the development of a Geographic
Information System (GIS) for the
watersheds. A workgroup of state,
local, and federal agencies has
identified data layers that should
be developed and analyzed.
CASE STUDY: NPDES
Permit and Compliance
Enforcement
In Region III, the National Pollut-
ant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program, a program that
permits and monitors surface water
discharges from many industrial
and commercial facilities, is
delegated to the States. This gives
the States the primary responsibil-
ity to enforce NPDES regulations
promulgated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Currently, EPA
measures the success of state
NPDES enforcement programs
based on the initiation of "timely
and appropriate" enforcement
actions, which are directly linked to
the term "significant noncompli-
ance" (SNC).
EPA tracks the number of major
facilities that have compliance
problems. Each quarter, EPA and
the states discuss how these
facilities will be addressed. There
are several limitations inherent in
using this type of data: 1) the
criteria are only applied to major
dischargers, 2) only monthly
average limitations are evaluated,
3) SNC rates may not include
violations at facilities under
existing enforcement actions, and
4) the NPDES exceptions list of
sources in SNC for two or more
quarters allows some noncomply-
ing facilities to be excluded.
FIGURE 17
Federal Impact on NPDES
Compliance
>. 300
1/92 5/92 9/92 1/93 M3 9/93 1/94 5/94 9/94
i Discharges Monitoring Report Data
Because of these limitations, this
administrative approach used State
and federal time and money
inefficiently with respect to the
resulting environmental benefits. A
preferred approach was the
selection of enforcement actions
based on degree of actual or
potential environmental harm/
-------
impact. Region III used available
data from the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area to develop and refine
this alternative approach.
Under this approach, the
delegated State programs would
remain charged with the task of
tracking and reducing the SNC rate
and exception list number. EPA
would routinely issue a notice of
violation (NOV) to all dischargers
reported on the exception list. EPA
would not focus solely on SNC in
case selection, but would look
primarily to its "federal
enforcement agenda" for cases.
This federal enforcement agenda
is outcome-oriented, focusing on
out-of-compliance dischargers with
the largest discharges, or with the
most significant adverse impacts on
surface waters, or with high
precedence or priority for other
reasons. To implement the
proposed federal agenda, with
enforcement actions focusing on
those cases where data show that
water quality is being degraded,
EPA relies on 1) a quarterly
screening of Daily Monitoring
Report data to identify dischargers
not meeting outcome-oriented
criteria; 2) a coordinated effort with
the Environmental Assessment and
Protection Division to use
water-body system information;
3) a review of all EPA inspection
reports to determine compliance;
4) exchange of information between
the Chesapeake Bay Program and
the NPDES Pretreatment team; and
5) notification to the delegated
states of all facilities targeted for
federal enforcement.
The result of the new approach is
shown in Figure 17. A sewage
treatment plant in Virginia reported
regular violations of the limit for
Total Suspended Solids. As soon as
federal enforcement action was
taken, the plant met its limit.
In essence, a number of environ-
mental databases are used to
determine where significant water
quality problems are occurring.
NPDES enforcement actions are
then focused on those facilities that
contribute to that specific location
of water quality degradation.
CASE STUDY:
Superfund Screening
Tables and Environmental
Objectives
Region Ill's Superfund program
has developed two important
screening tables to evaluate data
from Superfund sites. Project
managers use these tables to
evaluate site conditions, plan field
work, and develop remediation
goals for soil, ground water, and
surface water. These tables also
provide important benchmarks for
human health and environmental
quality. In terms of goals, the tables
are a useful reference for EPA's
Superfund program in Region III,
and for many State hazardous
waste programs as well.
The first screening table is a
"Risk-Based Concentration [RBC]
Table" (Figure 18), which is used to
screen field data for potential
human health threats. It is widely
distributed to federal and state
agencies and other professionals.
The table includes safe levels of
nearly 600 chemicals in soil,
drinking water, and air. The table is
updated regularly with new toxico-
logical information. The second
table is a "Ecological Screening
Table" (Figure 19), prepared by
Region Ill's Biological Technical
Assistance Group (BTAG) in 1995.
This table includes protective
concentrations for about 130
common contaminants in water,
sediment, and soil. These
concentrations are the lowest safe
levels for the most sensitive
organisms in each medium.
The RBC and Ecological Screening
Tables are good examples of the
environmental objectives of the
Superfund program and many
State programs in Region III. If
initial sampling shows that
contaminants exceed the levels in
the tables, further site studies and
appropriate cleanup technologies
can be given focus. When site
FIGURE 18
EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations
(Smith, 1995)
CONTAMINANT
Arsenic
Cadmium
Mercury (inorg.)
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
CAS*
7440382
7440439
7439976
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440636
RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS*
Soil Ingest Ion
Tap Water Ambient Air Fish Industrial Residential
jmg/l) (rngfl) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (ms*g)
11
18
11
730
180
180
1800
1.1
.00099
0.31
73
18
18
180
0.41
0.68
0.41
27
6.8
6.8
68
610
1000
610
41000
10000
10000
100000
23
39
23
1600
390
390
3900
* Table structure has been simplified for illustrative purposes.
ERBM in
I LU
-------
cleanup achieves the levels of
contaminants in the tables, a site no
longer poses a public health or
environmental threat; such a
cleaned-up site can be used without
any additional restrictions. Where
total cleanup is too costly or
impractical, wastes can be
effectively isolated to prevent any
further threats from the remaining
contaminants.
In a program as complicated as
Superfund, it is often easy to lose
track of the basic goal - cleaning up
sites so they no longer pose a threat
to human health or the environ-
ment. Region Ill's two screening
tables provide a practical reference
to the cleanup goals for
contaminants commonly found at
Superfund sites. The program
strives to meet these goals at the
nearly 200 Superfund sites in
Region III.
CASE STUDY: RCRA
Actions
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) charges EPA
with protecting human health and
the environment from discharges of
hazardous and solid waste from
land disposal, incineration,
treatment facilities, containers,
tanks, surface impoundments, and
underground storage tanks (USTs).
HGUKE20
Hazardous Waste Reduction
1991
Hazardous Waste
Reduction Rates
One key component of resource
conservation is the concept of waste
minimization/pollution preven-
tion. This practice not only
conserves valuable resources such
as surface water, groundwater, and
the air by reducing degradation
created by toxic pollutants, but also
conserves valuable raw materials
that otherwise end up as pollutants.
