1 A/840/1979.1
                   nmjental Protection
                   v | : .  ,. •
WasteiWlijhageraent (WH-556)
WasjiingttniDfC 120460
                State-EPA Agreement
                     ; ' - -   -        .'^Mr.-: .." ""-!'•!{• r'." ' > '"

Managing   A  Total  Environment
  The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is putting into action a new plan
for streamlined water and waste man-
agement—aimed at achieving a cleaner
environment at lower cost.
  A key feature of this plan is the an-
nual State-EPA Agreement —a mecha-
nism for managing some EPA grants to
the 56 individual states and territories. It
is part of an effort to simplify govern-
ment regulations and reduce paperwork.
  More importantly, the State-EPA
Agreement will help ensure thorough,
integrated solutions to environmental
problems which may span  the boun-
daries of several State or Federal pro-
grams. For example, polluting wastes
which are  improperly dumped in land-
fills can contaminate underground water
which feeds wells people drink from.
They may also contaminate streams
where people fish and swim. Yet land-
fills, drinking water, and stream pollu-
tion are often regulated under totally
separate government programs.
  The idea of an integrated approach to
solving environmental problems is not
entirely new. EPA encouraged its
Regions and the States to develop
State-EPA Agreements covering pro-
grams under the Clean Water Act for
fiscal year 1979. In fiscal 1980 (begin-
ning October 1, 1979) the Agreements
will be mandatory for the first time and
will go beyond the Clean Water Act to
cover programs under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (which regulates the
disposal of solid and hazardous waste.)
The programs covered are listed on
page 10.
  EPA encourages individual States to
find new ways to integrate environ-
mental programs, like air pollution con-
trol, according to their own needs.
Eventually, other programs may also
become mandatory parts of the annual
  A clean environment—like other
valuable things —costs money. Federal,
State, and local governments have
already committed tens of  billions of
dollars to achieving it.  Many specialized
programs, from sewage treatment to
water testing, are needed to do the
overall job. In the next two years, EPA
expects to grant almost one-half billion
dollars to the States for planning and
management of various programs under
the three basic Federal laws. The State-
EPA Agreement is aimed at helping tax-
payers get more clean water for their
money. The Agreement must be signed
before EPA can make grants to the
States under the programs it covers.
Under it,  funds can be awarded to
several agencies.

Environmental  Problems Are Connected
  Problems in the world around us cannot always be put into
easy p: eonholes—and this is especially true of environmental
problems. Water and air have no respect for political boun-
daries. The State-EPA Agreement is an important framework
                  for EPA's effort to integrate environmental problem-solving,
                  by making the connections between government actions in
                  three critical phases of the water and waste cycles: water
                  supply, water pollution control, and solid waste disposal.
  Some Great Lakes fish are
contaminated by polychtorinated
biphenyls (PCB's), a now-banned in-
dustrial chemical which is toxic to
humans. Some scientists estimate that
as much as 90 percent of the PCB's
entering the Lakes are washed from the
atmosphere by rainwater. Scientists are
now trying to find out more about how
PCB's get into the atmosphere—but
they suspect two routes: smoke from in-
cinerators burning materials containing
PCB's, and the vents which remove
gases from decomposing matter in land-
fills. Thus, a  solid waste disposal prob-
lem may become an air pollution prob-
lem, which in turn may become a water
pollution problem.
  The sewage treatment plant
in one large U.S. city presently removes
less pollution from the city's sewage
than it is capable of doing. There are
not enough landfill sites nearby to bury
adequately all the sludge the city could
remove from its wastewater. In the
mean time, the city incinerates as much
of its sludge as possible—in an inade-
quate facility which creates a significant
air pollution problem. Here again, water
pollution, air pollution, and solid waste
disposal are related.
  About half of the people in
the United States drink water that ulti-
mately comes from underground
sources. Qroundwater can be polluted in
many ways. Seepage from improperly
operated landfills, industrial lagoons,
and other waste disposal facilities is one
common source of groundwater pollu-
tion. Overpumping, which depletes
groundwater in some areas, can cause
adjacent salt water to move into a fresh-
water aquifer, spoiling it for human use.
Some State laws and regulations may
actually encourage such overpumping,
partly because they consider water sup-
ply problems separately from water
pollution problems.
Coordination Makes  Sense
  When Congress passed the Clean Air Act (CWA) in 1972,
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974,  and Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, and other major
environmental laws of the last decade, it set up the machinery
for closing the last major gaps in the water and waste cycles.
A three-tiered system of local, State, and Federal agencies
carries out research, planning, regulation and enforcement,
testing, and construction and operation of waste disposal,
drinking water, and  sewage treatment systems.
  There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to coor-
dinate and integrate environmental programs. It helps resolve
conflicts and inconsistencies among the many parties in-
volved, who  will work more effectively as a team than they
will work at cross-purposes. It helps ensure that all aspects of
a problem are considered before a solution  is decided on. It
helps communicate the direct, practical experience of people
who actually operate control programs to the people who
plan, manage, fund, and regulate them. It should identify the
best time and place to control pollutants, whether at the
                   original source, at the wastewater treatment plant, or at the
                   landfill where the final waste residues are buried. Coordination
                   should also reduce duplication in environmental programs,
                   procedures, and paperwork. Coordination not only helps
                   government's left hand know what its right hand is doing, it
                   helps both hands work together.
                    Budgets are limited at all levels of government, and a coor-
                   dinated approach should provide more effective environmental
                   protection at a lower cost than otherwise possible. Combining
                   the resources and authorities of several programs will allow
                   efforts more thorough than any single program is capable of.
                   Coordination allows a State's limited budgetary resources to
                   be focused on its most urgent problems. Moreover, early and
                   continuing public involvement will help produce better deci-
                   sions by including a broader set of concerns. The  priority ac-
                   tions in the Agreement will be based on a broader definition
                   of the public interest and will likely have wider public support.

