-------
0)
0,
8
Ul
JJ
3
4-J
3
O
TJ
O
!-l
3
cn
fl
OJ
03
1)
O
§
•H
rH
' Q4
O
c
01
01
o
3
0
0
03
g
0
r4
0)
3
z
• H
C
0
-H
4J
03
rH
0
•H
C
01
0)
O
3
O
01
0
03
e
0
j^l
0)
1
3
S
ed (water)
3
01
H
IX
•o
0)
3
01
01
01
4-1
-H
S
"])
04
o
03
s
o •
^
CD
3
2
(water)
H>
O
C
a
H
rH
a
&
o
o
c
01
01
u
3
O
01
0
03
O
^
a)
3
rt
J5
01
4J
g
1)
"4-1
O
c
0
•H
4J
05
rH
0
£>
C
01
0)
o
s
• o
01
o
13
g
IJ-4
0
M
1)
3
z;
0)
0
H
rH
a
g
o
0
[2
•H
Ul
a)
4->
01
rH
01
0
a
01
•H
•a
c
rH
"4-4
O
4J
5
o
11
a
-------
CO
o
M
H
M
CO
O
fa
O
CO
H
CO
z
o
I—I
o
ON
r^
ON
fa
oo
i^.
ON
Z W
H H
PS »J
H fa
O
«S
PS W
< Z
CQ 22
Z W
O P*
cn
u
CJ
^c
^^
M
H
O J
•H BJ
O C
C rt
•H -H
rH T3
OO
CM
CM
LO
CN
o
r-
CM
fO
cn
c
o
cn
o
so
C
•H
(U
u
'r-l
0)
o
C
o
•H
60
0)
OS
•K
oo
oo
oo
S
•H
C
C
oo
r^
01
0)
0)
00
•H
cn
cn
•O
C
SO
C
•H
C
C
•H
60
0)
pa
01
0)
C
60
•H
cn
cn
01
•l-l
CO
CO
H
CJ
fa
3
IZ
o
CO
Pi
Cd
01
C
0)
eu
6
•H
H
I
3
fa
O
•H
cn
cn
01
a
o
oo
r-.
ON
OJ
n)
e
0)
e
•H
H
cn
C
o
•H
cn
cn
01
a
o
oo
P--
ON
rH
'O
0)
33
0)
O)
fl
60
—I
cn
cn
•H
U
fa
60
C
•H
cn
cn
a)
a
o
M
P-i
-a
01
0)
O
0)
PS CO
f~-
cn o\
- iH
CM
tn >H
I fa
fa
CO
-------
c
0
N
C .g
D £ O
4>
Q.
O
c
OJ
E
o
U
"O
o
£
fa
U
•o
<3J
a>
in
O
in
in
ro
ro
V)
•o
C
i
o
• •
(/i
13
2
U.
DJD
'•+3
2
a;
CL
O
•u
rt i
v
+j
0ft
fw
.fiP
J2
O
C
••i^
ID
CO
hs
o>
^™
co
i\
o^
,jr^
C
rg
4—1
O
I—
T3
OJ
4—*
ra
.5P
~n
O
c
D
£ LO °- % ^
IX ' un ro ~
0 ^ S rn ^
_g
I
CO
CN
^=v
LLJ
O
U
-a
rC
<=e-
4-1
y
c
^g
."5
* \ —
CL
O
L_
CL
CL
<
^s.
1 ty
0 —is
^— ~t ^z.
4-> 4—> ro i_
C 00 *-* o
o 5 O u
U . h-
^ 00 ^1
OQ (1) — —.
- C &
F, ^o?! a;
nj r- °o u/
r- -C b ~D
E U a; >• ^
2 fa ^ c "u
w S o S £
-Q ^ '^ oo
< ^ i < *
-------
CO
> J
_ tf
5:9
$5
*•§
3
I
I
_Q
O
o
T3
CO
O)
DC
•o
D
m
CN
IX
LO
T
O
o^
LO
en
LO
q
CO
LO
o^
LO
"8
.Q
O
C
R
JS
"a;
U § O
2 ^ Z
c T2
O
rs
0
3'
-------
c
o
"•-8 g
5r=l
$!§ 55
^5
£ -n ^
• u
C
3
U.
k_
«3
OJ
V_
_g
cu
-o
2
bC
O
oZ
>s
CO
*m
+rf
o
0
1
i
VD
^•^
c
jpri
TO
O
c
o
"|
%
c
0
u
1
c
O
"Z.