Over 215 million tons of hazardous
waste were generated in 1993. Any
loss to the environment is consid-
ered to represent an inefficiency.
Thus, a key indicator currently
being measured by the hazardous
waste program is the amount of
such waste generated each year.
The trend of hazardous waste
generation is down (Figure 20);
EPA's national plan calls for a 25%
HGURE19
EPA Region III BTAG Screening Levels
(parts per billion) *
CONTAMINANT
Fluorides
Iron
Lead
AQUATIC
Marine Fresh
Flora Fauna Flora Fauna
5.1
5.6
2000
2700
320
3.2
SOILS
Flora Fauna
1000
3260000
2000
12000
10
SEDIMENT
Flora Fauna
46700
BCFs
726 (fish)
' Table structure has been simplified tonllustratnre purposes.
reduction by the year 2000 and a
50% reduction by the year 2005.
Solid Waste Recycling
Another key area of RCRA is solid
waste management. Until munici-
palities began recycling solid waste,
the bulk of this waste ended up in
landfills, creating many sites with
major impacts on drinking water
and surface waters. Two key
measures in this area are the
number of municipalities that have
implemented recycling programs,
and the percentage of solid waste
recycled. EPA uses these data to
promote public awareness, educa-
tion, and outreach.
Underground Storage
Tanks (USTs)
By the mid-1980's, more than 2
million USTs were in use for
gasoline storage. As these steel
tanks began to deteriorate and the
improper handling of gasoline
persisted, many groundwater
supplies became polluted, and
explosive vapors in nearby
dwellings created threats to human
health, sometimes resulting in
deaths from explosions. The
number of releases being reported,
and the number of cleanups
initiated, are key indicators of
environmental and human health
threat associated with underground
tanks. EPA tracks these data to
show the success of the program
efforts.
CASE STUDY: Accident
Prevention
The Superfund Program uses data
to target Accident Prevention
Program activities. The data used
include the Emergency Response
Notification System (ERNS), Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI), and
-------
information from the Region's
Urban Initiatives such as Chester,
PA, and Baltimore, MD.
We have compared the facilities in
the ERNS database with those in
TRI, the Regional Initiatives, and
sites where accident prevention
activities have been conducted.
Based on this data review, meetings
will be initiated with Local
Emergency Planning Committees to
discuss Chemical Safety Audit
(CSA) targeting. Particular facilities
may be targeted for CSAs or
follow-up CSAs.
The ERNS evaluation indicated
that most accidental releases in
Region III were from fixed facilities
(Figure 21). Releases on the
highways also accounted for a
significant portion of these
accidents, especially in the popu-
lous eastern areas of Region III.
Equipment failure appears to be a
leading cause of these releases.
Dumping also accounted for a
significant proportion of the
releases. Air and land appear to be
the primary media affected by
accidental releases.
CASE STUDY: Wetlands
Using environmental data to
manage our wetland resources is a
priority of Region III, Our goal is to
continue to implement a focused
wetlands enforcement program
where Region III is the lead Federal
enforcement agency. A data-driven
examination into the causes and
locations of loss of Wetlands in
Region III from 1982-1989 (Figures
22 and 23) showed that the largest
areas of wetland losses were in
Piedmont Virginia; the Tidewater
area of Virginia; Eastern and
Western Pennsylvania; Delaware
Inland Bays/Southern Delaware,
and the Anacostia River Basin. The
largest sources of loss, in order of
magnitude, were flooding for
reservoirs and lakes, agriculture,
pond construction, and urban/
suburban development. Changes
in wetland type, from forested to
emergent, due to forestry practices
were also significant. Management
priorities were then realigned to
include participation in the Virginia
Raw Water Workgroup, opposition
to the Churchman's Marsh Im-
poundment, and sponsorship of the
Storm Water/Wetlands Task Force.
Region III has increased its surveil-
lance activities in the targeted areas,
initiated appropriate enforcement
activities for known violations, and
developed communication
strategies to provide a deterrent
effect for others in the targeted
areas or sectors. Region III is also
developing a computerized
database that will include site-
specific information on
enforcement actions, Section 404
permit actions, and enforcement
actions by the Army Corps of
Engineers. These data systems will
facilitate future targeting efforts.
The data-driven strategy currently
employed was developed in the
Wetlands Enforcement Strategic
Plan. Surveys were sent to
FIGURE 22
Wetland Loss Hot Spots
(Chesapeake Bay Watershed)
^11 North East Pennsylvania
| | Western Delaware
Eastern Shore, Maryland
Western Virginia
Virginia Piedmont
Upper Coastal Plain
South East Virginia Metro
Chesapeake Watershed Boundary
Sources ol Data
Geographic Information Center, EPA Region III Prepared byRO.W Sciences, March, 1995 ROW-GIS.061
ERBM in Region III 20
-------
numerous Federal and State
resource agencies to determine the
high-value wetland resource areas
in their jurisdiction that were
deemed at-risk. These high-value/
high-risk areas were targeted, and
agreements with the Corps'
Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia,
and Norfolk Districts were revised
to give Region III lead enforcement
status in all areas. We also
developed revised Interagency
Agreements with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service to provide field
support in these areas.
To facilitate future enforcement
actions and targeting efforts, and to
provide a means of assessing the
success of the enforcement
program, a computerized database
of all permit and enforcement
actions will be developed. Initially,
measures of success tracked will
include: geographic initiatives
completed, cases resolved through
voluntary compliance, administra-
tive actions taken, civil/criminal
referrals made to the Department of
Justice, civil/criminal referrals that
result in a final court order, and
number of permit applications.
Proposed new measures would be
the number of environmentally
beneficial Supplemental Environ-
mental Projects developed and
implemented, and the number of
press releases resulting in favorable
news reporting on enforcement
actions taken. Eventually, as the
database is developed, measures of
success will be keyed to the number
of actions taken in targeted areas or
by activity classification, and to the
number of wetland resources
restored or otherwise protected by
the actions. This can be
determined by acreage, location in
a priority watershed, and/or
functional value.
A real measure of success may be
shown, over time, to be a decrease
in the number of violations and an
increase in the number of permit
applications within the targeted
areas. Finally, proactive efforts
such as the development of
advanced identification studies,
public meetings, training classes
may be held in the target areas.
