5437
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water and Waste Management
Washington DC
February 1979
FY80 State/EPA
Agreement Guidance
905R79110
-------
<^ ^^^ NS»
f jffc \
~ ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 2 7 1979
SUBJECT: State/EPA Agreement Policy
FROM: Thomas C. Jorling, Assistant Administrator
for Water and Waste Management
TO: Regional Administrators
PURPOSE
This memorandum sets forth EPA policy requirements on the development and
implementation of FY 1980 State/EPA Agreements for programs under the
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (that is, those programs under the Office of Water
and Waste Management).3 This memorandum also sets forth general require-
ments for the content of the Agreement. We are enclosing guidance on
State/EPA Agreements which expands upon this policy.
The Administrator, in his memorandum of December 27, 1978, stated that
guidance on State/EPA Agreements would be issued in lieu of a central
regulation this year. He reaffirmed the Agency's commitment to the
development of Agreements and gave the policy the Agency's highest priority.
This Office has been designated to implement that policy.
BACKGROUND
Over the next two years, almost one-half billion dollars is expected to be
granted to States by the Environmental Protection Agency for planning and
management under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It is the
goal of both EPA and the States to ensure that these laws are being
implemented in an integrated, cost-effective and coordinated manner.
Beginning in FY 1980, the State/EPA Agreements will present a practical
and comprehensive mechanism by which the States and EPA can integrate and
manage the technical and financial assistance programs to States under
sections 106, 205(g), 208 and 314 of the CWA, sections 3011, 4008 and
4009 of RCRA and sections 1442(b)(3)(C) and 1443(a) and (b) of SDWA.
aThe EPA is mandating State/EPA Agreements based on the following
authorities: Sections 1006 and 2002 of RCRA, 42 USC 6905; Sections
101(f) and 501(a) of the CWA, 33 USC 1251(f), 1361(a); Section 1450(a)(l)
of SDWA, 42 USC 300j-9(a)(1); Section 3 of the Reorganizational Plan No. 3
of 1970 and the accompanying President's Message (5 USC App.); and the
Joint Funding Simplication Act, 42 USC 4251-4261.
-------
The idea of an integrated approach to solving environmental problems is
not new. A number of Regions and States have had integrated problem
solving procedures for years, such as multi-year environmental strategies
and use of consolidated grants. EPA Headquarters has further encouraged
this type of integration in FY 1979 by directing the Regions and States to
develop State/EPA Agreements covering the Clean Water Act programs.
The State/EPA Agreement process is designed to (1) ensure that the large
sums of money going to the States produce tangible results in solving
priority environmental problems; and (2) maximize available resources to
identify and solve priority environmental problems that separate programs
cannot handle alone. The Agreement process will reflect important EPA,
State and local decisions on environmental and program problems, priorities,
timing, responsibilities and allocation of resources. At the same time,
the Agreement process will comply with the national commitment to eliminate
unnecessary paperwork and reduce duplication of effort. It will focus top
management attention in EPA Regional Offices and the States on environmental
problem solving decisions, and on the evaluation of how the decisions are
carried out.
POLICY
Beginning in FY 1980, the State/EPA Agreement is to include
the EPA and State program responsibilities and activities
under sections 106, 205(g), 208 and 314 of the Clean Water
Act, sections 3011, 4008 and 4009 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and sections 1442(b)(3)(C) and 1443(a)
and (b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (hereafter
referred to as the "covered" programs). In addition, the States
are encouraged to integrate and/or coordinate other environmental
programs into the State/EPA Agreement wherever feasible.
The State/EPA Agreement (SEA) must be completed and signed
before award of grants under any "covered" program, except
that for the 205(g) program, it must be completed before
execution of the delegation agreements.
•"Foilowing are EPA Grant Regulations that cover State/EPA Agreements:
1. Section 35.738-6 of the RCRA grant regulations states that, "Beginning
in FY 1980, State programs funded under the Act will be part of the State/
EPA Agreement, and the State/EPA Agreement must be completed before grant
award." (Interim Regulations, published September 25, 1978.)
2. Section 35.660(d) of the Underground Injection Control grant
regulations states that, "Beginning in fiscal year 1980, State programs
funded under the Act will be part of the State/EPA Agreement and the
State/EPA Agreement must be completed before grant award." (Final
Grant Regulation, published October 12, 1978.)
-------
Under the proposed WQM regulations which are scheduled for
final publication in March 1979, the State 106 grants for
water pollution control programs will be allocated to the
Regions using the existing formula (including general State
allotments as target amounts). The exact amount of grants
from the allotments to the States, however, will be based
on demonstrated needs determined in the negotiations in
the State/EPA Agreement process.
Although the State and EPA are responsible for negotiating
the Agreement, the public and other interested parties must
also have the opportunity to participate in each step of
the development of the Agreement. In addition, the Regional
and local planning and implementation agencies that the
States have designated to participate in solid waste
management (RCRA), water quality management (CWA) and other
environmental programs must work closely with EPA, the States
and the public to assure that agreement on cooperative
strategies, priorities and responsibilities is attained.
The State and EPA should also work closely with Interstate
agencies funded under section 106 of the Clean Water Act in
the development of strategies, priorities and responsibilities
that will be set forth in the State/EPA Agreement. The States
may delegate responsibility and funding to an Interstate agency
for carrying out some portions of a State/EPA Agreement.
Where an Indian tribe receives EPA assistance under two or
more "covered" programs, the Regional Administrator and the
Indian tribe may develop an Agreement to integrate, coordinate
and manage the programs. The State should be involved in this
process, wherever possible.
Enclosure
T.Section 35.1016(c) of the 205(g) regulations states, "In fiscal
year 1979, the Regional Administrator and the State must develop the
State/EPA Agreement sufficiently before executing a delegation agreement
under this subpart so that the latter will be consistent with the State/
EPA Agreement. Beginning in FY 1980, State programs funded under §205(g)
of the Act will be part of the State/EPA Agreement and the State/EPA
Agreement must be completed before execution of the delegation agreement."
(Final Regulation, published September 20, 1978.)
4. Section 35.1507 states that EPA funding for the State's WQM work
program shall be withheld by the Regional Administrator pending execution
of the SEA, except as otherwise determined by the Regional Administrator.
5. Section 35.1650-2 of the proposed Clean Lakes grant program regulations
states that State programs funded under section 314 of the Act are a
part of a State/EPA Agreement which must be completed before the grant
is awarded.
-------
GUIDANCE FOR
FY 1980 STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS
Office of Water and Waste Management
February, 1979
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The 1980 fiscal year (FY) will mark the start of a new era in planning,
implementing and managing environmental programs at the Regional and State
levels. Beginning in FY 1980, State/EPA Agreements will present integrated
approaches to solving water supply, solid waste and water pollution control
problems. The integration of these program areas will be a major step toward
the objective of overall environmental planning and management versus an
approach which tries to solve interrelated environmental problems in a piece-
meal fashion, program by program.
The idea of an integrated approach to solving environmental problems
is not new. EPA required all Regions and States to develop comprehensive
State/EPA Agreements in FY 1979 covering Clean Water Act programs. Further-
more, a number of Regions and States have had an integrated orientation to
problem-solving for years. What is new is that, starting in FY 1980, State/EPA
Agreements will drive the integration and coordination of environmental programs
in all States creating joint planning and implementation of Safe Drinking
Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Clean Water Act programs.3
The State/EPA Agreement, which each State and its corresponding EPA
Region will negotiate, will include a brief statement of environmental pro-
blems and objectives based on State problem assessments and strategies.
Agreements will also include or reference work programs which integrate the
various outputs under each of the "covered" programs.
dFor FY 1980 the Agreement should include sections 106, 205(g), 208 and 314 of
the Clean Water Act, sections 3011, 4008 and 4009 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and sections 1442(b)(3)(C), 1443(a) and 1443(b) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (here after referred to as the "covered" programs). In
addition, States are encouraged to integrate other environmental programs into
the State/EPA Agreement wherever feasible.
-------
The State/EPA Agreement will be a decision document which reflects
important decisions on environmental priorities (including those set forth
in the annual EPA operating guidance), administrative problems, timing,
responsibilities and allocation of funds. It will be a management tool
which focuses top management attention on the evaluation and accomplishment
of major environmental objectives. Finally, it will be a communication
and information document useful to local governments, areawide agencies,
affected or interested publics and others, developed with their participation
and reflecting their views.
The Need for Integration
Enactment of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and Clean Air Act (CAA) provided for controls on air and water pollution.
Passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 closed
the gaps in the waste disposal cycle, providing control for the disposal
of pollutants on or in the land. Congress recognized the relationship
among air, water and solid waste pollution and controls in S1002(b)(3)
of RCRA, which says:
... as a result of the Clean Water Act, the Water
Pollution Control Act, and other Federal and State
laws respecting public health and the environment,
greater amounts of solid waste . . . have been
created. Similarly, inadequate and environmentally
unsound practices for the disposal or use of solid
waste have created greater amounts of air and water
pollution and other problems for the environment and
for health.
-------
There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to emphasize the
coordination and integration of environmental programs. Linking planning,
implementation, and management of major environmental programs will allow a
comprehensive and systematic approach to problem solving. This type of approach
should lead to an identification of the best place in their overall life cycle
to control pollutants. Furthermore, as a result of program integration,
generators of pollution should be able to plan all necessary controls at one
time. If dischargers are aware of the total costs of environmental controls,
they may consider control strategies which include both source controls and
product or process changes to reduce overall generation of pollutants and
treatment costs.
Coordination and integration of environmental programs should also result
in the reduction of procedural and substantive duplications. Since resources
are limited at all levels of government, an integrated approach should maximize
the environmental benefits from limited available resources. In addition, an
integrated approach should minimize the unplanned migration of pollutants
from one medium to another, i.e., from the air or water to the land and
back to the water. Moreover, early and continuing public involvement
will ensure that the evaluation and trade-off decisions made among
alternative priority actions will include a broader set of concerns. As
a result, the priority actions determined through the Agreement process
will more likely be viable, reflecting a broader definition of the
public interest.
-------
State and Federal Roles
Through passage of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Congress made clear its
intent that States are to play a major role in environmental programs.
Sectitfn 101 (b) of the Clean Water Act, for example says:
It is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve and
protect the primary responsibilities of States to prevent,
reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and
use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of
land and water resources ....
Congress charged EPA with establishing national environmental
standards carrying out research and development, funding State programs
and charting national objectives and policies. It is the State and
local governments however, who plan, develop and carry out pollution
abatement programs. In delineating Federal and State roles in SDWA,
RCRA and CWA, Congress clearly had in mind a Federal-State partnership.
The State/EPA Agreement is an example of the Federal-State partnership
in action. It is a tangible product of joint negotiation, and includes
a two-way obligation.
For its part, the State will perform problem-solving activities,
based on a problem assessment, a multi-year strategy and the determination
of what needs to happen in the first year to implement the strategy. EPA
will provide appropriate assistance. EPA recognizes the difficulty
of making a multi-year commitment, and therefore views the multi-year
-------
strategy as a commitment to a general policy direction, not necessarily
to long-term outputs. EPA does however expect the States to be committed
to the one-year schedule and outputs outlined in the Agreement and to
integrate the programs of RCRA, SDWA and CWA at the State level. EPA
realizes that the integration of State programs will be a complex and
gradual process, and that while new arrangements are developing, statutory
requirements must still be met. Limited resources along with difficult
technical and administrative problems will vary and pose constraints in
initiating Agreements. Nevertheless, EPA and the States must begin to
develop and implement the State/EPA Agreement process.
For its part, EPA will provide grant funds to help finance the
activities to which the State and EPA agree. The EPA involvement does
not end there, however. EPA will provide technical assistance to help
the States integrate programs. EPA will also conduct monitoring, issue
permits in many cases and administer the construction grants program,
delegating authority to the States, consistent with the overall Agree-
ment.
Although the States and EPA will have primary responsibility for negotiating
the Agreements, participation of the public and other governmental agencies is
important to the negotiation process and to implementation of the Agreements.
The regional and local planning and implementation agencies that the States
-------
have designated to participate in solid waste management (RCRA) and
water quality management (CWA) should work closely with EPA and the
States to agree on cooperative strategies, priorities and responsibilities.
In accordance with the national policy of encouraging and assisting
public participation as set forth in EPA's proposed public participation
regulations published in August 1978 (40 CFR 25), interested and affected
publics will have an opportunity to participate in each step during the
development of the Agreements.
The information which follows illustrates how to proceed in developing
and negotiating an Agreement, and how to take advantage of some of the opportun-
ities afforded by an integrated approach to environmental problem solving. It
presents a series of illustrations where integration across programs could
occur through the State/EPA Agreements to avoid duplication of effort and
obtain greater protection of the environment through maximizing benefits
from overlapping statutes.
-------
II. HOW TO PROCEED
Steps in the Negotiation Process
Development of a State/EPA Agreement is an iterative process requiring
the personal commitment of high level EPA and State officials as well as
local citizens. It requires consultation among EPA Regional program managers,
State agencies, regional and local planning and implementation agencies, related
Federal agencies and affected or interested publics. The involvement of each
participant is important if the objectives of the Agreement are ultimately
to be met.
Staff at EPA Headquarters appreciate the vast bank of experience of
staff in EPA Regional Offices in negotiating and working with the States
on the implementation of environmental programs. This guidance, therefore,
is simply a recommended framework or concept. The Regions and States
must mold this framework to their unique situations within the limits of
available resources. The role of Headquarters is to provide assistance,
to promote the integration of various EPA administered programs and to
facilitate information exchange on innovative and successful approaches
to integrated environmental management through State/EPA Agreements.
Development of the State/EPA Agreement Process
The negotiation of the State/EPA Agreement should be part of a process
which gets decision-makers together to determine priorities for environmental
problems and develop creative solutions. The State and EPA Regional
personnel should begin development of the Agreement as early as possible
each year. Prior to development, the State, EPA and the public should review
-------
basic background information such as current State plans, strategies,
and problem assessments, annual EPA operating guidance, applicable laws
and deadlines, and funding sources.
The State/EPA Agreement submission schedule should be adapted to
the existing submission schedules of the "covered" programs to avoid
confusion and duplication of effort. Generally, this means that the
draft Agreement should be completed and submitted to the Regional
Administrator by June 1 of each year. The Regional Administrator should
review the draft and provide comments to the State within 30 days. The
final Agreement should be submitted to the Regional Administrator in
September of each year.
Generally, the Agreement process should include the following broad
activities: (1) identification of priority problems, (2) identification of
available resources, (3) identification of optimal funding, (4) development
of a work program, including timing, funding, outputs and responsible parties,
(5) implementation of the Agreement, and (6) evaluation and annual
revision. However, EPA recognizes that each State has a unique set of
environmental problems, political forces and administrative institutions.
We therefore wish to emphasize that the Agreement is a flexible mechanism
which is intended to accommodate such variations in each State.
Program barriers to coordination and integration of environmental programs
under the Agreement process may be encountered and will have to be overcome.
A number of States will face problems in attempting to integrate programs
8
-------
because the programs are located in different agencies within the State.
This guidance is not intended to force reorganization and consolidation
of current State agency structures, responsibilities and authorities or
to change existing grantor-grantee relationships.
To facilitate program integration, the Governor may decide to appoint
someone in his or her office to coordinate among departments and act as
negotiator in the Agreement process. State interagency work groups may
provide another way to reduce program barriers. Such work groups will
improve communication, but may not be able to overcome "turf" conflicts
among various agencies and interests. The resolution of such conflicts
and the overall success of the State/EPA Agreement will be determined by
the commitment of the Governor, the environmental management agencies, local
governments, citizens and other interested parties along with US EPA.
The Regional Administrator has the option of negotiating the Agreement
with one or more agencies. Where the Regional Administrator negotiates
with more than one agency, it is recommended that a lead State contact
be designated.
Components of the State/EPA Agreement
The key to the success of the Agreement is flexibility and accomodation
of individual problems and resource constraints, as well as capabilities,
in each State. Keeping this in mind, the major components of the Agreement
are:
(1) A brief statement of the environmental problems, goals and objectives
to be met through activities under the State/EPA Agreement. The statement
should be based on the State problem assessments, strategies or other identi-
-------
fication of needed activities for the "covered" programs. To the extent
feasible, the State is encouraged to prepare an integrated multi-year
strategy to be updated annually. EPA recognizes the difficulty in making
a long-term commitment and therefore views the strategy as a commitment
to a general policy direction, not as a long-term commitment to specific
outputs.
(2) A detailed work program based on a multi-year strategy, or reference
to such detailed work program, strategies and individual program memoranda
which are to be considered covered by the signed Agreement. The detailed
work program may be an overall compilation of specific work programs which
meet the requirements of the regulations governing each of the "covered"
programs.
(3) A summary of the major integrated work elements compiled from
the detailed work program(s), as well as EPA actions needed.
(4) Other information and coordination requirements which the Regional
Administrator determines are necessary to meet the goals of the Agreement.