                                                                   Air pollution
Water/ Waste  Cycles
  The water we use may have traveled a long distance—the
rain that falls on South Dakota may eventually flow past New
Orleans in the Mississippi River. The many routes water
travels are all connected in the hydro/ogle cycle, and pollution
may occur at almost any point in this cycle.  Rain from the
clouds falls on the land, from which it washes into drainage
ditches, storm sewers —and is collected by small streams and
large rivers—eventually flowing into lakes or the sea, where it
evaporates. Rainfall may also seep into groundwater aquifers
and flow a long distance before it eventually reaches a surface
stream. Our cities draw their water from rivers or underground
wells, purify it, and pipe it to the faucets in our homes. The
water we contaminate goes through the sewage treatment
plant and into a river—which may carry it to another city for

 Public hearings and meetings can be
 one of the important steps in a success-
 ful State-EPA Agreement process.
  Developing a State-EPA Agreement is
an annual process which requires the
personal commitment and ongoing in-
volvement of EPA and State officials, as
well as local citizens. It should bring
people together to identify and solve
most important environmental problems
they face.
  Generally, the Agreement process
should include the following activities:

  1   identify priority problems
  2   identify available resources
  3   consider alternative solutions and
     their impacts
  4   choose the best  solutions
  5   identify funding sources
  6   define tasks, including timing,
     funding, and responsible parties
  7   implement the Agreement
  8   revise the Agreement and evaluate
     the process annually

  The schedule for developing the
State-EPA Agreement  should accom-
modate the existing schedules of the
various programs included wherever
possible. Generally,  the draft Agreement
should be completed and submitted to
the Re'gional Administrator by June of
each year to cover the fiscal year begin-
ning that October. The Regional Admin-
istrator will then review the draft and
provide comments to the State within
30 days. The final Agreement will be
submitted to the Regional Administrator
in September of each year so that it
may be signed and take effect October 1,

                                                                        While the key to the success of the
                                                                       Agreement is flexibility in accommodat-
                                                                       ing individual States' problems and
                                                                       capabilities, the general framework has
                                                                       several major components:
     A brief statement of the environ-
mental goals and problems to be acted
on. The statement should be based on
the State problem assessments,
strategies, or other identification of
needed activities for the covered pro-
grams. To the extent feasible, the State
is encouraged to prepare an integrated
multi-year strategy which would be up-
dated each year.
     A detailed work program based on
a multi-year strategy, or reference to
such a program in other documents
already prepared by the State.
     A summary of the major in-
tegrated work elements compiled from
the detailed work programs, as well as
EPA actions needed.
     Other information and coordina-
tion requirements which the Regional
Administrator determines are necessary
to meet the goals of the Agreement,
such as formal agreements with other
Federal programs.
  If the Agreement is longer than 20-25
pages, it is recommended that a sum-
mary be prepared for use by EPA, the
State,  and the public as an overview of
the work to be performed during the
coming year.