CASE STUDY:
Gunpowder River
Watershed Project,
Maryland
The Gunpowder River watershed,
in Baltimore and Carroll Counties,
MD, with a small portion in PA
(Figure 24), lends itself to the
application of the concept of
"watershed planning." It is a
sensitive watershed, containing
public water supply reservoirs and
trout streams that need protection.
It is adjacent to highly urbanized
areas, has rapid growth in some
areas, but also has significant
agricultural acreage, and serves as a
significant recreational resource.
Local jurisdictions are facing urgent
programmatic (i.e., regulatory/
permitting) complexities in
sub-watersheds of the Gunpowder
that could be resolved by approach-
ing watershed management in a
comprehensive and holistic
manner.
There are several key permit
issues of current concern in the
Gunpowder River watershed. The
first concerns the proposed
expansion of an existing wastewa-
ter treatment plant that empties to
Piney Run, a sub-watershed of the
Gunpowder. The locality served by
this facility has been designed as a
growth area by Carroll County. The
permit for this plant has been
appealed and will be heard within
the next several months. The basis
for the disagreement is downstream
impacts, an issue typical of water-
shed concerns.
Another key concern is reservoir
protection. The Gunpowder
watershed serves as the primary
source of water supply for 1.5
million residents of the greater
Baltimore metropolitan region. A
catchment area of 303 square miles
provides an average of 180 million
gallons per day to this important
region. Emerging drinking water
quality concerns such as
disinfection by-products, herbicides
and pesticides, and the disinfectant-
resistant pathogens
Cryptosporidium
and Giardia are
directly related to
land use in
watersheds
across the U.S.
As a result,
watershed
management
is vitally
important to the continued efficient
and economic provision of safe
drinking water for the region's
residents.
t.RBM in Regiiw HI 21
-------
Loch Raven Sub-Watershed
Piney Run Sub-Watershed
Gunpowder Watershed
FIGURE 24
Gunpowder Watershed
In spite of extensive rural conser-
vation zoning, there is continuing
pressure for development in this
watershed. The use of mountain
bikes in the reservoir protection
area is now being debated. There
are also citizen concerns about the
Parkton landfill/ which presents a
potential ground water threat. All
of these issues, plus water appro-
priation and erosion/sediment
control, are related to the issuing of
permits or regulatory programs.
Concurrently, an ongoing study is
being conducted by Baltimore
County in the watershed of Loch
Rave reservoir, another sub-water-
shed of the Gunpowder River, as
part of the conditions for an NPDES
stormwater permit. Results of this
study, which are to be available by
September of 1996, will contribute
greatly to our understanding of the
watershed, especially for nonpoint
pollution sources.
There is a need to evaluate the
relative contribution of loadings
from nonpoint sources, both urban
and agricultural, and point sources
within the watershed for nutrients
and toxic materials, as well as for
changes in physical parameters
such as temperature and volume of
stormwater runoff. In addition,
there is a need to link the chemical
loadings and changes in physical
parameters to resource degradation
(both water quality and habitat).
The increased understanding of
these impacts will allow a
determination of the best
combination of point source
controls, agricultural and urban
nonpoint source controls, and
resource-based restoration
strategies.
Assessments of these or similar
issues have been done in the past,
but each aspect of the problem (e.g.,
permit modeling, urban nonpoint
source, agricultural nonpoint
source impacts, landfills) was
evaluated in isolation. Conducting
a holistic watershed assessment of
the Gunpowder can answer specific
concerns related to growth and
development, water supply
protection, excess nutrients,
elevated temperatures, increased
stormwater flows (volume and
quality) and their effects on stream
erosion, while also providing an
opportunity to link these concerns,
prioritize resource management
options, and guide program
implementation.
ERBM in Region III 22
-------
CASE STUDY:
Sustainable Development
Region Ill's Strategic Planning
Team selected Sustainable
Development as a Regional priority
for Fiscal Year 1996. A workgroup
preparing an Action Plan began by
developing goals and objectives,
and then conducted roundtable
discussions with six organizations
experienced in Sustainable
Development to share their
perspectives on what EPA's role in
Sustainable Development should
be.
The organizations were: The
Nature Conservancy,
Environmental Law Institute,
Pennsylvania Environmental
Council, Heritage Conservancy,
Urban Land Institute, and the
Citizens Network for Sustainable
Development. The feedback from
these stakeholders was consistent -
they want access to EPA's data and
information for identifying trends
in sustainability and making better
decisions. Sharing data and
information thus became a key
objective of the Action Plan.
Another key component of the
Action Plan is the Sustainable
Development Challenge Grants
Program, a new grant program
intended to catalyze community-
based and regional projects that
promote sustainable development,
and to build partnerships that
increase community long-term
capacity to protect the
environment. Communities will
need to find and use reliable
information and data as they
implement these projects.
The Action Plan developed by the
Workgroup includes four major
goals for Sustainable Development
in Region III.
These are:
1. Develop partnerships with
other organizations to advance
Sustainable Development.
2. Integrate Sustainable Develop-
ment into EPA's infrastructure.
3. Increase awareness that
environmental health goes hand-in-
hand with economic well-being and
community values.
4. Define the long-term vision of
sustainability for the Region.
FIGURE 25
What is
Sustainable Development?
Sustainable Development meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability
ol Mure generations to meet their own needs.
To address Goal 4, Region III is
developing key social and
economic indicators that, when
combined with EPA's comprehen-
sive environmental indicators, will
give a snapshot view of where the
Mid-Atlantic Region is on the
continuum of sustainability.
These indicators are being created
through a combined effort of the
Region's Data Team and
Sustainable Development
Workgroup, with a preliminary set
of six indicators being developed in
mid-1996. The Workgroup will use
these indicators to identify trends
and pinpoint information gaps.
The ultimate goal of this project is
the development of a comprehen-
sive set of indicators that clearly
demonstrates trends in the
environment, economy, and society,
and the use of these data to set
priorities for Region III. The
interaction of these trends is shown
schematically in Figure 25.
Developing Sustainability
Indicators is a work in progress that
will build upon other efforts
underway in the Region, including
the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Land, Growth and Stewardship,
and Sustainable Use Indicators
project. This project is being
supported by a workgroup com-
posed of over 40 people represent-
ing a diverse group of non-profits,
local government, States, and other
Federal agencies. The work group
has selected key ecological,
community/social, and economic
indicators, and now plans to
develop these indicators using data
from a variety of sources.