M*
CJ
4—1
03
_op
3
O
a5
-o
•5 >
°- "3
< t/i
00
GO
cn
CN
£
1C
en
CN
f)
C
fS
JE
CN
3=
O
c
a
c*
c
g
°4-^
U
CD
-------
>
5
?
•
c
.g
t A
^»
r«
0N
*4«rf
D
"D
C
u.
on Grant
Millions
'13
3
^
c/)
C
O
u
i
c
0
a
c
01
E
E
o
u
FN,
K
o>
r-
i
-— •
.g
^
jja^
c£
08
u.
ra
^u
>• s^
"O D
v£3 ^
0 ^ Q i
cp T- „ T- t
l^ -n "D ~n ra
£ S C^ 3
C .S ^ .S a
^Wi j» •, b^a ji > ^^
f~ Qj rxj
"- U 03 U to
r- O> o <^ ra
S c*. CN c«i p
m
=0 ^
co cr
c
0)
•si
4-5 C
ra 'F
oc E
Z E
O>^
o
u
4— J
^
TO"S
O> fi
-*-1 .S
&E
Z E
o °
uu
-t-J
OJ
CO
~o
^
CD
s i
rx ^^
• ^ ^«
(/)
c
0
y
c
-r
•*r Z
rn
•o
a
*^
f«
.SP
2
o
c
— \
CN -J
^ CO
^ IX
ffs
W '
served Carryove
0)
ct.
-a
0)
4—1
r3
_cp
Z
o
£;
D
~rB
4-J
O
}—
CO
CN
-------
CHAPTER II
This chapter contains three different types of documents to
demonstrate the changes between FY 1978 and the FY 1979/1980
planning years. First is the transmittal memorandum for our
FY 1979/1980 zero base budget (ZBB) submissions; this memorandum
integrates agency and regional priorities with impacts of ranking
decisions on positions. The transmittal has been annotated to
reflect adjustments caused by the final agency-wide ranking for
FY 1979.
Second is a selective review of State programs, to show
two key elements in the States: What is new for FY 1979 and what
is the status of delegations, as of October 12, 1978.
Finally, there are several graphics to illustrate the changes
within Region V from FY 1978 to FY 1979.
In a Region as complex as Region V, no single set of comments
on our major programs is all-inclusive. However, assuming knowledge
of the base program for FY 1979, the information in this chapter
should highlight differences for FY 1979.
37
-------
TS:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUN 2 2 1978 REGIONV
SUBJECT- FY 1979 and FY 1980 Zero Base Budget
FROM: Valdas V. Adamkus
Acting Regional Administrator
TO: Douglas M. Costle
Administrator (A-100)
Region V has completed our FY 1979/1980 statement of priorities, ZBB
submissions, and ranking of decision levels. Attached to this memorandum
are a listing of our 1979/1980 priorities and ranking tables for FY 1979
and FY 1980. Under separate cover, the Program Analysis Division has been
provided our ZBB decision units. These documents have been developed in
conformance with the "Planning and Budgeting Guidance for FY 1979/1980,"
your "Policy Guidance for FY 1979/1980," and the series of ZBB manuals,
instructions, and memoranda. Our priorities, decision units, and rankings
strictly observe the. Agency's commitments to controlling and eliminating
health hazards, to ensuring effective enforcement, to helping State and
local governments assume as much as possible, and to assist management and
regulatory reform. This memorandum will clearly demonstrate those
commitments. I believe our rankings represent those commitments.
There are several topics addressed in this transmittal; they are a general
discussion of the ranking tables and priorities, program highlights and
issues, personnel and organisation impacts, and a description of our process.
Priorities and Ranking
Like the "EPA Policy Guidance: FY 1979/1980," Region V's Fiscal Year 1979/80
Priorities," (Exhibit 1), identifies those portions of our programs that must
be addressed if we are to protect the health of people, assure effective
enforcement, support the States, and integrate our programs. We have added
to those actions, identified in the national document, the following goals;
fr
1. Support to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Special
studies to determine the existence and remedies for toxic
substances in the lakes must be conducted. Remedies for health
impacting discharges must be planned and enforced. Also, the
coordinated efforts of State, Federal, and Canadian efforts to
preserve this resource must be accelerated.