(5) A signature page for the State and Regional Administrator to sign
the State/EPA Agreement.
If the Agreement is longer than 20-25 pages, it is recommended that a
summary be prepared for use by EPA, the States and the public as an overview
of the State/EPA Agreement and of the work to be performed during the coming
year.
10
-------
Public Involvement In the State/EPA Agreement Process
Although the States and EPA are responsible for negotiating the Agreement,
it is crucial that the public and other interested parties also participate
in the process. In accordance with the national and EPA policy of encouraging
and assisting public participation, and proposed regulations under 40 CFR
Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart G requiring public participation, interested
and affected publics have the opportunity to participate in each step of
the development of the Agreements. Specific requirements for public
participation are contained in the proposed public participation regulations
(40 CFR 25) and the proposed water quality management regulations (40 CFR 35,
Subpart G).
In addition, the regional and local planning and implementation agencies
that the States have designated to participate in solid waste management
(RCRA), water quality management (CWA), and other environmental management
programs must work closely with EPA, the States, and the public to agree
on cooperative strategies, priorities and responsibilities.
It is recommended that at least 30 days prior to beginning work on
the State/EPA Agreement, the public should be notified through the uses
of existing State and EPA mailing lists, the mass media, and other
available means about the goals and scope of the potential Agreement.
During the development of the Agreement, the State should also consult,
in a timely manner, with advisory committees, such as those set up by
the 208 process, and other interested and affected individuals and
11
-------
groups. As a draft Agreement nears completion, a fact sheet should be
prepared, mailed, and otherwise made public along with the notice of a
public meeting or hearing. Public comments from the meeting or hearing
and other sources should be considered and integrated where possible
into the final Agreement. A summary of public comments presented during
the development of the Agreement, and a summary of the State's responses
to those comments, should be included with the final Agreement when
it is submitted to the Regional Administrator. This information should
be made available to the public. The State/EPA Agreement should be
summarized and widely distributed to the public. In addition, the
public's views should be considered in any EPA evaluations of State/EPA
Agreements.
Wherever possible, the public participation requirements of the
"covered" programs should be combined. For example, the water quality
management and solid waste management programs have similar requirements
which could be coordinated readily. Possible areas for consolidation
and coordination include advisory committees, public information programs
and public hearings or meetings. It should be emphasized that the public
remain actively involved in the implementation of the specific programs
within the State/EPA Agreement, once the Agreement is negotiated.
12
-------
Grant Application and Administration
In general, applicants for grants from EPA must complete an application
form for each grant, along with a work plan. Since the State/EPA Agreement
should result in an integrated FY 1980 work plan covering water quality,
water supply and solid waste programs, the process should greatly simplify
grant procedures. The Agreement, with attached work program(s), can
serve as the narrative portion of grant requests, thereby reducing
paperwork.
Generally, integrated work programs may include common work elements,
drawing funding from more than one "covered" program. In such cases, the
grant application should specify the amount and percentage of EPA program
funds attributable to each of the "covered" programs for each work element.
The State, with approval of the EPA Regional Administrator, may use
the same integrated work plan in its applications for the various categorical
grants (e.g., solid waste, drinking water), so long as it clearly identifies
the source or sources of funds it will use to pay for each product and provides
details on projected work outputs. The Regional Administrator should
ensure that each State agency involved in the Agreement has effective
financial management procedures to ensure that the funds are used for
the purposes agreed to.
One of the major goals of the State/EPA Agreement is to reduce paper-
work. Use of the integrated work program in each grant application is
one way it will reduce paperwork. However, it is recognized that initially
there will be additional paperwork to develop the Agreement. But after
13
-------
this initial period, it is anticipated that not only will the paperwork
and time required to manage the environmental programs be reduced, but
more importantly, the quality of environmental protection programs will
be enhanced.
Funding Flexibility
Funding shifts among the "covered" programs (except for 205(g)
construction management assistance grants) are possible. The annual
EPA operating guidance will contain advice concerning this funding
flexibility and the procedures for State funding transfers based on EPA
reprogramming. At this time, EPA headquarters has authority to shift
approximately 10% of its funds among any agency programs. No transfer
of funds will be allowed, however, which diminishes the ability of a
program to achieve its statutory objectives. At the State and areawide
or local level, the flexibility may not be as great.
Building State and Areawide Capability
It is the intent of EPA to strengthen the capability of States and
areawide agencies to manage their environmental programs through the State/EPA
Agreement process. To help in developing the Agreements, a new section
is being established within the Office of Water and Waste Management in EPA
Headquarters. It will assist the Regions in reviewing proposed State/EPA
Agreements and establish an information exchange and assistance mechanism.
Procedures and approaches which are innovative and successful in integrating
14
-------
various environmental programs will be provided to the States and Regions
through this exchange mechanism. The new section will also develop
guidance regarding approaches for integrating environmental management
programs and provide "hands on" assistance in developing the Agreements
to the extent that resources are available.
15
-------
III. ILLUSTRATIONS
The following section illustrates how the State/EPA Agreement could
be used to integrate various programs to resolve common problems facing
the Regions and States.
These illustrations indicate opportunities for linking authorities
from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. It should be emphasized that other environ-
mental program authorities could also be included. Although they are only
illustrations, hopefully they will stimulate Regions and States to explore
approaches to integrate programs to solve specific environmental problems.
Illustrations are presented for municipal sludge management and groundwater
pollution, as well as a variety of other opportunities for coordinating
and integrating environmental programs.
The funding situation which accompanies cross-cutting program
integration promoted by the State/EPA Agreement is complex. To help
clarify the situation, the following hypothetical illustrations include
funding eligibility matrices which correlate general program activities
and State and Federal sources of funds. The Regions and States may
find similar tools useful as they negotiate their strategies and one-
year wut k programs.
The accompanying illustrations emphasize the importance of assess-
ments and State multi-year strategies in developing State/EPA Agree-
ments. It is important to note that although a strategy is desirable,
it is not necessarily part of the Agreement itself.
16
-------
ILLUSTRATION 1
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Disposal of sludge has become a major issue in recent years, as dis-
agreements over selection of sites and disposal techniques have occurred
at the local, State and Federal levels. Municipal waste treatment plants
generate five million dry metric tons of sludge per year. This rate is
likely to substantially increase as a result of environmental legislation
calling for high standards of wastewater treatment. Presently, about 25
percent of the sludge is landfilled, 25 percent is applied to the land,
15 percent is disposed of in the oceans and 35 percent incinerated.
Each disposal method poses potential environmental problems. Land-
filling may result in ground and surface water contamination by heavy metals,
viruses and bacteria, as well as the common pollutants. Land application of
sludges containing heavy metals can pose a threat to public health as the
pollutants enter the food chain. Ocean dumping adversely impacts the marine
environment and incineration of sludge contributes to air pollution.
Background
Federal requirements, guidance and financial assistance to States and
local agencies for the management of municipal sludge are authorized by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA).
17
-------
RCRA
According to the definitions in RCRA, wastewater treatment sludge is
a solid waste, falling under the authority of the State Solid Waste Manage-
ment (SWM) programs outlined in Subtitle D. Section 4004(a) of that Subtitle
requires EPA to issue regulations containing minimum criteria for determining
which solid waste disposal facilities pose a "reasonable probability of adverse
effects on health or the environment." For municipal sludge, EPA is initiating
development of an integrated regulation under both section 4004(a) and
section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act. (See below.)
In Subtitle D, RCRA prohibits unacceptable open dumping practices. Over
the next several years, each State will compile an Open Dump Inventory which
will consist of a list of disposal sites (including sludge disposal sites)
to be closed or upgraded. The Open Dump Inventory is one component of State
Solid Waste Management planning.
CWA
The Clean Water Act has many requirements which relate to management of
municipal wastewater treatment sludge. First, in compliance with section
405(d) which Congress added to CWA in 1977, EPA is developing regulations
for municipal sludge disposal and use. This regulation for municipal sludge
will satisfy both section 405(d) and also section 4004(a) of RCRA.3 All
sludges orginating from publicly owned treatment works (POTW) are included
under these regulations. NPDES permits will, whenever possible, include
sludge disposal conditions, thereby eliminating the need for separate permits.
aRegulations for sludge management are being developed by EPA, and will be
proposed in mid-1979.
18
-------
The regulations for municipal sludge will specify requirements for
owners and operators to analyze sludge for cadmium and other toxics and to
determine appropriate application rates and monitoring requirements for
land application. Th regulations will also cover thermal reduction, as
well as give-a-way and sale programs.
