EVALUATION REPORT ON THE
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FISCAL YEAR 1972
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM PLAN
United States of America
Environraental Protection Agency
Region V
-------
-------
PROGRAM PLAN EVALUATION REPORT
STATE OF INDIANA
FT 1972
I. Introduction
A. Background
1. The complete plan was received July 6, 1971.
2. Summary of findings of previous year's Program Appraisal.
The Fiscal Year 1971 Indiana State Program Plan was condi-
tionally approved by David D. Dominick, Commissioner of the
FWQA, on November 10, 1970. A summary of the recommendations
proposed follows:
a. It was recommended that the staff and corresponding budget
be increased significantly. This staff should be placed
in such critical areas as treatment facilities inspections
and evaluation, planning, enforcement, and public infor-
mation. Salary schedules should be increased to be more
•v,. competitive in the labor market.
• ° ' .
> b. It was recommended that adequate State construction grant
^-3T . funds be appropriated to match increased Federal funds.
^ c. Because of a possible significant increase in the Federal
(M construction grant funds, it was recommended that the State
."7 consider eliminating the restriction that no applicant is
permitted to receive grants in consecutive years.
d. The agency was urged to establish a water quality planning
unit to develop a statewide water quality planning program.
This will require additional staff,
e. Additional program activities recommended for strengthening
in the 1972 program plan were enforcement, legal counsel,
treatment plant inspection, laboratory support, mine
drainage control, oil field brine control, and submittal of
monthly operating reports by industrial dischargers.
It was recognized that Indiana is making some progress in con-
trolling and preventing pollution through the use of water
quality standards. However, it was also stressed that severe
shortages of budget and staff vill remain as serious problems
in providing a suitable program for protection of the quality of
Indiana's waters.
-------
- 2 -
B. Regional Review
1. Regional review of the Indiana Water Pollution Control
Program Plan and Grant Application consisted of review
by all of the Regional office program staffs and in
part by some support elements. The staffs providing
review were:
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Facilities Programs
Construction Grants Branch
Manpower Development and Training Branch
Office of Regulatory Programs
Enforcement Branch
Refuse Act Permit Branch
Water Quality Standards Branch
Office of Technical Programs
Surveillance Branch
Planning Branch
Technical Services Branch
Federal Activities Coordination Branch
Office of Research and Development
The Indiana and Illinois District offices also submitted
comments relative to their evaluation of the Program Plan.
After the above listed offices presented comments, discus-
sions were initiated with Indiana officials to reconcile
differences or to strengthen weaknesses in the Program Plan.
Following this procedure, the'Program Plan evaluation was
completed.
2. The preliminary review by regional programs started on June
21, 1971 and was virtually completed within a month.
Negotiations to improve the Programs Plan have continued into
November, 1971. The evaluation procedure was completed on
December 2, 1971.
II. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Conclusions
1. Suitability of Goals and Expected Results: Both the one-year
and the five-year program goals proposed generally appear to
be satisfactory. The five-year program plan is generally an
environmentally ccnpnshensive document with respect to water
water pollution control in Indiana. It embodies a program for
FY 1972 that if successfully implemented would be a positive
-------
- 3 -
step toward achieving the goals, established for the five-
year program. It is noted, however, that there are certain
shortcomings in the program. These are delineated•in
subsequent portions of the program plan evaluation.
2. Feasibility of Flan for achieving goals and expected results
using authority, organization resources, and administration.
In spite of the general suitability of the goals and inter-
mediate steps for achieving tha goals, it cannot be stressed
too strongly that serious inadequacies in both personnel and
budget, unless overcome, will prevent the attainment of
several of these goals.
3. Regional capabilities for providing needed assistance. The
provision of assistance by EPA will include general manpower
training, through research seminars and other training courses
or symposia, treatment plant operators and laboratory personnel,
and in technical advisory and guidance roles.
If the additional six positions for planning cannot be obtained,
reassignment of existing state personnel should be made to
balance the indicated areas of deficiency.
B. Recommendations
1. It is recommended that the Indiana State Program Plan as amended
by the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board be approved as
marginally acceptable. There are several points of understanding
underlying this recommendation:
»
a. The Board has been authorized to fill the six positions
allowed by the 1971 General Assembly,
b. The Board will strive to obtain 32 additional positions
during the .coming legislative session. We believe this is
the minimum level of manpcwer staffing necessary for the
Board to meet its current responsibilities for preparing
fully developed basin and regional/metropolitan plans required
to qualify for construction grant funds after July 1, 1973,
and conduct a meaningful program of abating water pollution
throughout the State.
c. The Board will exert all possible efforts to alleviate the
growing manpower shortage which precludes accomplishment of
the minimum goals intended to place the waters of the State
in compliance with standards within the implementation dates
established in the Indiana Water Quality Standards.