The development of Sustainability
Indicators is a data management
challenge because the data exist in
many different forms, are located at
the County, State and Federal
levels, and are owned by different
organizations. However, the
indicators developed from these
indicators will be a valuable
management tool to EPA and show
the connection between economic,
social, and environmental policies.
LRBM in
i III 23
-------
Environmental Indicators
Development
Region Ill's Senior Leadership
Team decided in 1992 and 1993 to
focus on improving the quality of
environmental data and developing
Environmental Indicators,
especially at levels 5 and 6 on the
continuum of measures. A key part
of the decision was a study which
attempted to collect data and
develop environmental indicators
to change the way management set
priorities.
The presentation of the study
results also led to the decision to
focus on reducing Acid Pollution
and Ozone Pollution and on
restoring the Chesapeake Bay as the
important Region III environmental
efforts. Based on the study, Region
III decided to institutionalize and
continue the process of using data
to make decisions and establish
priorities for the Region.
Ultimately, we hope to have a full
set of Environmental Indicators
available for each of the Region's
environmental objectives.
The overall objective of the effort
to develop environmental
indicators is to collect and use
scientifically
defen-
sible data
and
information to
assist in setting
Regional
priorities, by
identifying and
characterizing the
range of environ-
mental and
human health risk
threats in Region III, and to aid in
environmental results-based
decision-making throughout the
Region by federal, state and local
agencies.
Regional staff from all programs
are working together to develop
better data and indicators for Acid
Mine Drainage; Acid Deposition
and Ozone Pollution; and
Sustainable Development.
Data from all programs is also
being gathered to create a "State of
the Environment in the
Mid-Atlantic Region" Report,
which will be made available to
EPA staff and to the general public.
The report will be published in
hard-copy in the future (probably
in 1997). As each section is
completed, it will be installed on
the World-Wide Web. This process
should be underway by the end of
1996.
Region III staff is also working
with staff from EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD).
A team representing both organiza-
tions is working to enhance the
science, technology, and informa-
tion management capabilities and
experience of Region III, ORD, as
well as other federal agencies,
state/local governments, and
regional academicians.
The Region's staff is working with
internal and external customers,
partners and stakeholders to:
define realistic environmental
goals and related environmental
assessment questions;
characterize ecological resources
conditions for the geographic area (e.g.,
ecorcgions, watersheds) based upon
exposure and effect information;
identify possible association with
stressors including landscape
attributes that may explain impaired
conditions for both specific resources
and the overall ecosystem;
manage for the long term,
providing the set of multiple uses of
ecological resources that society now
desires without undermining the
system's capacity to provide these and
other uses in the future;
target geographic areas and critical
resources for protection, restoration, or
other management action;
measure environmental progress;
improve the cjuality of
environmental science; and
promote the use of "good science"
in environmental decision making for
greater environmental results.
Some of the programs for which
we have specific plans for
cooperative efforts include the
Environmental Monitoring and
ERBM in Region HI 24
-------
-*;
5-«sr% H-WP
Assessment Program (EMAP), the
mid-Atlantic Highlands Assess-
ment (MAHA), the National
Biological Survey's Gap Analysis
Program, the Chesapeake Bay
Program, the Delaware Estuary
program, the Maryland and
Delaware Coastal Bays Program,
the Virginia Coastal Bay Program,
the Forest Service Forests
Integrated Assessment, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) Coastal
Change Analysis Program.
The information developed is
being applied to regional needs,
such as the Environmental Partner-
ship Agreements, State of the State
reports, programmatic strategic
planning, and sustainable develop-
ment planning.
In applying the data assessment
process, an orderly sequence is
followed:
1) EPA personnel develop "first
cut" assessment questions based on
their organizations' perspective;
2) an Assessment Team is formed
of scientists and managers from
various EPA organizations, other
federal (NOAA, U.S. Geologic
Survey, Forest Service, etc.) and/or
state organizations;
3) an Assessment Workshop is
held where EPA personnel present
the first cut questions for discus-
sion. Team members from other
federal organizations and states
discuss their research and monitor-
ing programs and present the
assessment equations which their
organization have been addressing.
Questions are compiled and edited
using a consensus approach.
4) revised Assessment Questions
are sent to all Assessment Team
members for review and comment;
and
5) final Assessment Questions are
agreed upon.
Assessment workshops have been
held for Estuaries and Coastal
Waters, Surface Waters (Streams),
and Land use/Landscape. Each of
these workshops followed the
process identified above. Assess-
ment questions have been
developed for each resource.
Assessment Workshops are also
planned for Agriculture, Air,
Forests, Ground Water, Wetlands,
and Socio-Economics. Each Assess-
ment Workshop will produce a
document summarizing the process
and including the Assessment
Questions. The Region III/ORD
team is coordinating the
productions of the Workshops and
subsequent reports.
Once the inventory is complete,
all staff working on indicators will
start the process of identifying and
filling data gaps. This is expected
to be a long and iterative process
which will take a systematic
approach over several years.
Logic Model
Region III relies on a logic model
(see Figure 26) to develop the data
sets which support outcome based
plans of action. The model is a
special adaptation of the Environ-
mental Indicators continuum which
was developed to use more
practical terminology that was
generally familiar to the Region's
program staff.
As in the other versions of the
continuum, the broadest environ-
mental measures - receptor and
stressor conditions - are at the top.
Administrative measures are at the
bottom. The model is based on the
premise that it is necessary to use
data at all levels to manage for
environmental results. This also
means that data at all levels are
considered equally important in the
process once their position and
relevance in the model has been
determined.
For example, if the receptor of
concern is preservation of wetlands,
administrative measures that show
the level of resources available to
the wetlands program, or activity
measures such as the number of
permits reviewed and issued, are
important indicators of our com-
mitment to preserving wetlands.
The role of the model is to integrate
this information with information
about the environmental condition
of wetlands and use the resulting
analysis as a planning tool for
future action.
The model can be used to plan at
different levels. For instance, senior
managers can use the model for
"big picture" strategic planning for
an entire organization. In EPA, this
means comparing model informa-
tion from several sets of stressors-
receptors, since our strategic plans
set cross-media priorities.
Within media or programs, the
model can be used to set priorities
for a program component (e.g.,
wetlands), a
geographic area
(e.g., wetlands
in the Pocono
Mountains), or
a specific
resource (e.g.,
wetlands in the
Pocono
Mountains
with marketable
quantities of peat moss).
l:RBM in Region 111 25
-------
In each case, the model allows us
to see the relationship between
program elements and very differ-
ent types of data.