2. Construction of environmentally compatible wastewater treatment
plants. Facility planning must eliminate public health problems
of direct risk (pathogens and toxics) and prevent degradation of
the environment.
3. Assurance that second round NPDES permits are issued to all
major and toxics dischargers.
38
3CO-5 tP£V. 3-751
-------
—2—
2 2 1378
4. Technical assistance to the States, so that the 1983 goals of the
Clean Water Act are met.
5. Conduct thorough and timely reviews of all Environmental Impact
Statements, which could have an adverse effect on public health or
welfare.
As can be seen on the attached FY 1979 and FY 1980 ranking tables, those
decision levels which directly contribute to meeting national and regional
priorities are being addressed by the Region, within our base or within a
reasonable range above the base.
f\^.^i^Region V cannot achieve the national and regional priority for compliance \nj ^
^0^*^.0 by violators of the Clean Air Act. As our decision units state, we now \c. £
J'«^'V' £1 have 33 percent of the national air enforcement case load. Many of these ? "
'T *1M vC^noncompliers are difficult cases and the 1979 SIP revisions will increase 5
\ f^ -'I fc^e number of violators. As a result, for FY 1979, we have ranked Level 2 3
, c^ *( within our base (a 10 percent growth) and ranked two higher levels within <* j]
*'*£,*,.-< the range of resources we should legitimately expect to receive. For f^
v $ FY 1980, we have moved Level 5 within the range we could reasonably expect. |rS <;
As discussed between Mr. Alexander and you, 21 positions are being budgeted 7s1 "
for the Great Lakes program in FY 1979. This represents a 35 percent cut to '• .
the Great Lakes program, and will not provide for full accomplishment of our
priorities in FY 1979. These 21 positions are 12 more than in the current
Agency budget request for 9. At this time, the House Appropriations Committee
has restored 14 positions to the Great Lakes program.
Another major difference with the Agency's budget can be seen where Region V I '.
has programmed a 15-position increase for Air Quality Management within our ( •
FY 1979 planning base of 679 positions. This increase is 62.5 percent of ! -
the targeted increase for the Regions. In this case, we are certain that i \
the FY 1979 budget has erred in not providing enough positions for Air j r
Quality Management to insure that SIP's are revised and promulgated, in order / :
to protect the public health and so that sanctions on community economic /'
growth are unnecessary.
Barbara Blum's May 2, 1978, memorandum, "Planning and Budgeting for Regional
MBE Development Projects" has resulted in resources for MBE being included
in Level 1 of our Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility Construction
decision unit and Levels 1 and 2 of Administrative Services. Both these
decision units are covered in the FY 1978 position base, when applied to our
FY 1979 and FY 1980 rankings.
39
-------
-3-
Program Impacts
What follows is a media-by-media discussion of program impacts, a result of
our rankings:
Air
s *""* The basic thrusts in our FY 1979 and FY 1980 air media rankings are
Ti^ regulating health hazards, ensuring effective enforcement, and helping
State agencies to carry out existing environmental responsibility or to
assume new responsibilities.
In FY 1979, a major issue was to ensure that State and regional resources
were ranked early enough to provide SIP development and promulgation for
NAAQS by July 1, 1978. We determined that both State and regional
resources would need to be increased if health-related standards are to
exist and if sanctions are to be avoided. The State increase could come
from Level 4 funding of our air grants; the regional increase would be
made by reprogramming within our FY 1978 resource base. For PSD, our
rankings will obtain regulations from five of our six States. For New
Sources, the rankings will ensure adequate audits and an air quality
impact review of at least 95 percent of PSD and EIS preconstruction
applications.
While FY 1979 must give priority for NAAQS SIP promulgations before
increased enforcement actions in FY 1980, the new SIP promulgations
will result in a 100 percent increase in Class A sources out of
compliance. Thus, for FY 1980, stationary source enforcement resources
are increased in tandem with air quality management.
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring will be decreased by two positions,for
FY 1979. in favor of SIP development and promulgation. This is a
cut of two positions below the national resource range minimum of
100 percent. For FY 1980. two positions are added to assist in short-
term ozone and precursor data needed for urban population centers.
Mobile Source Enforcement has been dropped to the end_of_ our,jranking,,.
because there are too few resources to adequately cope with tampering,
too many for the unleaded program, and none for urban control plans.