The second aspect of CWA affecting municipal sludge is the construction
grants program in Title II. This program provides Federal grants for con-
struction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities, including those
for sludge management. During the facility planning phase of the con-
struction grant process, local sewage agencies evaluate the alternatives
by which ultimate disposal of sludge can be affected. EPA will not approve
such a facility plan without a cost-effective sludge management portion.
The pretreatment requirements in section 307 are the third part of
CWA related to municipal sludge management. Pretreatment of industrial
discharges into municipal wastewater treatment systems can substantially
reduce contaminant levels in sludge and reduce the dangers of sludge
disposal. EPA has published final general pretreatment regulations (40
CFR Part 403) and is developing specific pretreatment standards (40 CFR
Part 200-to-end) for the 21 most significant industry groups, with special
emphasis on toxic pollutants.
The Water Quality Management (WOM) program operating under sections 106,
208 and 303 is another important CWA program related to municipal sludge. The
WQM plans developed by States and areawide agencies must include a program
19
-------
to control the disposition of all residual waste generated in an area which
would affect water quality. However, the amount of emphasis a particular
WQM agency gives to municipal sludge depends on local, State and EPA priorities
SOW A
Three major activities under SDWA relate directly to the management of
municipal sludge. First, under section 1442, each State is conducting a
Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) to locate all surface impoundments and
assess them for pollution potential. (See also the next illustration on
groundwater pollution.) The SIA can be a screening device to assist the
States in setting priorities for their Open Dump Inventories under RCRA,
Subtitle D.
Second, the designation of a sole source aquifer under section 1424(e)
can affect sludge disposal. Sole source aquifer designation may provide
protection of a drinking water aquifer and prohibit funding of any Federal
project which endangers this source. The siting of landfills or land
application of sludge over a designated sole source aquifer as part of a
Federally assisted project could be prohibited if it may endanger the aquifer.
The third SDWA program which concerns municipal sludge is the Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) program under section 1421. Any sludge
injected into the ground, or into an abandoned well or mine, would come
under the authority of the UIC program once it is finalized.
20
-------
MPRSA
The Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) requires
EPA to establish a permit system for ocean dumping. Except in accordance
with published criteria, ocean dumping is to be phased out by December 31,
1981. Municipal wastewater treatment sludges and other wastes dumped
in the ocean are included in the coverage. Ocean dumping of sludge is
currently managed through interim permits which EPA issues for one year
only.
Municipal Sludge Management in the State/EPA Agreement
Problem Assessment
An essential step in developing a comprehensive program for sludge
management is the problem assessment, which identifies the magnitude of
the problem that the strategy must address. The sources of information
vary from program to program. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Surface Impoundment Assessment is currently in progress and will provide
valuable information for the comprehensive RCRA Open Dump Inventory that
the States will conduct beginning in 1979. The Water Quality Management
process can offer valuable information on sludge management needs on a
local or statewide basis and provide an assessment of the political, insti-
tutional and financial implications of sludge disposal.
Strategy Development
The State and EPA should "develop a multi-year strategy which will
define long-term goals, set priorities and establish responsibilities.
It should correlate environmental programs with priority problems and
21
-------
provide for a logical progression of problem resolution specifically
addressed in the annual work program. Public participation is strongly
encouraged in strategy development. In addition, the strategy should
include a funding summary for the various priority activities scheduled
over the multi-year period.
Outlined below are hypothetical strategy elements that a State might
develop to address a municipal sludge problem:
Goals. A State faced with a municipal sludge disposal problem might
establish multi-year goals similar to these:
o end the practice of disposing municipal sludge within open
dumps
o implement industrial pretreatment programs to encourage beneficial
use of municipal sludge for land spreading applications
o end ocean dumping of municipal sludges by 1981
Priorities. The multi-year strategy should identify specific priority
activities related to the above goals. Because the strategy will likely
address several important related problems, it should assign a priority
to the overall residuals problem, in light of the total resources avail-
able to the State and according to public values in the affected community.
Of course, the States and EPA must always consider schedules and deadlines
mandated by law or established by regulation when setting priorities.
Violation of statutory deadlines can cause funding delays in some cases.
22
-------
Once overall priorities are established, specific priorities within
the municipal sludge problem area should be developed. Priorities could
be assigned on a case-by-case basis, on a geographical basis or determined
on the relative problem severity of a disposal method.
Anticipated Activities. Once goals and priorities are established, the
State would proceed to define specific activities as necessary to accomplish
the goals. With respect to the first hypothetical goal, to end the practice
of disposinc municipal sludge within open dumps, the State may define the
following activities:
o identify and classify all open dumps for the Open Dump Inventory
under RCRA; utilize criteria published by EPA to establish those
sites which pose significant environmental and health hazards
o develop compliance schedules for open dumps that fail to meet
RCRA criteria
o coordinate sludge forecasting and disposal alternatives between
construction grant and solid waste management agencies
o incorporate sludge conditions into NPDES permits; include
requirements for monitoring in and adjacent to sludge disposal
sites to determine levels of heavy metals, persistent organics,
pathogens and nutrients, entering surface and groundwater
23
-------
o develop legislation to allow for implementation of
open dump corrective programs
o ensure that adequate public participation programs are developed
and operational during all phases of this management program
o encourage the use of alternative and innovative technologies
(e.g., beneficial use, energy recovery) in developing options
for sludge disposal
The second hypothetical goal, to implement an industrial pretreatment
program for sludge disposal, may include the following activities:
o incorporate pretreatment conditions into NPDES permits
o develop procedures for landfill ing operations
in accordance with the Guidelines for Land Disposal
of Solid Wastes (40 CFR 241 Appendix III); pretreatment
requirements and procedures may also be necessary to protect
air quality where sludge is disposed of through incineration
The final goal of ending ocean dumping of municipal sludges by 1981
could result in the State planning the following activities over the multi-
year period:
o develop compliance schedule for phasing out the dumping of
sludges at sea
o develop alternative methods for the disposal of sludges
24
-------
o establish enforcement mechanisms for interim permits and the
eventual prohibition of ocean dumping
o establish priorities for use of construction grants to fund
sludge disposal facilities
Responsible Agencies. The strategy should identify the responsibilities
of State and other (Regional, local and interstate) authorities in the develop-
ment and implementation of proposed programs.
Funding Sources. Agreements on the distribution of Federal and State
funds to responsible authorities should be established in the strategy.
In the following section a discussion of the one-year work program and
a funding matrix are included. They identify the range of possible funding
sources available to address the municipal sludge problem area.
One-year Work Program
As in the strategy development section, a hypothetical State one-year
work program may be useful to illustrate several of the possible components
and relationships in an annual work program for sludge management. A
more generalized list of possible activities conducted under a sludge
management program is included in a matrix following this discussion.
For the sake of brevity, the sample work program outlined here will
focus on only one of the three example goals—to prohibit the practice of
disposing municipal sludges within open dumps. Each of the activities out-
lined in the strategy for this goal is translated into specific outputs expected
within the one-year time frame.
25
-------
For the purpose of this discussion, assume that the State has
delegated many responsibilities for addressing the municipal sludge pro-
blem in several adjacent counties within the State to a Regional planning
body. Because the municipal sludge issue is frequently a concern in urban
and metropolitan areas, a Regional planning organization may be best suited
to conduct some of the tasks.
Listed below are the sample outputs for a hypothetical municipal sludge
management program that will be produced either by the State or delegated
to a Regional agency:
Output 1: Identify throughout the Region all facilities disposing of
municipal sludges. Coordinate with the SDWA Surface Impound-
ment Assessment.
Agency Responsible: Regional Solid Waste Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, SDWA Special Project, CWA 208, CWA 106
Output 2: Determine which facilities are unacceptable and are serious
pollution contributors based on RCRA land disposal criteria,
and State standards.
Agency Responsible: Regional Solid Waste Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, RCRA 3011, CWA 208, CWA 106
Output 3: Monitor facilities contributing the most pollution.
Agency Responsible: Regional Water Pollution Control Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, RCRA 4009, CWA 106, CWA 208, SDWA 1442
26
-------
Output 4: Establish compliance schedules for (x) open dumps accepting
municipal sludges, in conjunction with the State.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, CWA 208, CWA 106
Output 5: Establish new facility sites for (x) open dumps by August 1979.
Agency Responsible: Regional Solid Waste Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, SDWA 1442, CWA 106, CWA Facility Planning,
CWA 208
Output 6: Adopt enforcement and permitting procedures for the sludge
disposal practices, in conjunction with the State.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, RCRA 4009, RCRA 8006, CWA 208, CWA 106
Output 7: Develop public participation program keyed to activities
occurring during the fiscal year.