Our experience in using the
model has also reinforced one of
the most basic lessons of the ERBM
approach: use all available data
that are known to be reliable.
We frequently find that we must
make decisions, to meet external
deadlines, before it is possible to
develop data at all levels of the
model. In these cases, we use the
best available data on stressors,
sources, and activities.
Data gaps are addressed by using
surrogate measures, usually activity
reports and ambient concentrations.
FIGURE 26
LOGIC MODEL for Environmental Planning
GOAL
Miles of unhealthy
streams reduced
to
by .
OBJECTIVES
Close
abandoned mines
by
Reduce S02
emissions by
pounds
by .
Receptor
condition
(living
resource)
Stressors
Sources
Activites
Evaluation
Fish
Health
Time
VA WV MD PA DE
DO
Time
Time
Miles
Acid Dep AMD
other
Utilities
other
AMD
mine
enforce-
ment
actions
PUC
require
energy
conserv.
plans
Time
Time
EFFECTIVENESS
Did we do the planned
activities?
IMPACT
Accomplish the objective?
COST QUALITY
What did we spend ($, FTE)? Any secondary impact?
This way, we can project the
probable course of future activity.
Our overall concern, and our
long-term objective, is to:
develop accurate, up-to-date,
reliable information on stressors and
receptors for all major ecological
regions and systems in Region III, as
well as all major environmental causes
of adverse human health conditions;
develop models that allow us to
relate EPA/State activities and actions
In/ sources to the stressors of concern:
and
gain wide-spread acceptance for the
use of the model as a major planning
and evaluation tool in the Region.
Meeting our objective will take
several years. The most difficult
part will be developing data in the
field. It is an expensive, time-
consuming process. Our commit-
ment to improving data and
developing environmental indica-
tors is dependent on our ability to
meet this challenge.
t'RBM in Ri
III 26
-------
Using Data to Define Programs
One of the basic uses of data in
management is to change priorities
and program direction based on the
story told by the data. This section
presents some examples of how
expanded data collection and
expanded capabilities to manipu-
late data can change program
direction.
Toxic Release Inventory
Congress created the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) in the mid-
1980s. Under TRI, EPA listed 300
chemicals that were considered
toxic. Businesses that make or use
any of the listed chemicals are
required to make annual reports to
EPA. Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) of 1986 established the
TRI requirements, which were
subsequently expanded under the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
The reporting requirement applies
to facilities that have 10 or more
full-time employees, that are
classified by Standard Industrial
Codes (SICs) 20 through 39, and
that process or otherwise use a
listed toxic chemical in excess of
specified threshold quantities.
The first reporting year was 1988,
with facilities reporting within six
months after the end of the calen-
dar year. EPA publishes the "Public
Release" in the spring or summer of
the year following the reporting of
the data. TRI data are available to
the public in public and federal
depository libraries nationwide.
Since the number of chemicals that
must be reported is dynamic, with
chemicals being added or delisted
during any given year, the report is
a "snapshot" of the year. The exact
number of chemicals, and varia-
tions of the chemicals, is not always
reported in the year's publication;
however, the following list indi-
cates the general increase in the
number of chemicals inventoried
through this program:
1987 > 300
1989 328
1991 320
1993 316
1995 650
1988 > 300
1990>300
1992 > 300
1994 343
The initial TRI reporting require-
ments led to two immediate
responses: the companies filing the
reports began to change their
operations when they saw that
there were potential cost-savings
available if they were more careful
in managing the flow of chemicals
through their processes, and EPA
initiated the "33/50" program, a
voluntary effort to reduce the
release of 33 chemicals by 50% in
five years. The initial five-year
period ended in December 1995,
but it will be mid-1997 before the
results are known.
EPA also uses TRI data to identify
potential problem areas. By
comparing facilities filing TRI
reports with facilities on other data
bases, EPA can find sources that
should be inspected to see if they
are subject to other regulations.
Information on the reports has also
been used as background informa-
tion in developing new regulations.
The record of companies reducing
emissions is very impressive. Since
1988, manufacturers in Region III
have reduced releases of toxic
chemicals from 344 million pounds
to 161 million pounds in 1993, a
reduction of 53%. Although there
was a slight increase in Region III
from 1993 to 1994, nationally there
was an 8.6% decrease in emissions.
A preponderance of the emissions
and corresponding reductions are
related to air pollution sources and
facilities. Figure 27 shows Region
III emission trends in the 1988-1994
time frame.
Region III facilities reduced their
air releases of ozone-depleting
chemicals from nearly 15 million
pounds in 1991 to about 5.3 million
pounds in 1993. Air water, and
land releases of carcinogens
declined from about 23 million
pounds in 1991 to about 16 million
pounds in 1993, and approximately
the same amount in 1994. Manu-
facturers have reduced toxic
chemical wastes shipped off-site for
treatment and disposal by 41%,
from 196 million pounds in 1988 to
139 million pounds in 1993. 1993
TRI data indicate that manufactur-
ers in Region III have recycled
45.2% of their toxic chemical
wastes.
The majority of these reductions
in toxic chemical releases and
ERBM in Region III 2~,
-------
HGURE27
TRI Releases 1988-1994
(EPA Region II!)
wastes were not required by law.
Rather, they were the result of an
increased focus by industry on
environmental improvements, and
an effort to adopt measures to
reduce toxic chemical releases.
These measures include raw
material substitutions with non-
toxic chemicals, process modifica-
tions to implement recycling,
improved maintenance to reduce
air chemical leaks, and increased
usage of nontoxic cleaning solvents
and degreasers.
Water Quality
Information Assessment
When Region Ill's Water Pollution
Control programs were reorganized
under EPA's reinvention and
streamlining initiative, some basic
concepts were changed about how
the programs operate and
implement legislative mandates
such as the Clean Water Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act.
One major change expanded the
process of using data on which to
base our decisions and to help
drive the program's priorities and
resources. The environmental
problems we are addressing today
are much more complex than those
that caught our attention twenty-
five years ago. Also, we are dealing
with larger areas (watersheds) and
different contaminants. Figure 28
illustrates how this approach can be
used; the figure shows the percent
of major Pennsylvania watersheds
affected by various pollutants.
The need for better data and more
specific levels of data to go beyond
the current level of information
available resulted in the formation
of a team to obtain better data to
address these new challenges.
