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 Agreement. 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. Example: Example: Example: 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 Aquifer 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 use. ------- How Agreements Are Developed 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, ------- Components 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: 1 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. 2 A detailed work program based on a multi-year strategy, or reference to such a program in other documents already prepared by the State. 3 A summary of the major in- tegrated work elements compiled from the detailed work programs, as well as EPA actions needed. 4 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 Agreements. 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 State. 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 them. How You Can Get Ived ® 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 information. • 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 needed. • 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 activities. ® If you get involved too late, prepare for next year. ------- Programs Covered 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. 10 ------- 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 ------- ------- |