Agency Responsible: Regional Solid Waste and Water Pollution Control Office
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, CWA 208
It is important to keep in mind that the above work program is only
meant to be a simple example of outputs negotiated between the local agencies,
States and EPA. Each output will likely have several components that must
be identified and agreed to. -These components may include: costs, disburse-
ment schedules, milestones, responsible agencies and funding sources.
27
-------
\NAGEMENT
LJ
0
0
3
_J
GO
5:
Q.
i — i
0
»— (
7"
S
O
t/)
1 =
O
A"aAjns U3}P/
s^upao
-uouiap pup A"pnq.s
A L^->ny - E D3S
JOi4Pjq.s
(.ppads ~ frfrfrl
IUOD 'tpafut punouBaapun , .
JOj. s^upjB liipjBoud a^Pis " ("Jtvt'l
uoLSiAjadns jaq.pM p
s}
•ULBU^ '3DUB}SLSSB '
Liqnd _ (P)mi
jpjB BUL
^ojpasay ~ ZfrfrL
^oafoud [Bpads - VIS
S}UPUb A^l! t,nnQ
-ppj. a^pj^suoiuap ^ qoapasay ~/LCOS
aDjnosaj $ saipn^s
[ppads ~/SOO§
^UPjB ^.UjBlil 35.SBM ZPU {'SUOD nnoj.
aojnosau C^iu5ui a^spw p.L[os " °vvv
a^sPM sno^B^Ws ' LLOe
s^up^B sa>)p[ upa[3 - •(;[£
/\jncn\ ^ ~JIJG
luUbii; ^idwy _ (C)gnz
luaurjpajT a^spM aptMpajy ~ \^J°02
((6)90ZS) e (SS9Dxi)
^^ /-"^^J/ _ n iiiRiM lift i inn i*i ciirtn
C^IIDIn 1CCW 4^^^ "*-* L4-''**^4-->"*-'J
^4^^-"^*r\7 "
(uoi.:pnuisuoD 'soads 'suB[d)
sq.upj6 uoi:pnj:).suoo - £ ? Z daq.$
(BuiugBid A"IL
liiuii " L da^s
s^uBuB BuiuLBjq. a^p^s - 60 L
s^upaB tupuBoud a^p^s - 901
Hoj'aT
•(-> S-
fM (Q fO
O Z X to to
1 •"• *•"
1 O Qi 1 tO CO
0) U_ SI r^ <->
en u 4->
(O d fO
Q. -r- E
)NIQNnd
to i — -
O) JQ S- oo
4-> T- O uj
OS C7> « . .
o -r- r- cn HH
•r- r- i— C 1—
"O V 3 -r— I— 1
c >4- -n >
"~ T- S- 3 ["*
= -P r— to
Ol (U
10 4->
•r-
E to
OJ
o fO
O CO
S- 0
Q. Q.
to
O) -r-
c -o
•r—
E CU
s- en
a> ~o
+-> 3
O) r—
o to
X
X
X
Develop sludge volume projections
X
X
X
X
o
10
2 >,
en &
0 -r-
o
CD (0
•r—
S- r—
O ^
4-> I/)
-r- O
C Q.
O to
•5
CL
O (U
i— en
> 3
Q to
X
X
X
Develop procedure for giving notice
of closure, hearing & appeals
X
X
X
X
X
X
Develop administrative procedures
for sludge disposal operations
28
to
i.
o
O)
Q.
O
-o
C
TO
O)
o
o
Q.
I/) tO
rO (O
O O
O O
O) o;
to to
(0 ra
c c
o o
c c
fO ITJ
i- S-
o o
rO JD
-------
SLUDGE MANAGEMEN
MUNICIPAL
o
oo
en
O :
3
O
CM
4-
O
CM
Q)
CT
03
D.
A~3Auns ua}p/
S}UPUD 1
-uoiuap puB Xpn^s
A Lcjnti - £ 39$
LBioads " VVVL
}uoo 'loaCui punoaBjapun /fl\c>i,i,i
uoLSLAjadns ua^PM p
s}i
ULBUj\ 'aDUPlSLSSB 'l
Llqnd - (e)em
JBJ6 6UL
jDjpassy " ^frfrl-
IDaCojd IB pads - VIS
S}1
-pBj. 3}Bj}suouiap $
aounosau $ saVpn^s
jpjb A>u t,no9
qojpasag -/LCGo
[ppads "/SOua
4\UPJ6 j\lLl6lU a^SBM ZBU '*SUOD nrin,
aojnosau '^uibui a^seM pi LOS " 800t?
33.SBM snopupzpu aj\Bt}.s
St).UBu6 Sa>)Bl_ UB3IQ - ^[^
(vasn)
ipana jioi DUUBM'
•* l d/jd _ 1 £\QC\7
auaiuaPsS^ispil^S ' M*M
s^ffiSSHi - ^ uo^nj^D
(uoponaj\suoD 'soads *supid)
(6uiugpid A"IL
liiuij " L ds;s
s,UBJ6 6u.LUieJ} aws - 60l
Sj^upuB uipu5
ssoynos E
OJ J=
t3 oo to
•z. x
HH I^H tO CT)
Q o; i ^ _c
=> < ' ^"5*
U- S 0 -M
C 03
•r- E
oud a^Bj\s - 901
WKMld
(U
(1) !5 S- 4,0
4->-r- 0 QJ
fO C7> •
O -I— r— CT
•r- r— •— C r—
T3
•r- LO C ._,
••- s- 3 r_
= CU if- *~
_x >>jr -J
•r- -r- rO
• • > QJ •«—
O
•o
to
O) 0)
> en
•^* ^O
4J 3
03 r—
C tO
0) E
+-> 0
're H-
-!-> C
c o
O) •!-
E +J
O) 3
a.!—
E O
—i a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Develop training and technical
assistance programs
X
X
X
Develop hazardous sludge regula-
tory programs
X
X
X
X
o
-&->
in to
QJ O>
T- -P
-k-5 •!-
•i— tO
-Q 03
to to
Q. O
(O Q.
o to
-s-> -a
a> a>
CJ S-
S. O)
0 Q-
«*- 3
Q) e>B
~D CU
« — to
-t- O
CO O
X
X
X
Establish reporting & recording
mechanims for hazardous sludges
X
X
X
Permit development and issuance
X
X
X
X
_o
X
X
X
X
03
X
X
Establish public involvement
program
-------
ILLUSTRATION 2
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
(Pits, Ponds and Lagoons)
Introduction
Groundwater pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons is an environmental
problem that requires coordinated action under several EPA authorities. If
other sources are adversely impacting the groundwater quality, such as
underground injection or failing septic tanks, control programs for these
sources should be included. Pits, ponds and lagoons—generally known as
surface impoundments—have the following characteristics: (1) they are
used primarily for storage, treatment or disposal of wastes in the form
of fluids; (2) they are constructed above, below or partially in the
ground; (3) they may or may not have permeable bottoms or sides, allowing
their contents to infiltrate into the water. Surface impoundments are
used for the treatment or storage of wastes or by-products from municipalities,
industries, agriculture, mining and oil and gas drilling.
The problem on which this example focuses is unplanned discharges
from surface impoundments as opposed to regular discharges to surface
streams regulated by NPDES permits. Surface impoundments used for the
planned storage of materials, such as polishing ponds or sludge lagoons,
are not as critical to the pollution problem as are accidental discharges
or poorly designed surface impoundments. These unplanned discharges, generally
in the form of seepage into groundwater, are a shared responsibility of
EPA solid waste, drinking water, and water quality management programs.
30
-------
Background
Many EPA planning and implementation programs are involved in the
study and solution of groundwater contamination from pits, ponds and
lagoons. EPA and the States may plan for and implement controls on
surface impoundments through the mechanisms of the Clean Water Act,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.
RCRA
A major planning effort related to pits, ponds and lagoons is State
Solid Waste Management (SWM) planning conducted under Subtitle D of RCRA.
States must develop SWM plans which assign planning and implementation
responsibilities among State and local governments, prohibit open dumping,
identify regulatory powers needed to implement the plan and include several
other provisions.
One major requirement of the State SWM plans is completion of the
Open Dump Inventory, which EPA must publish under Subtitle D of RCRA.
The States will assess every pit, pond, lagoon, landfill and land spreading
facility to determine if it is an open dump. Open dumps must be closed or
upgraded to sanitary landfills within five years after EPA publishes the
inventory. The Office of Solid Waste has suggested the following priorities
for the development of the Open Dump Inventory: municipal landfills in
FY 1980, municipal sludge disposal sites in FY 1981, industrial sites in
FY 1982, and agricultural and mining sites after FY 1982.