1
i
-------
-------
-4 -
d. The seriousness of the situation has been impressed upon
the Board and the Governor's office- however, the Leg-
islature must take affirmative and substantive action,
thus avoiding an impasse when the 1973. Program Plans are
prepared and then evaluated for adequacy and suitability.
e. The State has been advised of the possible loss .in
available Construction Grant funds for Indiana communities
owing to the lack of State appropriations sufficient to
meet its share.
2. Other Actions
'&. The State should be invited to participate in a Joint Study
with EPA of the organizational structuring and manpower
staffing requirements for effectively performing the functions
related to environmental pollution abatement and control
programs by virtue of State and Federal mandates.
b. Failure of the Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board to
receive adequate staff positions would cause certain failure
of two elements of the state program. These are:
(a) Planning as required for compliance under J8CFR601 sub
part B. and (b) the State's obligations under Section 13 of
the 1899 Refuse Act. The State should be advised that such
a failure could result,in a suspension of Federal program
grant assistance.
The Regional office will continue to provide the State with
technical and overall program advisory assistance. In the
past, EPA has provided direct operating assistance,
especially in the water quality management planning function.
V7e are inclined to view direct assistance as inappropriate
and possibly leading to unsatisfactory consequences. There
are no approved plans at present to furnish any of the States
in this Region with direct Federal assistance in nerforming
their Water Pollution Control Programs.
c. The Program Plan does not list waters to be brought into
compliance nor those to be maintained in compliance. These
lists are necessary in order to provide some criteria for
measurement of achievement. If the compliance lists cannot
be provided because of the lack of control or even knowledge
of uncollectible wastes and non-point source agricultural
waste, lists can certainly be prepared showing the streams
where the criteria are being met except for those items.
d. Within the Lake Michigan drainage basin. The Board must
address itself to re-evaluatirig the temperature and dissolved
oxygen criteria in the Grand Calumet (SPC-7) prior to 197A.
-------
Criteria for the little Calumet (SPC-9) and Wolf Lake
(SPC-10) need examination for enhancement of these
criteria.
For the remainder of the State SPC-IR-2 appears adequate
for the time being.
III. Analysis of Goals and Expected Results
A. Five Year Goals
1. Proposed Five Year Goals. The State's five year goals, in
brief, provide for four general approaches as follow:
a. Acquiring better data and achieving better data utilization.
1. Increase annual stream surveys to approximately 250.
2. Full utilization of STOPJBT.
b. Increase staff capability.
1. Increase staff to existing and to potential needs.
2. Establish a cross-training program to achieve training
in different activities.
3, Increase response capability for fish kills, oil, and
hazardous materials.
c. Improve Waste Treatment Plant Operation.
1. Achieve adequate treatment facilities in all communities.
2. Rapid dissemination of information regarding new methods,
of treatment and design guidelines.
3. Improve knowledge and skills of waste treatment plant
operators,
4. Assist in certification of sewage treatment plant operators
for srcall plants. -
5. Improve laboratory skill of waste treatment plant operators.
6. Inspect each wastewater treatment facility once every two
months,
d. Development of an Animal Confined Feeding Program.
1, Require existing feed lots which violate water quality
standards to submit plans for waste disposal facilities
and require all existing operations over the established
numbers to submit information on the operation by July
1, 1973 to complete a state v.dde inventory.
2. Suitability
a. Goals, per s© in light of National arid Regional Plan and
-------
- 6 -
Strategy: The five year goals listed are generally-
suitable, but are incomplete and short-sighted.
Shortcomings noted are as follow:
1. The state's five year water quality management program
goals are not clearly defined in the plan. In order
to make the program plan acceptable from an 13CFR601
planning standpoint, the following ;clarifications
should be made as soon as possible: a clear
description of the proposed 1&CFR601B planning activity,
its present status, and the one and five-year
objectives; the amount budgeted for this activity:
the resources available, man-years assigned and specific
personnel to be assigned to this function; and the
strategy for development of the interim basin plans,
interim metropolitan and regional plans, and the fully
developed basin/regional/metropolitan plans.
2. Adequate provision has not been made for the Indiana
Stream Pollution Control Board to effectively comply
with their responsibilities under Section 13 of the
1899 Refuse Act.
•3. While it is recognized that efforts are being made to
control pollution from confined animal feeding operations,
it is believed that the Board also should work actively
with agencies such as SCS, ASCS, and ARS to establish a
program for control of pollution from nonpoint sources,
including nutrients, sediments, and pesticides.