Boating is one of the many water-based recreational activities that vacationers enjoy on Vermont's scenic Lake Champlain.
What the Agreement
  The Vermont-EPA Agreement was
one of the first signed in fiscal 1979.
Vermont is a tourist state. Lake Cham-
plain—a 100-mile water holiday for
fishermen, swimmers, and boaters—is
one of Vermont's most treasured
resources. When vacationers flock to
the area every summer, native Ver-
monters see how closely the health of
their economy depends on the health
of their environment.
  "St. Albans Bay  is  as green as a blot-
ter  in the summer," says one Yankee
observer. "The algae  are so  thick  you
could walk across it." The Bay, on the
northeast corner of Lake Champlain, is
only about 11 feet deep —enough  to
boat, if not to walk on. Its shallowness
makes it especially susceptible to
eutrophication—an  overgrowth of algae
fueled by phosphates and nitrates from
the St. Albans sewage plant and sur-
rounding dairy farms.
  Vermont took advantage of its 1979
State-EPA Agreement to bring the prob-
lem of St. Albans Bay forcefully to the
attention of top  EPA management in
Boston. With  the Governor's support,
Vermont declared restoration of the Bay
one of its highest environmental
priorities—and EPA listened. Working
together, the State  and EPA found ways
to bring together all their available
resources in solving the problem. The
city of St. Albans is applying to EPA for
a "section 201"  grant to help upgrade
its sewage treatment plant.  EPA is help-
ing the State apply  for a Clean Lakes
grant to further study and restore the
Bay's biological  balance. Vermont's
Water Quality Management program,
with EPA support under section 208,
can also offer help in controlling runoff
from the surrounding farms.
  While the problem isn't solved yet,
some people feel the State-EPA Agree-
ment provided the basis for developing ;
coordinated effort by EPA and Vermont
to solve one of its top priority environ-
mental problems. The Agreement will
streamline the grant application and
review  process and bring together the
resources of three government programs
in a cooperative effort.

State, Federal and
Public Roles
  Congress has made it clear that the
States have the primary responsibility
for controlling pollution and developing
and preserving environmental resources.
Congress gave EPA the job of establish-
ing national environmental standards,
carrying out research and development,
funding  State programs, and charting
national objectives and policies.  It is
State and local governments, however,
which plan, develop, and carry out
pollution abatement programs. In speci-
fying Federal and State roles in drinking
water, solid waste, and water pollution
control,  Congress clearly envisioned a
Federal-State partnership.  It is a tangible
product  of joint negotiation, and in-
cludes a two-way obligation.
  The States and EPA will have primary
responsibility for negotiating the
Agreements. However, participation of
the public and other governmental agen-
cies is important to the negotiation pro-
cess  and to implementation of the
  The State-EPA Agreement process is
critical in deciding which State environ-
mental programs will receive Federal
funds and what those funds will be used
for. Individuals and groups who  have a
stake in  these decisions will want to
take  part in them. Public involvement
throughout the Agreement process is
the best way to insure that it reflects the
true priorities of the citizens in each
  Any citizen, organization, or govern-
ment agency can get involved in the
process  of developing the State-EPA
Agreement. In fact. Federal regulations
require EPA and  the States to notify  the
public about the  goals and scope of the
Agreement; provide information  to help
people participate; and schedule oppor-
tunities for participation.
  The minimum procedural requirements
(40 CFR  25) for public involvement are
outlined  in the February 16, 1979,
Federal Register. In addition, the local
and regional agencies that plan and
carry out solid waste, water quality, and
other environmental programs, as well
as interstate agencies funded under sec-
tion 106  of the Clean Water Act, must
work closely with EPA and the States.
The public involvement activities in the
State-EPA Agreement process should
build on  and complement existing public
decision-making procedures, not replace
   How You
   Can  Get
® Write your EPA Regional office (see list on page 12) and ask
   for more information.