^^ Water Quality
,2. For FY 1979, we have closely followed the Agency's budget in committee
;by cutting 25 positions, within our base from Water Quality Monitoring,
"Jf^ Great Lakes, Permit Issuance, Water Quality Management, and Waste
v" Treatment O&M Training. Within the water quality medium, only Clean
40
-------
-4-
JUN *
Lakes will have an increase of one position. The reductions will
preclude much needed toxics sampling and laboratory analyses from
occurring. Also, Federal O&M field monitoring will be absent, except
as part of compliance inspections.
Our Region has planned to achieve all other guidance priorities within
our ranked FY 1979 resources, including higher Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facility Construction grant obligations than required in the
guidance Level 3. This was done by deferring some management improve-
ments for construction grants until Level 4.
State program development will be improved by delegation of Section 205
grants and programs to four_of oursix States.
I (U (V e
Lt, -T < 'wy — We also plan to delegate Federal facility permit authority and
&A,o __ Section 404 permit review authority to our States.
f-1 i <- n
For FY 1980, we have proposed an adequate, restored funding for the
Great Lakes program to do analyses needed to save the lakes and
strengthen our enforcement activities for hazardous toxic pollutants.
Actions under Permits Issuance and Water Quality Management are ranked
further down our FY 1980 table to allow for these increases.
Finally, we recommend that the Clean Lakes program be considered for
decentralization from Headquarters to the Regions.
Drinking Water
Region V has reprogrammed 14 positions within our base to accommodate
-fr r^1" - increases to the Drinking Water program for 1979 and 1980. Under
,{*:^ Public Water System Supervision, increased positions are needed above
^~ , Si the base level for the nonprimacy State of Indiana, 21 Indian
'^ reservations and 2 partial-primacy States. Five States in this Region
will be eligible for Groundwater Protection programs; our resources
reflect this. Enforcement will begin in FY 1979 and increase in
FY 1980.
Our priorities for the abatement and control portion of this program
x -p-^,, •$ are to ensure that the public drinking water is protected from
~--1^^''J, <, hazardous or toxic pollutants in Level 1, and to guarantee adequate
c,'^ program support and State overview in higher levels. In enforcement,
[°r' emergencies or health-related issues have highest priorities.
Our radiation and toxics programs have already been integrated into
the planning of our 1979 and 1980 drinking water programs.
41
-------
-5-
Solid Waste
Our hazardous waste program includes three notable features for
FY 1979: (1) to respond to all environmental emergencies, even if
other commitments are temporarily deferred; (2) to prepare State
, / agencies for implementing approved hazardous waste management programs;
r ^ -j and, (3) to prepare regional permitting, permit review, and enforcement
procedures. Four positions are added to our hazardous activities by
reprogramming within our FY 1978 base. Above the base, seven more
positions are added within the range of resources we might expect.
In FY 1979, Solid Waste Technical Assistance Panels will be increased
by one position within our FY 1978 base resources, and one position
within the probable range to provide State and local agencies with
information on correct disposal practices and with use of wastes for
energy or other recovery practices.
Also, for FY 1979, Solid Waste Management programs should be increased
by one position, in order to provide grants-in-aid and staff guidance to
State agencies. The States need help to inventory open dumps, within one
year of land disposal criteria promulgation, and to prepare a State plan
for solid waste management and disposal.
Funding Level 4 for local and rural solid waste management plans will
provide local and rural areas with the capability to plan for their
increments in the State plans, and to implement planned increments by
purchasing equipment or selecting sanitary landfills.
For FY 1980, Region V has ranked 10 more Solid Waste program positions
within our base, because the progress in FY 1979 will identify more
hazardous problems and increase the requirements for enforcement.
Pesticides, Radiation, and Noise
For Pesticides, we have cut five abatement and control positions
in FY 1979 and FY 1980, to reflect the centralization of the
Pesticides program. Enforcement positions have been reduced for
' FY 1979 and 1980 to reflect the development of State/EPA cooperative
enforcement agreements, although we have not found the States to be
ready for this program. We have included enough PesticTdes^Use
Management positions to provide for adequate health protection of
farm workers and the general public, and for development and approval
of 10 Indian certification programs.
Radiation in FY 1979 and FY 1980 extends beyond the guidance priorities
to integrate radiation program activities into drinking water and toxics
and to respond to emergencies, such as the satellite which fell through
the northern United States and Canadian atmosphere.