4. It is believed that the District Office concept should
be reinstated as soon,as funds and staff permit, to
provide better response to fish kills and spills of oil
and hazardous materials and other emergency situations.
b. Intermed3.ate steps. The intermediate steps should be more
clearly defined as to when during the five-year period it is
anticipated that the steps will be accomplished.
Nearly all of the intermediate steps are contingent upon
obtaining additional staff and 'or budget. The proposed
additional positions must be obtained as a bare minimum if
these intermediate steps are to be realized.
E. Expected Results
1. Compliance with Criteria
a. The plan fails to list streams that are in compliance with
-------
- 7 -
criteria with the comment that it is impractical to do
so. The implication is that there are no Indiana streams
in compliance with the criteria. To avoid that inference,
streams that are substantially in compliance such as the
Whitewater, Kankakee, Ircquois, East Fork of White,.and the •
lower portions of the West Fork White Rivers could be
shown with listed exceptions of non-compliance reaches or
with exceptions of specific times or conditions when
compliance is not achieved,
b. The program givees no specific means of measuring results
by showing the improvement in streams that will meet the
standards as a result of implementation schedules having
been met. It would be advantageous to list streams in
compliance, or virtually so, as well as those streams that
will be within that category after specific pollution sources
are abated during the year. Thus achievements could be
measured in terms of exceptions removed, streams added to
the compliance list, and miles of stream added to the
compliance group.
This plan lists 73 communities and il industries to have
new or improved facilities placed in operation in 1971-72.
.Some of these are from one to three years behind the imple-
mentation date given in the standards. Theref6re, it seams
possible that further slippage will occur unless the State
assumes a firm enforcement posture.
c. No trend can be identified in the presented plan in as much
as no listing is given of streams in compliance, nor of
those to te brought into compliance. It must be surmised
that, with construction of facilities and with industries
treating wastes to comply with the standards, a distinct
trend toward marked improvement is present, unless other nlants
are becoming obsolete ,or overloaded as fast as new treatment
plants are being added.
2. Compatibility with State or interstate agency's water quality
management plan. The Indiana Program Plan is not incompatible
with that of ORSANCO but v/ithin the plans some disparity exists
in that the ORSANCO effluent standards are not acknowledged. We
recognize that ORSAHCO standards are not enforceable by the
State unless it follows the hearing procedures prescribed by
State law to make the ORSANCO standards State standards as well.
At the same time, the success of OHSANCO enforcement activities
seems dependent upon State support. In no sense is the above
comment to be considered an endorsement of the ORSANCO effluent
standards but is intended to reflect the-need for coordination
of activities.
-------
- 8 -
3. Compliance with facilities construction and operation
schedules. The State has permitted slippage of completion
dates for waste treatment facilities beyond those dates
established in the implementation data given in the standards.
At times, delay has been occasioned by inability of the
community to secure State and Federal grant funds. Imole-
mentation dates have been extended from those originally
given in the standards.
4. Compatibility of Permit activities and National Plan. The
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board does not issue discharge
permits but regulates this type of pollution source by re-
quiring plans for waste treatment facilities to be submitted
for approval prior to construction and by a process of hearing
and board order to waste dischargers. The plan lists
industries anticipated to place new or improved facilities in
operation in 1971-72 but some of these are nne to three years
behind implementation date, yet this approach may not be
successful because staffing is not adequately provided. Every
effort must be pursued to staff a State program commensurate
with State responsibilities. Even if Region V were in a position
to provide a sufficient number of full-time employees to assist
the State, State responsibility and authority can not be waived.
5. Suitability of adjuncts for supporting I-h above. The listed
adjuncts for supporting the program plan are properly selected
items given in the "One Year" goals. As in every other facet
of the program, manpower shortage seems certain to limit the
chance for favorable results, especially in operator training
and certification attempts, as well as in technical assistance.
The goals describe specific items for improvement in waste
treatment plant operation. These are all interrelated: for
examole, needs for specific types of training will be found
during plant inspections. Seminars, in-plant instruction,
laboratory review, and training, along with technical assistance
may be indicated. These opportunities should be recommended
strongly to plant operators and their communities. This urging
can be done through the operators license program and through
requirements included in defining the communities1 responsibility
under the grant program.
Region V will continue to provide technical adi-isorv assistance
to the State in the sunport of program adjunct activities to the
extent deemed appropriate.
IV. Analysis-of Program Authorization, Organization,-Resources and Adnunistrat-,
ion_
A. Authorjzed Functions
1. Planning. The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board has adequate
-------
- 9 -
authority to conduct comprehensive water quality manage-
ment planning in the State. The Agency's planning efforts
have been hampered by the lack of trained planning personnel.