31
-------
Since the Open Dump Inventory will initially focus on municipal solid
waste landfills and sludge disposal sites, it will probably not include all
pits, ponds and lagoons until after FY 1982. In the meantime, the Surface
Impoundment Assessment (SIA) will contain most of the information on the
location and potential of groundwater pollution threats from pits, ponds
and lagoons.
If a surface impoundment is used to hold or dispose of a hazardous
waste, the State or EPA will issue a permit specifying the conditions
under which it may be disposed of or stored. It is likely that there
may be some lag time before every surface impoundment holding a hazardous
material receives a permit. Therefore, once an impoundment operator has
applied for a permit, the operation will be considered to have "interim
status." This means that the facility should comply with the S3004
regulations (standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities) until it gets a final
permit. Development and implementation of State hazardous waste permit
programs is supported by grants to States under Subtitle C of RCRA.a
If the material disposed of or stored in the surface impoundment is
not a hazardous material, EPA is relying on the States to implement controls
under the SWM program or the WQM program. While implementation is partially
supported by State program grants, its success is strongly dependent on
aEPA published proposed hazardous waste criteria regulations and hazardous
waste permit regulations in December 1978.
32
-------
State and local funds and initiative and the support of other Federal agencies.
If a State fails to act on a groundwater pollution problem involving a non-
hazardous substance, EPA could withhold State program grants under the
CWA and RCRA.
CWA
The Water Quality Management (WQM) program is another major effort
which may address groundwater pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons.
Under sections 208(b)(2)(J) and (K) of the CWA, States and designated
areawide agencies must prepare comprehensive plans to control pollution
from disposal of residual wastes and subsurface disposal of pollutants.
State and areawide WQM planning efforts are funded primarily by S208
grants. As of August 1978, there were 225 State and areawide WQM agencies.
Where severe local or Statewide groundwater pollution problems exist
as a result of surface impoundments, WQM funding could help bring about
a solution to the problem. One of the highest priorities of the WQM
program in the next five years is protection of groudwater quality.
NPDES permits issued by EPA or the States under §402 of CWA, may
also affect surface impoundments. The CWA provides authority to require
as a condition of an NPDES permit, the use of best management practices
(BMP) at industrial sites to control pollution from toxic and hazardous
pollutants. BMP may also be used at municipal wastewater treatment
ponds for the protection of groundwater quality, and may be prescribed
to control spills, runoff, leaks, storage and disposal of wastes.
aFor example, surface mining permits issued by the Office of Surface
Mining, Department of Interior or by States authorized to issue such
permits.
33
-------
SDWA
Under the authority of §1442 of SDWA, States are beginning to conduct
the nationwide Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) which is scheduled for
completion in July 1979. In the SIA, the States locate and count surface
impoundments, select random samples for analysis and determine groundwater
pollution potential from the various types and locations of impoundments.
Also, §1431 of SDWA gives the Administrator of EPA broad emergency
powers to protect the health of persons from imminent and substantial danger
through contaminated drinking water supplies. This emergency power could be
initiated if there is a threat to public health resulting from surface impound-
ment seepage.
Groundwater Pollution in the State/EPA Agreement
Problem Assessment
To develop an effective and coordinated program for control of ground-
water pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons, a problem assessment is
essential. The information necessary to determine the extent of groundwater
contamination should be available from the Open Dump Inventory required
under S4005 of RCRA, the Surface Impoundment Assessment under S1442(b)(3)(c)
of SDWA, the State WQM plans under sections 208 and 303 of the CWA and
the State SWM plans under S4008(a)(l) of RCRA.
The SDWA Surface Impoundment Assessment, together with data from
facility plans and information from the USGS could provide a strong data
base to assist in the conduct of the RCRA Open Dump Inventory. The WQM
program can play a large role in the problem assessment of groundwater
34
-------
pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons. Through both past planning
efforts and the continuing planning phase, the WQM program can provide
technical experience, insight into overcoming institutional barriers and
can highlight the ineffectiveness of existing controls in achieving
water quality goals. The State should identify in the one-year work
program any additional data needs for studying groundwater pollution and
assign responsibility as appropriate.
Strategy
If the State assessment indicates that surface impoundments are a
water quality problem, either across a State or in a particular substate
area, the State should develop a multi-year strategy for addressing the
problem. This long-term strategy should include the goals, priorities, a
summary of anticipated planning and implementation activities, an identifi-
cation of responsible agencies, a public participation work plan and a
funding summary.
The following discussion presents hypothetical multi-year strategy
elements for addressing groundwater pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons:
Goals. A State faced with a major groundwater pollution problem
might establish multi-year goals similar to these:
o identify and assess pollution potential of all surface impound-
ments in the State, especially with regard to toxics and ground-
water contamination
35
-------
o close or upgrade all surface impoundments which are classified
as open dumps
o write permits for all remaining pits, ponds and lagoons, including
those with surface discharges, hazardous wastes, municipal sludge
and the disposal associated with an industrial site that has a
surface discharge. Where applicable, these permits should be part
of an integrated permitting process. For those pits, ponds and
lagoons not covered by a permit, implement alternative controls such
as best management practices.
Priorities. As the State is developing its multi-year strategy, it
should reflect on the relative importance of groundwater pollution from pits,
ponds and lagoons to the overall pollution situation in the State. With
this in mind, together with the intermedia effects that this includes,
the State might proceed to identify the worst cases of pollution from
surface impoundments and assign them high priority for remedial action.
These cases should be identified by name, geographic area, basin, or
type, such as industrial or mining disposal site. This priority setting
should incorporate public views gained through the public participation
process.
Anticipated Activities. Having set goals and determined priorities,
the States would proceed in this hypothetical example to define the
anticipated multi-year planning and implementation activities necessary
to reach the goals. With respect to the first goal, to identify and
assess the pollution potential of all the surface impoundments in the State,
the State might plan to:
36
-------
o locate all pits, ponds and lagoons on maps and classify them
/
o assess these surface impoundments against the open dump criteria
being developed under §4005 of RCRA
o determine if the impoundments hold hazardous wastes as defined
in the hazardous waste criteria being developed under §3004 of
RCRA
o coordinate monitoring of pollution from surface impoundments
with other monitoring efforts directed at surface and ground-
water
o determine the potential health hazard associated with each
given surface impoundment
In support of the second goal to close or upgrade surface impoundments
classified as open dumps, the State should plan, over a multi-year period to:
o classify surface impoundments as open dumps or sanitary landfills
o develop procedures for giving notice of closure, hearing and
appeal
o set up enforcement mechanisms, develop new State legislation as
necessary and conduct enforcement training
37
-------
o use the WQM process to develop locally acceptable solutions
and raise public consciousness regarding the problems of surface
impoundments, especially toxic groundwater pollution
o implement BMP to control pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons
To achieve the third goal of writing permits or implementing alter-
native controls the State might plan the following activities over a multi
year period:
o coordinate permits for surface impoundments with existing permit
programs (NPDES, sludge, hazardous waste)
o develop a permitting function, including the identification of
staff, budget and responsibilities
o coordinate enforcement activities for surface impoundments with
other applicable enforcement authorities (e.g., NPDES)
o coordinate monitoring of pollution from surface impoundments
to support and document permitting process
o where appropriate, compliance schedules should be tied into
grants for accountability
o implement BMP to control pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons
o use the WQM process to evaluate the effectiveness of past control
techniques
o coordinate public participation activities, especially emphasizing
toxics and groundwater contamination from disposal of wastes
38
-------
Responsible Agencies. The strategy should identify the responsibilities
of State and other (Regional, local and interstate) authorities in the
development and implementation of proposed programs.
Funding Sources. Activities included in the multi-year strategy should
be tied to a specific funding source or combination of sources to provide
budget accountability. Both the one-year work program and the funding
matrix which follow, provide examples of the range of possible funding
sources and how these sources might be used for addressing groundwater
pollution.
One-year Work Program
When the State and EPA have worked out a strategy for dealing with
groundwater pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons, the State should
proceed to develop a one-year work program to be attached to the Agreement.
In the work program the State would examine the strategy and set
priorities for the upcoming year. The State would also identify the
time frame for completing its selected outputs. Outputs should be tied
to line items in the budget for accountability. The following funding
matrix matches the generalized groundwater pollution program activities
to funding sources. Many activities may be funded by several possible
sources.
39
-------
In this hypothetical illustration, the State will produce six outputs
related to groundwater pollution from pits, ponds and lagoons in FY 1980.