42
-------
-6-
JUN 2 2 1978
frv
.C' f
v
Our Noise program has been very successful with local governments. We
propose to continue our success by covering a current overceiling with
a permanent position.
Toxics
Region V has been providing substantial leadership and support to the
.national toxics program, such as for PCB's. We propose that toxic
concerns be integrated into all media within the Region, that toxic
sampling be done on the Great Lakes, that emergencies be promptly
responded to, and that we participate in information sharing with
Headquarters, the States, and local industries. For these purposes,
we request that at least three positions be added for FY 1979 and that
the regional program be fully funded in FY 1980.
Regional Management
Region V will be able to participate in management reforms and
regulation development within our base resources. Increased analytical
capability will require an added position above our base for FY 1979;
and, the combination of economic penalty assessments and increased
analytical capability will require two positions to be added above the
base in FY 1980.
Six regional R&D representatives have been reprogrammed to other
activiites within the Region, leaving one position for preparation of
annual resource needs, review of R&D activities, etc.
We are distressed that the FY 1979 Agency budget did not provide that
regional management positions keep pace with either base needs or new
analytical responsibilities. Our crosswalk demonstrates no tapping of
resources for management. OEM's analysis shows Region V to be
seriously understaffed (i.e., -9 from the critical mass). In FY 1980
we propose that this situation be corrected, as it must be. We have
provided for five positions to be added to Region V, within the
probable funding range.
Personnel and Organization Impacts
The one area of Region V most adversely affected by our FY 1979 and
FY 1980 rankings is the Surveillance and Analysis Division (SAD).
It is expected that SAD could lose as many as 25 positions, due to
shifts away from air and water monitoring. These cuts may have to
be absorbed by eliminating a district office, severely cutting back
staffing at the laboratory that you just opened, and from our regional
quality assurance activities. The staff will have to be transferred
to new programs or RIF'd.
43
-------
! ! I V,
u
—7—
~* O »« ••-, "7 -v
r-
Air and Hazardous Materials Division (A&HMD) is expected to have a
50 percent growth, due to air program increases and to new initiatives
in Solid Wastes and Toxics. Staff in Pesticides will be reduced, as
called for by the Agency's FY 1979 budget. The A&HMD will require
additional space, probably on a new floor in our Regional Office; this
will require negotiations with GSA that have already begun, so we have
notified 0PM1 s Facilities Management Branch of this new space need.
^ ^ c ^ jj^r'The Enforcement Division's total resources will be unchanged, but some
^^v'frf ,J^('M "^ personnel must be shifted out from Pesticides and NPDES Permits, while
, »i £'V>^o Air Enforcement will increase.
fa PV^
' I,1- f>*
'^ u^& The Water Division will need to expand its space for the Drinking Water
Program, resulting in more moves of other regional personnel from our
central office to a satellite, 2 blocks away.
The staff offices and Management Division will experience some shifts,
but no substantiative changes. Management will have to plan for major
personnel changes and transfers, which will severely strain our
resources. Space adjustments, within our facilities, will require
negotiation; new space will need to be obtained in the central and
satellite offices, while one or more district offices will be closed.
Region V Planning Process
In order to assist Headquarters' preparation of a 2-year guidance, a
member of Region V's Planning staff was detailed to Program Evaluation
Division from November 1977 through March 1978. At the same time, our
Program Planning Chief joined a Program Analysis Division ZBB process
group to plan forms, procedures, and instructions.
In December 1977, we issued a schedule for regional FY 1979/1980
planning, which used the then national schedule, to set critical dates
for conducting our planning, for preparing State-specific guidances for
each grant program, and for conducting mid-year evaluations. Also,
determined, at that time, were the memberships for our media task forces
and an intermedia task force. The task forces were given the
responsibility for coordinating guidance reviews, for preparing State-
specific guidance documents, for developing criteria for State program
grant evaluations for coordinating media decision unit preparation and
ranking, and for preparing an intermedia ranking for the Regional
Administrator. A State planning schedule, which dovetailed with our
schedule, was also prepared and mailed.
We had not gotten very far into January when key dates began to be
missed in Headquarters. As an eventual result of date slippage, two
problems developed with our States. First, they unanimously opted
44
-------
-8-
II IS\; • . rn
JUh „, -- .rj/0
out of participation in our ZBB; and second, the States complained in
writing to us that their own planning was off-schedule, due to the lack
of guidance documents.