For the most part, the status of the
water quality in the Region can
only be addressed in very broad
terms, such as at the state level,
since there is no comprehensive
data base of most water resources
at a more specific (i.e., watershed)
level. Some data are available, but
they are not easy to access or
compile. The environmental data
gathered for regulatory and man-
agement purposes are developed
for specific pollutants or permit
applications, and are scattered
throughout various databases and
agencies. Many of these databases
and collection efforts are important,
but they do not contribute to a
comprehensive data base that can
be used to answer questions about
the integrity of the Region's
waters, nor can they be easily
accessed and understood by the
public.
As a first step in improving the
utility of these data, the various
EPA databases were collected,
compiled, and synthesized to form
a fluid database that will determine
what is known and what is not
known. To augment and fill in the
data gaps, databases from other
Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and universities are
being added. The goal is to be able
to share the information, identify
common priorities and problems,
and work together to jointly de-
velop solutions to solve environ-
mental problems.
HGURE28
Water Quality Non-Attainment
(PA River Systems)
CAUSE
Metals
Suspended Solids
Organic Enrichment
Nutrients
Pathogens
PH
Priority Pollutant Organic Compounds
Pesticides
Thermal Modifications
Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids
% AFFECTED
77.6%
73.5%
71.4%
67.3%
49.0%
46,9%
38.8%
26.5%
24.5%
20.4%
Geographic Information
Systems
A major tool being used by the
EPA to synthesize databases is
ERBM in Region III 28
-------
ARC/INFO, a type of Geographic
Information System (GIS). CIS is a
computerized system used for the
storage, manipulation, display, and
analysis of spatial environmental
data. It is a data integration tool
that combines sophisticated
mapping capabilities with a large
computing capacity. It enables
extensive multi-media analysis and
evaluation in geographic areas that
were previously too time-consum-
ing or difficult to investigate.
Given these capabilities, it is an
excellent tool to synthesize the
various databases to describe the
state of the water resources in the
Region, describe and measure
trends, and help to identify and
prioritize environmental policy.
Protecting the environment is a
job that is inherently geographic in
nature. Understanding the spatial
relationships among natural
resources, human populations, and
known or potential pollution
sources is critical to accomplishing
the Agency's mission. GIS provides
a set of tools that allows us to
integrate and analyze existing
environmental data in a spatial
context. With GIS, we can dynami-
cally combine data about air, water,
and soil to better visualize and
understand the natural interactions
among these media, and highlight
areas of environmental interest or
concern.
EPA is one of the largest
consumers of spatial data in the
civilian government. The Agency s
experience with GIS began approxi-
mately eight years ago with the
phased development of GIS
capabilities in each of the EPA's ten
Regional offices, Headquarters, and
the Laboratories. EPA currently
uses Environmental Systems
Research Institute's ARC/INFO
GIS products on a network of Data
General and Sun Unix
workstations. There is currently a
GIS support team of five to ten GIS
professionals in each of the ten
Regional Offices.
GIS is used to help EPA, States,
and the public better understand
the often complex nature and extent
of problems caused by
environmental pollution. For
instance, EPA collects large
volumes of monitoring and
sampling data for each hazardous
waste site that is investigated, GIS
has proven to be an effective tool in
both managing and analyzing this
data, and in presenting results in a
form that can be readily understood
by nontechnical staff and the public
(for example, several of the maps in
this publication were generated
from EPA's GIS system). GIS has
been used to model soil and ground
water contamination, providing
EPA scientists with much needed
information. Maps are then
produced and used in public
meetings, graphically portraying
the nature and extent of contamina-
tion.
EPA is charged with insuring
that environmental laws are
enforced equally, without respect
for race, ancestry, or economic
status. To do this, it is necessary to
identify the spatial relationships
between potential environmental
hazards and the demographics of
human populations. GIS is being
used to provide EPA staff and the
public with detailed demographic
information about potentially
exposed populations. To date,
maps and statistics have been
created for hundreds of EPA-
regulated facilities. These are used
by EPA staff to help insure that
minority and low-income popula-
tions are not disproportionately
exposed to potential environmental
hazards.
Another area where GIS has been
extensively used is the Radon
Program. This Program is charged
with characterizing the extent of
radon in the Region, and assisting
the states to realize their goals in
addressing the radon problem. GIS
is used to aggregate the sampling
data by zip code and county; from
this, maps are produced showing
the percentage of readings above a
maximum acceptable level. These
maps have been sent to state and
local governments for use by their
radon programs. They have also
been used in public hearings, and
distributed to the American Lung
Association, Housing and Urban
Development, and some Congres-
sional Offices. GIS has also been
used to identify schools that are in
high radon areas. The results are
used to determine where schools
should be tested for radon.
With the Agency's emphasis on
place-based management, the
reliance on GIS technology will
continue to increase. A further use
of GIS technology is to place this
software at the desktop so that EPA
technical staff can have better
access to spatial data and analytical
tools.
All Region III States are also
utilizing GIS technology to help
their technical staff better under-
stand environmental problems.
EPA is developing spatial data
libraries that can be shared by EPA,
States, and other Federal Agencies
in order to make better use of the
GIS technology.
-------
Environmental Partnership
Agreements
Environmental Partnership
Agreements (EnPAs) represent a
new approach to creating meaning-
ful partnerships between EPA and
the States to achieve positive
environmental results. Mutual
agreement between the state and
EPA is the key to EnPA develop-
ment.
Each agreement is developed as
the product of a joint planning and
priority-setting dialogue between
an EPA Region and a state. In part,
the dialogue is guided by analysis
and strategic direction set by EPA
National Program Managers.
Senior program managers from the
state and region structure and lead
the dialogue. State program self-
assessments (an evaluation by the
state as to how they have per-
formed in protecting or
remediating the environment) are
the basis for the dialogue.
The purpose of the dialogue is to:
reach an understanding regarding
environmental conditions in the state,
together with probable causes of
environmental problems and
opportunities for environmental gains;
agree on the appropriate national
and state-specific environmental goals,
program-performance indicators, and
multimedia activities, along with state
commitments for specific deliverables
and types of activities that address
environmental and programmatic
opportunities and/or iveaknesses;
agree upon the allocation of federal
resources toward shared goals and
priorities, the work to be done, and am/
disinvestment made neiessan/ due to
limits on available resources;
agree on commitments for specific
and more integrated federal technical
assistance for targeted program
elements that need improvement (e.g.,
training, //'As, etc.);
agree on am/ joint ventitres or
shared enterprises to better accomplish
environmental results that teflect
regional, pollution prevention, or
ecosystem goals.