Assume that the State organization includes a State Department of the
Environment with three divisions -- Water Pollution, Solid Waste and
Water Supply. The six outputs for the first goal are:
Output 1: Transfer of data from the Surface Impoundment Assessment, the
WQM plans and USGS data to the Open Dump Inventory.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Division
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, SDWA Special Project
Output 2: Screen the data transfer for indications that a site may
be an open dump or hold a hazardous waste.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Division
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, RCRA 3011
Output 3: Assess (x) surface impoundments to determine extent of contamination.
Agency Responsible: State Water Supply Division
Funding Sources: SDWA 1442, SDWA 1444, CWA 106, RCRA 4008
Output 4: Visit all municipal sludge disposal sites, conduct field work
and assess sites against open dump criteria.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Division
Funding Sources: RCRA 4008, RCRA 3011, RCRA 8006, CWA 106, SDWA 1442
40
-------
Output 5: Monitor surface impoundments, especially for groundwater
contamination and toxics.
Agency Responsible: State Water Pollution Division
Funding Sources: CWA 106, CWA 208, SDWA 1442, RCRA 4008
Output 6: Develop and adopt enforcement and permitting procedures to
control toxic and other wastes discharged into (x) surface
impoundments that are contaminating the ground water.
Agency Responsible: State Solid Waste Division
Funding Sources: RCRA 3011, RCRA 4008, CWA 106
These outputs are meant to be only skeletal. The State and EPA
negotiation of outputs will be much more complex. Each output has several
components including cost, disbursement schedule, milestones, responsible
agencies and funding sources. These must be determined in the negotiation
process. Since the outputs are agreed to by the State and EPA, both shoild
be accountable for completing them. The Agreement provides valuable information
for evaluating the progress being made to clear up pollution across the State
and the nation.
41
-------
o
»—t
i—
o
o
OL
a.
Q
:z
^>
o
i -ucusp put^'-^-cs - 7771
< !:yDsi^!6^^5cjd5i2=2S - (^)e-7l
^ IJOi S2USJ5 UJtJDOJC S2?2S " \S)-7^i-
S2'Jea5 5UL
233pCUd L?P3dS - MIS
^-pei -c^suc-pT^sIsi -/t8SI
< 33 J ROSS J ?' $Vpr,2~S _«pSC$ "/^DOe
1 o S.UtuO 2i'0!il =25=r.M 2tU SUC3 onr.
1 =: j 33jnOSSJ {2'_;0'J 52-S2M pt[0$ " b^w?
1 ^ *1 C" *"5 f 4 ^*^^^!™^^"^1t ^«*\*^** LLww
S ~i. i C .1 jt'w— --AC^~U C ^. C" ^ S
SVJ5-5 ss^i u=3LD - 7ir
f vncn^ S r-'i^Q , -.
;i/%Ju!t/ JiC»".u _ / i^ 1 O O 7
i - _
-u_,,,,:3.,^u!rt-^u^'T^'=j!;! • (.i)soz
((5")CQ2Sxi [SS93X3]
S2u?j5J^ssv " 2-^ uop^na^s'J03
$ (UOl^Dnj^ S'JOD 'S33QS 'SUS[d)
1—5 S2U?JD UO 1 2 3HJ2 SUO")' - P 5 7 C325
i
(Suiu'us^d AIL [^13?^) _ |_ dsa^
i
S2U2J5 5'JLUL?J2 52P2S - 501
S^U-'-iD U]pj5ojd 32c2^ ~ Of) 1
1 • T T J ^ U I
S2DynOS DNIQNHj
QJ O S_ U-! r-.
CJ •—
C- CJ -r- -U5
*J +J U S-
O U O 0
I
X
X
X
X
*
X
to
4->
Locotion of impoundmen
i
t
X
X
X
to
X
X
s2
ci
c
o
o
E
CJ
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l/>
i- 0
0 O
^J C7>
_S r2
5 to
0 ^
01 O
-o ~
C en
o a.
u
5- CJ
rs c
to
O i —
1/1 3
< c-
x i
i
X
X
X
fO
^
X
in
M
CJ
a
o
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NJ
2
s_
o
s—
Eslb. reporting mech.
wastes
I
X
X
X
X
5-
O
4-i
c
o
c
H— «
Q.
E
Q
C
o"
GJ
CL
6
t_>
X
X
X
1
X
i-
o
-------
1
1
•z.
o
OUNDWATER POLLUTI
o
A-SA.HS J9}M L^na - E 03S
S1U2JD I
-uu_cu y'-.e A^n,S
I^LOcC^ / / v L
< -!C1 S2U2.J6 LJSJSCUC 5152$ ~ (^)^77l
= L'ClSlAJSdns J3^2M 0
^ i_:ci sau?j5 ti'pjoojQ e
IS,^ - (2)C77l
S2UPJD Dill _.__
ZDSfO-d [2LD5dS - VIS
S2U?^D Al L 1
-LD=J. '22-llSuCiilep 7 UD-SSScg ~ 7008
! r~ .,_.;: __.».,_-., ,-,.__^ .oo.rio
i i>4UeJU 5c L— 1. ^ i. Jc_ -;?[ UBS [3 - 7^
i / uorn ^ ^ vi.ia
^w'VjJll/ 3 t G r; 3 _ ff^OP/
1 *^ , , _ ..,!*, »^— , |«S -»*^'-~111 -«^II1H'^ *\_' ^ V^JOwO
— .Jtr'.j».CbA»i. *3 — ^ c^ -^ ^^JLf'is'c—^'7
• / / " ^ — \ / 5S90X-1 \
| (iioLionj;sucDjsD9cs 'su?La) ^
(SuiUUP^d AIL
iilScj - L d5^
siusaB 5uiui?a^. 3^.?^s - 501
siusuS ujpjoojd s^s^s - go[
S3DHnOS ^
CD CJ
CVJ +•> *-
tl CJ3
•i— 10 C _
•• > CJ •«-
CJ -1- JJ
-^J -u J- i.
O U O «3
I
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X.
to
to
O)
o
o
CL
fO
CJ
a.
CL
OS
CJ
l/l
.0
o
CJ
0
X
X
X
QJ
u
•f—
to
to
en
•r-
c
O to
i- E
• en
> o
0 '-
1
X
X
X
X
to
•r™
S-
o
3
X
QJ
a
CJ
i
x
x
X
o
u
c
ra
3
to
in
°O
*j
C
CJ
cL
o
CJ
CJ
•3
^CJ
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
to
•r"
CD
CJ
CJ 1/1
C CJ
J-J -r-
C^ *. -'
CJ (0
a s_
i— CJ
p^ 4-J
c 'o
rs S-
O u
X
X
X
X
X
Assess feasibility of resource
conservation & recovery programs
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
(0
X
X
Establish public involvement
program
43
-------
Other Opportunities for Integration
In addition to the illustrations, there are many other opportunities
for integration among CWA, RCRA, SDWA and other environmental protection
programs. Regions and States may wish to address additional problems
and issues as they negotiate State/EPA Agreements. A few such examples
include:
1. Population, Economic, Waste Load and Land Use Projections
Projections are essential components of all planning programs and
some implementation programs. Facility planning, water quality management
planning and solid waste management planning, for example, are all concerned
with municipal sludge projections. These projections in turn are used to
develop NPDES permits.
Uniform population, economic, land use and waste load projections would
contribute greatly to the coordination of environmental programs. Tihese
projections are frequently mentioned by State, Federal and local interests
as needing coordination and integration. It is recommended that State/EPA
Agreements contain procedures for preparing disaggregations, making land
use projections, and other related tasks. The cost-effectiveness guide-
lines (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A) govern both WQM and facility
planning with respect to population projections. The Regions and States
may also wish to use the same guidelines for projections affecting solid
waste and drinking water.
44
-------
2. Problem Assessment
An assessment of environmental problems is another area often cited
as suitable for integration. Problem assessment is important to all programs
and should drive long-term strategies for problem solving. Assessments are
also closely related to population, land use and waste load projections since
they cover future as well as present problems.
There are many legislative and regulatory requirements for problem
assessments which could be meshed into a single State assessment. Some
of the major components might be the Surface Impoundment Assessment, the
Open Dump Inventory, discharger inventories and segment classifications,
detailed problem assessments funded under the WQM and SWM programs and
the Clean Lakes Assessment. Regions and States may wish to adopt a goal
of a single problem assessment satisfying the needs of RCRA, SDWA, and
CWA and also serving as the 305(b) report to Congress (CWA).
An integrated problem assessment would provide opportunities for
innovative techniques, such as a cross-cutting toxics/hazardous assess-
ment to identify the locations, sources and amounts of toxic and hazardous
materials, especially toxic "hot spots." Other problem assessment possibi-
lities include analyzing rarely used sources of data (e.g., NPDES self-
monitoring data) or to use existing data in new ways (e.g., locate toxic
hot spots in relation to drinking water intakes). One related innovative
technique already under development is the environmental profile, which
four Regions are currently testing. The profile employs an environmental
index to describe the overall water quality of specific segments.