Because the final guidance failed to appear on time, we began writing
our ZBB packages using our own forms. Therefore, we became another
"pilot Region;" and we have, as of this date, gone through four FY 1979
ZBB write-ups and three for FY 1980. Despite the uncertainty of
national ZBB forms or guidance, we completed our ZBB process in late
April, including a ranking for FY 1979, which clearly showed
organizational impacts to the branch level.
When the national guidance eventually arrived, our managers made the
conversion from our ZBB formats to Headquarters, but with two major
complaints. First, a number of peculiar Project Program Accomplishments
(PPA's) were introduced; they frequently told less than our ZBB measures,
and were sometimes measuring the wrong activities. Also, the directive
on where to place "overhead" positions made no sense, when compared to
the cuts in the President's Budget.
At this time, the mounting frustrations, of months with changing
schedules, dates, submissions, and ranking procedures, prompted
George R. Alexander, Jr., to write William Drayton that Region V would
submit our own version of ZBB and would not submit draft State grant
ZBB documents, until we have State plans to work from.
Paul Elston came to Region V for a first-hand review of what was
occurring. As a result of his visit, many of our immediate concerns
with the process were resolved; and draft ZBB submissions were provided
to Headquarters.
Some features of our own ZBB that have been lost, though, are that the
actual impacts down to branch levels were obscured in the adjustments
made for Headquarters, and that the Division Directors and I have had
less opportunity to direct our program planning than in past years,
because we have had to respond to the ever-increasing and changing
demands of the national ZBB system.
Conclusion
So far, this has been a hectic and frustrating year for our program planning.
I believe several activities in program planning must be adjusted or corrected.
Still, this could be time well spent; only the next few months will prove that.
Region V is an exciting place to work within U.S. EPA. We normally carry at
least 20-25 percent of the sources for pollution, and from 25-35 percent of
45
-------
-9-
H p
Ju
-'Q7
the enforcement cases to combat pollution. We must manage big grant programs
and major planning for pollution cleanup. I hope that the resources will be
provided to match our responsibilities.
Attachment
46
-------
3
0
x;
a
rH
U
CJ
M
3
CO
e«
04
a
CO
u
X
g
CrS
a
Q
04
s
s
en
a
Q
u
H
E-i
10
w
04
u
en
3
Q
M
O
en
3
04
04
en
os
a
6-1
3
^
E*
H
H
O
a:
£
3
0) -p
> C 01
-H e c
•T-
r:
r- r-t
• r—
m
C
o
o
o
tn
r» <
m ft
u
cn
r-t
C
c
•r~
1—
CN r-t
• M
O
m
* ft
m a.
^ rH
C^ r-l
CO H
*
o rH
rH H
<
<3> li
• M
i^D •
fTl i-H
M
in
rH
0
c
r-l
H
-fe
jC
a
P
u-, O
u^>
ro
•
CO .H
<
4J
&
CN CD
• Q
^o
o
cn
tn
OS
2
a
r^
O
• a
rH
VO
P^^-
4J
a
o a.
Q 4-1
rH
• J3 01
lO U I
cn -H
r- a
aqq. o^ p
OS
0§
0 -
r^ o
- -H
<^> S
t pUP 3^5
o;
°. g
in
co xi
rH H
T.
&.
O Q
m
["•* .^1
in o
rH rH
s
c
(0
•r-l
0
H
s
*
o
^r
m •
CO K
o
IN O 0
01 >
•H
3
0 •
r4
<3
-U
a
O CO
• Q
o
"
o
CO
(N
CN
3i
z
Q
CJ
CO
•H
O 3
CO
cn
CN
spunj
Q
n •
• u
n cn
CO H
^ 3
spunj
o 2:
• Q
O
O •
r- D
— 1 H
3
3S31U
oi
m 2:
• Q
CN
CO •
•31 o
» cn
rH -H
3
1
rH Q
^ o
o^ en
— i 3
C
'fl
c
0
cn
-H
3
O
o
0)
cn
a o o
tJi Q<
flj QJ
CO ifl
U T3
H O
g S
-------
^
2
Q
O
s
2
M
2
z
O
u
3
O
M
O
s
01
Ed
Z
z
s
•z.