9 Find out which agency in your State government is responsi-
   ble for negotiating the Agreement, and write them for more

• Ask specifically for (a) a schedule of the steps for developing
   the  Agreement, including those appropriate for public partici-
   pation,  (b) the names of the persons responsible for negotiat-
   ing the Agreement and coordinating public involvement, (c)
   the  placement of your name on the mailing list for all further
   information and notices about the Agreement.

• Review the information you receive and request more if

• Make your views known to the persons negotiating the
   Agreement as early as possible.

• Plan to attend any public hearings or meetings and to state
   your comments briefly. Bring written comments and ask that
   they be put into the record. Mail your comments in if you are
   unable to attend.

• Study the "Responsiveness Summary" (which must be sub-
   mitted with the final draft agreement to the Regional Adminis-
   trator) to see how your comments have been addressed.

• Get  a copy or summary of the final Agreement to see what
   the State and EPA expect to accomplish in the coming year
   and  what longer range goals have been established. Monitor

® If you get involved too late, prepare for next year.

   The programs that must be covered
  under State-EPA Agreements for fiscal
  year 1980 are generally those providing
  Federal grants to the States for planning
  and management of solutions to water
  quality problems. They fall under three
  major Federal environmental laws: The
  Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking
  Water Act, and the Resource Conserva-
  tion and Recovery Act.
Clean  Water Act
  SECTION 106 (Federal grants to the States to administer pollution control pro-
grams) includes point source permit programs, enforcement programs, water qualit
monitoring programs, and emergency cleanup programs.
  SECTION 205lg) (Federal grants to States to administer construction of waste-
water treatment works) may also include costs of administering point source permit
programs, permit programs for discharge of dredge or fill material, Statewide water
quality management programs, and management of treatment works construction
grants for small communities.
  SECTION 208 (Water Quality Management Planning) a broad-scope planning pro
gram carried out by Statewide and areawide agencies to identify needed treatment
works; set priorities for building them; assess advanced wastewater treatment
needs; solve nonpoint source pollution problems from urban storm runoff, agri-
culture, construction, silviculture, on-lot disposal and other nonpoint sources.
  SECTION 314 (Clean Lakes Program) grants to States to identify, classify, and
develop procedures and methods to control sources of pollution in publicly owned
freshwater lakes.

Safe Drinking Water Act

  SECTION 1443(a) (State Public Water Supervision Program) establishes and
maintains standards and controls for drinking water sources, surveillance of public
water systems and the conducting of sanitary surveys. The program also assures
adequate laboratory capacity and enforcement capabilities.
  SECTION 1443(b) (Underground Injection Control Programs) requires that a
responsible State agency establish and maintain an inventory  of underground waste
injection practices, and carry out surveillance and investigation of underground in-
jection operations.
  SECTION 1442(b)(3)(C) allows grants to  States and municipalities for projects or
activities to carry out the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act, other than
those covered under the above mentioned  SDWA programs.

Resource Conservation

and  Recovery Act

  SECTION 4008 (State Solid Waste  Plans) provides grants to States for the devel-
opment and implemention  of State solid waste management plans and for
evaluating individual disposal sites to  determine which should be closed or up-
graded. State plans address all solid wastes in the State that pose potential adverse
effects on health  or the environment. They include municipal, industrial, mining,
and agricultural wastes, and pollution control wastes,  such as septic tank pump-
ings. The plans will also provide for development of policy and strategy for resource
recovery and conservation practices.
  SECTION 4009 (Rural Communities Assistance) provides grants for solid waste
management facilities in rural communities.
  SECTION 3011 (State Hazardous Waste  Program) States develop regulatory
framework for the control and disposal of hazardous wastes, including appropriate
permitting mechanisms, monitoring,  record keeping and reporting procedures.
RCRA regulations will define hazardous wastes and establish requirements for
generators, transporters, and owners  and operators of facilities for the disposal,
treatment, and storage of hazardous wastes.

         The Clean Water Act controls pollution
         of our waters with the goal that fishing
         and swimming will be both safe and en-
         joyable. Clean water is important to fish-
         ing, for example, not only in maintaining
         fish populations, but also in safeguard-
         ing human health.
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides
protection for all sources of drinking
water. Ground water, as shown by this
well, contributes significantly to our
drinking  water supplies. In fact,  50% of
the people in the United States are