45
-------
An integrated assessment would address both surface and groundwater.
Necessary data on groundwater quality and quantity might be obtained from
NPDES self-monitoring, from studies funded under WQM or SWM, or from the
U.S. Geological Survey (US6S).
3. Monitoring
Environmental monitoring conducted under various EPA programs is a
potential area in which inefficient or duplicated services may be improved.
One output of the State/EPA Agreement might be an integrated monitoring
program with funding contributed by all of the various environmental
authorities and programs. Such joint monitoring may involve, in addition
to EPA and the States, other Federal agencies, local governments and
independent associations such as the USGS, the Fis.h and Wildlife Service,
regional planning commissions and private interest groups.
An integrated monitoring program would likely result in shared responsi-
bilities and procedures, provide for easier and more useful data transfer
as well as reduce overall costs. Different program areas may share sampling
sites, sampling procedures, laboratory certification, quality control pro-
grams, training programs and record keeping and data retrieval.
Toxic monitoring and analysis are very complicated and expensive and
should be coordinated. States and Regions may wish to give greater emphasis
to biological monitoring, such as bioassays for lethal dose and bio-accumu-
lation determinations and measurements of species diversity. This monitoring,
together with discharge and ambient monitoring, would be helpful to all pro-
gram areas and contribute to a better understanding of sources, types and
effects of toxic pollutants.
46
-------
4. Toxics
Of the many laws addressing the problems of toxic materials, CWA,
SDWA and RCRA provide the authority to control toxics in the environment
(as opposed to during manufacture, distribution, and use). Since none of
these three laws give blanket authority to control toxic pollution, inte-
gration of the various programs dealing with toxic substances is desirable.
Integration would be extremely useful in the areas of data collection,
permitting as well as monitoring.
States and Regions need information for collecting data on toxic
parameters in discharges, surface impoundments, urban runoff, combined
sewer overflows, injection wells, landfills, land spreading sites and
nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff. Since isolation and
quantification of toxic chemicals is generally difficult and expensive,
data collection should be closely coordinated. (See also the discussions,
of monitoring and problem assessment.)
It is recommended that any permits issued should incorporate toxic
limits where appropriate as established in the CWA effluent guidelines
(40 CFR 405-460). Development of toxic permit conditions could be a joint
responsibility of the NPDES authority and the WQM and SWM programs. Once
such a permit is drafted, the Regions and States should establish an
interdisciplinary permit review process to ensure that the expertise of
all disciplines are included in the review. Procedures for permit develop-
ment and review could be incorporated specifically into the State/EPA
Agreements.
47
-------
5. Public Participation
Public participation in environmental programs is often dispersed among
various programs, concerns and issues. This splintering effect makes it
more difficult for people to understand the details of environmental problems
and the arsenal of Federal, State and local tools available to solve
those problems. Further, it diminishes the effectiveness of public input
to decisions concerning actions and plans. An integrated public participation
strategy (a requirement of the proposed public participation regulations,
40 CFR Part 25) will enhance the public role in the decision process.
The proposed public participation regulations apply to programs under RCRA,
SDWA and CWA. These proposed regulations require that public participation
activities and materials be combined for closely related programs or
activities wherever feasible and when such combination would not be
detrimental to participation by the widest possible public.
The WQM and SWM programs have similar public participation require-
ments and coordination between the two programs could be readily achieved.
The NPDES public participation requirements could also be meshed with the
WQM and SWM requirements through the State public participation strategy.
To attain this integration of public participation as part of the
State/EPA Agreement, the States and Regions should consider the full range
of public information and participation activities and events. Possible
areas for coordination and consolidation include advisory committees, public
participation staff, publications, meetings, hearings, and training courses.
48
-------
Such coordination and consolidation would likely prorate better organized
dialogue with the public. It would also produce an increased understanding
among all decision-makers of the nature of environmental problems and the
Federal, State and local programs and capabilities for attacking them, and
produce a clear set of priorities for resolving these problems.
6. Pretreatment and Industrial Haste Management
Hazardous wastes generated by existing pretreatment and Best Available
Technology (BAT) requirements of the CWA although reducing the amount of
•such wastes discharged into the nation's waters, will continue to increase
on-site storage and off-site disposal problems in the coming years.
Industrial hazardous waste generation was estimated at 30-35 million
metric tons in 1976 (enough to fill the New Orleans Superdome every
other day). With implementation of BAT and pretreatment regulations it
is estimated that this figure could double by 1990.
Primary Federal authorities and programs for dealing with the treatment,
storage and disposal of hazardous wastes are sections 307 and 402 of the
Clean Water Act and Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (Hazardous Waste Management). Some States have also developed independent,
but similar programs.
However, on-site storage is becoming limited and off-site disposal
areas are in short supply. Growth in certain industries is being curtailed
by lack of economic and environmentally acceptable disposal options. At
the same time, the risk of illegal ("midnight") or careless off-site dumping
49
-------
is increasing. Further, significant institutional barriers exist which
limit dealing with pretreatment and industrial waste management problems.
In many States hazardous waste and pretreatment programs are operated by
separate agencies. Although a number of State and areawide water quality
management agencies have identified industrial waste storage and disposal
problems as a planning priority, there is little evidence that the RCRA
authorities are being combined with the Clean Water Act authorities to
deal with the problem.
The State/EPA Agreement can be used as the mechanism to coordinate and
integrate the development and implementation programs needed to manage
industrial wastes and pretreatment. The Agreement can be used to raise
the visibility and significance of this problem and can help activate the
participation of State and local governments in resolving pretreatment
and industrial waste problems.
States unwilling to pursue a comprehensive pretreatment and industrial
waste management program should at least be encouraged to integrate the
NPDES and RCRA permit programs.
For those States including pretreatment and industrial waste manage-
ment problems in the State/EPA Agreement, the following areas are among
those which can be considered for coordination: joint permits, new
disposal site studies and plans for dealing with abandoned wastes. Initially
provisions should be made to combine diverse waste management practices
50
-------
and planning options into a unified strategy. This strategy should integrate
pretreatment with all other hazardous waste management programs, such as
standards for spill control (section 311 of the Clean Water Act), require-
ments for shipping and transporting wastes (DOT regulations) and require-
ments to control unsafe practices during temporary storage and waste transfer
(OSHA regulations). The integration of related requirements for disposal
of dredge or fill material and municipal sludge (sections 404 and 405 of
the Clean Water Act) should also be considered.
51
-------
IV. SUMMARY
Congress charged EPA with establishing national environmental
standards, carrying out research and development, funding State programs
and charting national objectives and policies. Federal, State and local
governments plan, develop and carry out pollution abatement programs.
In delineating Federal and State roles in the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Congress clearly had in mind a Federal/State partnership. The
State/EPA Agreement is an example of the Federal/State partnership in
action. The Agreement will be the result of a negotiation process be-
tween each State and the corresponding EPA Region. Regional and local
planning and implementation agencies, and interested or affected publics
will also be included in the negotiation process. The process should
get together Federal, State and local entities to determine environmental
priorities, define intermedia problems and develop creative, efficient
and effective solutions.
Two major categories of integration efforts should be undertaken during
development and implementation of the Agreement. These include (1) improve-
ment of program management practices through such tasks as the combination
of duplicative requirements of two or more programs into a single product
which satisfies the legal and administrative requirements of all "covered"
programs; and (2) utilization of the resources and authorities of several
EPA programs in a joint effort to identify and solve environmental problems
that each program has had inadequate resources or authority to deal with.
Beginning in FY 1980, State/EPA Agreements will serve as the mechanism
to manage, integrate and coordinate environmental programs in all States,
52
-------
creating joint planning and implementation of SDWA, RCRA and CWA. Each
Agreement will be the result of an assessment of the environmental problems
facing the State, development of a multi-year strategy to solve those
problems, and a'determination of specific steps to take during the next
year.
The Agreement will reflect State and EPA priorities, timing, respon-
sibilities and allocation of funds. It should also serve as a management
tool for use within the Regional office as well as the State, reduce
paperwork, and serve as a public information document. The participation
of-the public and other governmental agencies is important to the negotia-
tion process and to the implementation of the Agreements.
It is the intent of EPA to strengthen the capability of States and
areawide agencies to manage their environmental programs in the context
of the State/EPA Agreements.
53
-------
Special Fourth-Class Rate
Book
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
S300
WasKnaton DC 20460
WH-554
------- |