o
—
o
g
H
Q
Z
M
yl
o
H
J
H
X XX
-^ •— ' •— '
x o o
X XX
X XX
• — • V — «•
X XX
X XX
-^ 1
rH 03
en 0
P -i-4
•-*• y) G r4
rH T3 rtj CD
-" i-i P -P
[0 03 3 0)
CD ^ <-H T3
O C rH
CD !H o3 0 -P
O 3 -P CM G
C 0 en T3
03 C/) H U
S C H H
rJ > 0 03 M-l >
O 'H -t H J-»
4-1 ft ai ai c -H
r4 C CO 3 CP rH
CD 0 r4 0 H 03
Qj -H E T3 en 3
P OJ M 0^
4-» 03 n3 4-t
Q ±> rH N OP
cn 03 03 -H
en G -C c 03
T3 3 0 0
P, CD H H -H «H
(TJ C -P 0 -P O
G in 2 CD C
03 0 > O
P '4-4 1 U H
M W *>
cn a,
2
8
OS
a-
1 34
< 1
x x o o o
-— *
x x o o o
*-*
X X X O O
, — , «_,
X XXX X
-_* •*** • — •
"x x x o o
X X X O O
X O
X O
^•^
X O
X O
0 0
x" o
—
G CN
0
•H en
P -P jj c;
O S H -H 0
3 03 e e -ri
Jl 0 2-1 Qj r-t
0 a >i rH o
U P rH O4
P H r-t
1 M rH 4-i ^
e -H o
•P M CJ 'O *+-»
O CP
in CD CD
0. 3 G
CL 0) O
t/3 1 1
OS CO U
EH QJ D
05
T3 QJ
CO ^
p 03 CTi
CD en CTi
^ Ifl -P rH
•P DI G
U 0) H C g Cw
H 13 (SO)
4-1 rH CD CT"
H G 03 ^ M C
O 03 G 0 CP -H
CO U H T3 iH
0. 4-1 G 3
CO CO O G T3
jj . 4_t H 0
MH G >i 0 -P H >i
0 0) rH >T3 4J rH
CM CD g (8 CD
Ul O 03 O 3 CP -^
3 fl< rQ G eo QJ H
P S M OJ C rH -t
(COO) en 0 CD C
-P O > £1 O T3 3
C/l <
rH CM
(U
-P
o
-P
0
0
Cu
G CO
o J] <8
rH 0 0 CD P
rH -P CJ 3 05
< CJ1
C O H Ji
T3 T3 H
0) rH w cn co
tP (1) Q P — (
0) P rH (8 2j
rH ,8 CD P
D P ^ 0] Q
Q cn 2
1 1 1
^^
XX O
rrj
C
•1)
cr
< 0
S | J
-------
AIR
There is an increase of $3 million in grant funds available for
Region V States.
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
State Implementation Plans (SIP's) must be revised by July 1979 to
provide for attainment of primary ambient air quality standards—or,
no growth in stationary sources may occur.
With regard to controls for vehicle emissions, the States will be
required to implement vehicle inspection/maintenance (I/M) or other
transportation controls, when necessary to attain air quality
standards—a portion of the EPA air grant program increase is
intended to pay for pilot or start up I/M programs.
Other SIP revisions—e.g., for prevention of deterioration of air
quality, public notification, emission monitoring, etc.—are also
necessary to meet Clean Air Act deadlines.
ENFORCEMENT
In part, the increase in State resources has been obtained to keep
pace with enforcement for existing major source violators and for
major sources not in compliance by July 31, 1979; to inspect
stationary sources, especially for hazardous emissions; and, to
review the increasing number of permits for new sources. States
and the Region are expected to have allocated responsibilities for
major source violators between them.
49
-------
WATER QUALITY
New grant funding is available, based on State assumption of
construction grant activities.
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Major new thrusts are: (a) Use of construction grant funds to cover
the cost of delegation of the construction grants program, and, to
the extent these funds suffice, the NPDES permit, dredge and fill
and Section 208 water qualitymanagement program; and, (b) develop-
ment of State/Regional Administrator agreements which outline a
common strategy, individual and shared responsibilities, delegations,
program activities, and grant support for the Sections 106, 208 and
205 water grant programs.
While the Corps of Engineers will retain dredge and fill permitting
jurisdiction for traditionally navigable waters (e.g., interstate
or intrastate commerce), the States can assume dredge and fill
permitting responsibility for other rivers, streams, etc.