The outcome of this dialogue is an
EnPA that reflects state and federal
interests, concerns, choices, and
commitments for sound environ-
mental performance. The agree-
ments are signed by the state's
Environmental Secretary and EPA's
Regional Administrator. In Region
III, the first EnPA was negotiated
with the State of Delaware and
signed at the beginning of Fiscal
Year 1996.
A core element of any EnPA is an
increased reliance on environmen-
tal indicators; such emphasis is
essential for ensuring a sustained
focus on environmental outcomes.
While activity measures such as
number of inspections conducted
per month or year still provide
valuable insight into program
effectiveness, and can complement
environmental indicators, the basic
goal of an EnPA is to shift the
primary focus of the EPA and state
dialogue from "bean counting" to
identification of environmental
priorities for each state, and the
selection of appropriate actions to
address those priorities. Previ-
ously, too much attention had been
directed to counting actions, rather
than to the outcomes and values of
those actions, or to alternate actions
that might be pursued to achieve
the same objective.
The Delaware EnPA
For the Delaware EnPA, each
division in Region III and the
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental
Conservation (DNREC) was
involved in drafting the agreement.
At least one senior person from
each division or office was a core
group that directed the process
from inception to signing and into
implementation. In Region III, a
different division director has been
assigned the lead to develop an
EnPA with each state.
Prior to the development of
EnPAs, National Program Manag-
ers would determine the goals and
commitments for each of the EPA's
programs. The regional programs
would then translate or transfer
these requirements to each state
through state grants, delegation
agreements, or other vehicles.
Implementation of an EnPA
requires a paradigm shift; under an
EnPA, goals and commitments are
established in concert by both the
state and EPA regional office, and
are based on environmental needs
of the state as demonstrated by
existing data. These commitments
are incorporated in the EnPA, and
are then reflected in the agreements
ERBM in Region 111 30
-------
that the particular EPA region has
with EPA Headquarters.
The guiding principle of the EnPA
is the Family of Measures (FOM).
The FOM uses the Logic Model to
link environmental indicators to the
stressors that contribute to the
environmental condition, then to
the sources of the stress, and finally
to the activities necessary to impact
the sources. In other words, we can
determine what to do about the
sources of stressors, having identi-
fied the environment at risk, and
the stresses that threaten it. It is at
the activity levels that program
integration can be demonstrated.
This is where air, waste, and water
programs can clearly see how their
activities contribute to a single goal.
The example discussed here is
taken from the Delaware EnPA. It
is shown in Figure 29 and uses the
goal of controlling point and non-
point pollution to show how
related objectives all combine to
achieve that goal. Because the
sources of point and non-point
pollution are multiple and occur
through different media (e.g., air,
water, solid waste), the ERBM
approach is to consider all of these
sources, propose reasonable mea-
sures to reduce the sources, and
implement practical measures to
restore environmental features
already affected by these stressors.
Thus, the ERBM approach proposes
the reduction of TRI emissions, the
reduction of pollutant loadings to
public wastewater treatment plants,
the incremental cleanup of affected
surface waters, and the implemen-
tation of selected action items from
an approved management plan.
This holistic approach uses existing
regulations, environmental data,
management plans, and other
programmatic elements in a practi-
cal mix to address a well-recog-
nized environmental problem. As
Figure 29 illustrates, the approach
identifies realistic numerical goals
FIGURE 29
KEY GOAL: Improve Surface Water Quality
(Objectives to reach Key Goal)
1. Reduce TRI emissions by 30% as compared to 1989 levels.
2. Reduce loadings of pollutants by 5% to publicly-owned wastewater
treatment facilities through voluntary pollution prevention means, with
concurrent reduced releases from the treatment facilities.
3. Increase the number of river/stream miles and lake/pond acres meeting
designated uses by 5%.
4, Implement at least 5% of the CCMP's action items in Delaware's portion of the
Delaware Estuary and the Inland Bays Estuary.
5. By the year 2000, reduce 1993 actual SO2 emissions by 6,770 tons/year via
the Phase II Acid Rain Control Program.
6. Increase the number of approved marina Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
plans by 10%.
7. Increase the linear footage of shoreline stabilized with rip-rap or vegetation by
20% per year.
and incorporates strategies from a
number of existing programs.
The background data on TRI
emissions and SO2 in Delaware are
shown as Figures 30 and 31.
Although these data by them-
selves are important to evaluating
the health of the environment, the
long-term objective of the ERBM
process is to trace the relationship
between the emission reductions
and actual water quality. The same
objective holds for data from
treatment plants and other sources
of stressors contributing to
degraded water quality.
FIGURE 30
Toxic Chemical On-Site
Release Trends in Delaware
1987 1988 1988 1930 1991 1992 1993
Reporting Year
Use of environmental data also
levels the playing field because it
clearly describes the prevailing
environmental conditions, stressors,
and causes. Once the data are on
the table, negotiation of priorities
and commitments can proceed
without the traditional program-
matic issues. Use of environmental
data serves to put everyone on the
same page with the same goal in
mind.
Some of the environmental
indicators used in the EnPA are
output-based, not result-based or
outcome-based. This was antici-
-------
pated during the first years of the
agreement in order to add structure
to the state's and region's commit-
ment to indicator development.
The following objectives were
incorporated into the agreement.
We will significantly increase our
utilization of environmental goals and
indicators in all of our programs.
We will elevate the quality of our
environmental indicator systems.
We will improve the integration of
environmental goals and indicators
with other environmental management
tools, techniques, and methodologies.
We will establish a network of
policy-makers and technical
professionals from our respective
agencies who have a broad interest m
environmental management and
specific interest in goals and indicators.
We will identify shortcomings in
data management, develop a plan to
better integrate databases, and begin to
implement a data management system
that will maximize the utility of the
DNREC's data for its users, othei
federal/^tate/local agencies, and citizens
to support identification and use of
environmental indicators and foi otlici
purposes.
We will identify a common set of
indicators drawn from available
sources that we can use as Hie
foundation for the development of an
indicator system appropriate for
Delaware's environment.
During the first year of the
agreement, Delaware and Region
III have inventoried all existing
environmental data, and are in the
process of selecting the appropriate
suite of indicators for future devel-
opment and use.