FY 1979 is the major year for approval of State water quality
management plans (Section 208) and designation of management
agencies to implement plans.
ENFORCEMENT
The basic water quality enforcement and permit programs already
delegated to all six States will continue, with the addition of
toxic and pretreatment requirements in permits and delegation of
Federal facility permitting. In FY 1979, there will be a dramatic
increase in the number of expiring major permits requiring
reissuance by the States. (45% of the non-municipal permits and
27% of the municipal permits.)
50
-------
DRINKING WATER
Abatement and Control
Complete the inventory and classification of public water systems
and pits, ponds, and lagoons.
In preparation for the establishment of a program, identify States
requiring underground injection control programs for the protection
of water supplies.
Three States have received primacy (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin)
and two States (Illinois and Ohio) plan to apply in FY 1979. If
Indiana does not apply for primary by April of 1979 their $460,000
grant allocation will be included in the national redistribution of
grant funds.
51
-------
PESTICIDES AND TOXICS
(These grants are similar to contracts with the State agencies)
Pesticide Cooperative Enforcement Agreements
Four Region V States (Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin) are expected
to conduct use inspections, establishment inspections, marketplace inspections,
and monitor dealers to support the regional enforcement program for Pesticides.
Pesticide Applicator Certification Grants
States must plan for performing certification of applicators. In FY 1980,
the grants will cease.
Toxics
Demonstration Grants are available from Headquarters for States to show how
they can alleviate severe toxic chemical problems on which EPA is unable or
unlikely to act.
Also, selected States will be eligible for cooperative enforcement grants to
perform compliance monitoring and enforcement for facilities subject to Toxics
regulations. Four Region V States (Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin)
have existing PCB legislation. $100,000 was requested as an Overtarget in our
FY 1979 budget to fund grants to these States.
52
-------
SOLID WASTE
Hazardous Waste Management
State programs should be equivalent to the Federal program by
October 21, 1980; a grant program has been established to provide
all six States with funds for developing their programs. All
States are expected to request interim permit authority; they must
demonstrate a plan to do permitting, issue of manifests,
surveillance and analysis, and enforcement; they must respond to
hazardous waste emergencies.
State and Local Solid Waste Management
Funds are provided to the States and local agencies to develop
solid waste management plans; and to oversee site closings and
development. Also, States are expected to inventory municipal
solid waste open dumps beginning with "worst cases," and expected
to issue permits based on review of land disposal plans.
53
-------
OJ
•£
CO
CD
T!
"5
C/D
.ic
oj-o.2
I2.™
Stf«
toxCC
(S^Ob
^^^
>•
a
a
3
(/D
2
CD
O
F
CO
o
CL
>
z
o
5
u
cc
-------
CO
z
g
I >
u. Z
o g
£ 2
inn!
cn
g
'.^
'cn
O
Q_
S 8 S 8 8 8 8
00 CO CN CN i- r-
O
CJ
ob
+-
CD
CD
IS
.Q
CD
^
ir
03 o p
3 C
C 3
LL >
£ 03
S >
O
I-
'
o
& S
Q. .2
O •«
||
<^ CD
?:l
—• en
__ en O
,_ 03 CL
3 l^E:
C O cn
— Q_ 3
d 03 4S
I _C ^3
en" '03 s:
CD O O
en »s "F
0 ^ >
t°l
a TJ T
D) N —
•i s .i
c -C •-
S s s
a< a.
-------
LU
LU
CQ
O>
051
TJ
CO
DC
C/J
£ <
Q
LU
sls
9IIIIII
a
£L
.2
.«
CO
£
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
8
CM
S
88
-------
Ill
.1
±i
CO
o
Q.
O
0)
I
o
o
o
£
CO
O
a
CO
o
I
1
Q
= CO 111
O CD
CO Q.
5£
co ^_
O *~
2 8 0> §
s s
R 2
-------
LLI
LU
O
LU
O
gL
s
I
s
OO
LO
-------
3
O
60
e 3 g
O Q. .2
'SbO 3
a
(ft
00
c
*c
Q
T3
3
.Q
'd
4-*
(/I
Q
m
CO
u
IS
DO
C
^
3
c
2
U
ro
CU
U
O
u
1G
-a
-------
3
a
^»-
a
o
-------
c
o
rf\
VJ
* JJJ
<3
CL
U