FIGURE 31
1993 SO2 Actual Emissions for Acid Rain Sources
and Future Allowance
FACILITY NAME
City of Dover, McKee Run Power Plant
City of Dover, Van Sant Generating Station
Delmarva Power Edge Moor
Delmarva Power Edge Moor
Delmarva Power Edge Moor
Delmarva Power - Hay Rd. Power Complex
Delmarva Power Indian River
Delmarva Power Indian River
Delmarva Power Indian River
Delmarva Power Indian River
POINT DESCRIPTION
Boiler #3
Unit # 1 Gas Turbine
Boiler #3
Boiler * 4
Boiler #5
Combustion Turbine # 3
Boiler # 1
Boiler #2
Boiler * 3
Boiler #4
TOTALS
Annual Emiss.
in Tons
1,261.04
2.17
2,806.00
5,716.86
9,000.05
1.66
4,961.49
5,131.48
8,869.29
12,880.68
50,631.72
Allowances
2000-2009
2,570
136
3,527
6,243
6,408
156
2,972
3,156
5,396
13,300
43,864
Allowances
2010 & Beyond
1,843
137
3,550
6,283
6,450
158
2,992
3,176
5,431
13,088
43,108
Voluntary Programs
An EPA priority is preventing pollution at the source. Pollution Prevention (P2)
is a multimedia program. Data sources such as TRI, Emission Inventories, and
the Chronic Index are used to rank priorities based on geographic areas of con-
cern. In a given area, critical receptors are identified, e.g., streams, drinking water
sources, airsheds, human populations, etc., using ambient condition databases.
Industrial waste streams are the focus for determining pollution prevention op-
portunities. Industrial processes are examined for possible reductions of the chemi-
cals and solvents released through air emissions, stream discharges, and landfilled
wastes. The Region HI P2 program is developing means to encourage voluntary
reporting by acknowledging a company's participation, and is beginning to re-
quire the use of the Environmental Indicators' Continuum for describing state P2
program activities. The following examples of Pollution Prevention are from the
1995 Pennsylvania Governor's PoEution Prevention Awards.
Small Business: by changing dye suppliers and replacing manganese sulf ate
with hydrogen peroxide, the producers of tanned leather were able to reduce their
volume of solid wastes by greater than 80%, and significantly reduce the levels of
antimony and beryllium in their biosolids. These changes have 1) reduced water
use by 6 million gallons per year, 2) allowed the company to turn its treatment
sludge into a new and valuable soil conditioner, and 3) dropped chemical usage
from 100,000 pounds per year of manganese sulfate to 1,000 pounds of hydrogen
peroxide.
Large Business: a major electroplater's former wastes included spent alkaline
cleaners, acid-based etch solutions, and cyanide plating solution. Closed-loop
recycling and evaporators with a dosed-loop system on the cyanide rinse waters
allowed the return of chemicals to the plating baths. As a result, 38,000 pounds of
hazardous sludge were eliminated, 86,000 gallons of cleaner solution are recycled
annually, 35,000 gallons per year of waste acid solution were eliminated, and 6,700
gallons per year of cyanide solution is no longer discharged into the local waste-
water treatment plant
ERBM m Region III 32
-------
Looking Beyond
Region III has been using the
ERBM approach for several years.
This report has focused on present-
ing examples of how we use
available data to make decisions.
During 1997, we plan to publish a
companion volume that will have
much more detailed information on
our programmatic uses of data.
In reviewing our progress in
implementing ERBM, Region III
can count many successes. The
Chesapeake Bay Program has
developed a set of environmental
indicators that are widely accepted
and that are being used to define
program goals. GIS technology has
been applied to a number of
programs, most notably Acid Mine
Drainage. Both Ozone and Acid
Precipitation are being addressed
through data-driven strategic
planning processes. The "Logic
Model" is being used in the data
assessments that each State must
perform as one of the first steps in
negotiating an EnPA.
Readers who are interested in
more detailed discussions of
particular approaches should be
able to find such discussions in
Volume II of this report. To request
a copy, contact the Region III
Publications number or the General
Assistance Hotline. Volume II is
expected to be available in the
second half of 1997.
A Region III "State of the
Environment" report is also under
preparation. We expect to load the
information for that report on our
website as it becomes available. A
hard copy summary may also be
prepared.
When Region Ill's senior leader-
ship team decided to focus on the
ERBM approach, our motivation
was to improve the scientific basis
of our programmatic decisions so
that we could focus the Region's
resources and attention to the most
important issues. In particular, we
wanted to incorporate information
on relative risk and human health
or environmental quality into the
equation.
Shortly after Region III decided
on the ERBM focus, Congress
passed the Government Perfor-
mance and Results Act (GPRA).
Under this Act, all federal agencies
must develop their budgets accord-
ing to a strategic plan, and must
prepare detailed cost analyses of
their operations. EPA will have to
use long-term environmental trend
information to show the efficiency
and success of its programs.
The work that Region III is doing
to develop ERBM supports the new
legislation. As EPA implements
GPRA nationally, Region III will
continue its work to incorporate
ERBM into the process. We hope
that ERBM will become part of
EPA's national response to GPRA.
Environmental Results-Based
Management in Region III
is published by:
The Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3 Office
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Deputy Regional Administrator
For more information, call:
General Information Hotline
(800) 438-2474
Publications
(215) 566-5121
Business Assistance Center Hotline
(800) 228-8711
Pioject Team
Wendy Bartel, Catherine Brown,
Henry Brubaker, Nancy Cichowicz,
Jon Capacasa, Barbara D'Angelo,
Jada Goodwin, Glenn Hanson, Stu Kerzner,
Ken Kryszczun, Kwand Lang,
Dominique Lueckenhoff, Theresa Martella,
Wayne Naylor, Andrea Parker, Robert Runowski,
Mary Sarno, David West
Cover Design
Jada Goddwin, Kim Lonasco, Robert Runowski,
Andrea Parker, Henry Brubaker
vv-EPA
The report was printed with vegetable based inks on
recycled and recyclable paper.
ERBM in Region HI 33
-------
Environmental Results Based Management:
"Using sound data to make sound decisions"
Profbiafl fy GSA Mti-Atlaitic Region Printing Pknt - (215) 597-8871
&EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Forwarding and Address Correction Requested
First Class Mail
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA Permit G-35
------- |