The FT 1972 Program Plan states that work will continue on
Water Qoality Management Planning, and that interim plans
will be accomplished for all municipal projects on the one-
year list and river basin planning will be implemented. A
total of 1.85 man-years and $25,583 are programed for FT 1972
for the Planning and Water Quality Criteria element. The
stated goals cannot be reached unless additional resources
are allocated to this activity.
2. Water Qiality Criteria. The plan fails to list streams or
reaches of streams that are in compliance with criteria. As
stated previously, this is believed to be a weakness in the
Plan. In order to avoid the inference that no streams are in
compliance with criteria, it is again suggested that streams or
reaches of streams substantially in compliance with criteria be
listed in the plan. Estimated manpower for this element is
included in the planning function and is considered wholly
inadequate.
3. Water Pollution Control Facilities. Authority, organization,
and administration appear adequate to achieve established
objectives in this program element for FT 1972. This element
is considered generally adequate at the 16.04 man-year level
indicated in the plan. The established goals include reviews
of plans and specifications for approximately ISO municipal,
180 semi-public, and 225 industrial wastewater treatment
facilities. The State agency has provided a list of projects
expected to receive construction grant funds during FT 1972.
Priorities were assigned during July, 1971, and forwarded to the
EPA Regional Office at that time. Other information concerning
anticipated facilities construction (five-year needs list)
has been provided.
4. Other Program. As indicated previously, efforts to control
pollution from' confined animal feeding operations are commend-
able, but further work is needed to help control pollution from
other sources, including mine drainage, oil field brine, and
pollution from non-point sources. This program element is
considered marginal at the 3.0 man-year level as proposed in
the plan.
5. Surveillance
a. Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling. The State's mon-
itoring netvcork is proposed to be expanded beyond that
operated during FT 1971. Several additional robot monitors
are proposed, which would bring the total for the State to
-------
- 10 -
twelve. It should be stressed that there is a lack of
source-oriented monitoring. These monitors are being
placed in co?iiplex situations where cause and e'ffect
relationships are not clearly established. These•
instruments would be put to better use through
monitoring of specific pollution sources. Consideration
should be given to inspection and maintenance of the
equipment on a semi-weekly basis to assure reliable and
efficient operation.
Sampling of waters to determine quality on a routine
basis is a vital functi on of the overall surveillance
activity. A considerable amount of sampling however, is
required on a special basis, such as 24-hour samples, in
direct support of compliance and enforcement of standards
activities. It is Judged that additional manpower will be
required to effectively carry out this element.
b. Inspections and Investigations. The Board has proposed a
sound program for the periodic inspection of municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The inspection
of large municipal treatment plants could be reduced to a
semi-annual frequency, but small "package" activated sludge
plants should be inspected on at least a quarterly basis.
This program is imperative if violation of State treatment
standards and plant operation regulations are to be
detected. This activity further serves as a mechanism for
identifying technical training needs end assessing the
adequacy of existing waste water treatment technology.
Obtaining at least the minii/ium staff request will materially
assist in successfully carrying out this program element.
c. Laboratory Support. It is stated in the Plan that during
FT 1972 approximately 3,300 samples will receive /, 0,000
chemcal examinations and aporoximately A,000 samples will
receive 6,1)00 bacteriological examinations. The laboratory
performs 70 different chemcal examinations as needed,
including those for pesticides. More laboratory time will
be devoted to quality control. It is believed that the
proposed resource level for the laboratory support program
is not adequate to accomplish the Board's goals.
6. Enforcement. As stated previously, the proposed enforcement
program leaves nuch to be desired. As a bare minimum, additional
man years must be assigned to the Federal 1899 Refuse Act Permit
Program. It is also urged that additional man-years be
assirned to general enforcement procedures. Enforcement of the
State's water oualjtv standards in an efficient and tiriclv manner
-------
- 11 -
requires staff capability for investigation of alleged
violations, development of documentary 'evidence, prep-
aration of cases to come before the Board during hearings.
and coordination of effort in seeking prosecution of sus-
pected violators.
7. Research and Development. Five areaa of research and .
development needs were identified. Several of these areas
may have already been investigated and the results reported
in available literature. It is stated that no research and
development activities are planned by the State agency, nor
is there ajiy plan for coordinating or correlating other
State agencies efforts in the field of water pollution
control research activity.
B. Executive Functions.
1. Agency Development. No changes have been proposed for th«
organization during FT 1972. The Btireau- of Engineering of
the Indiana State Board of Health comprises the technical
operating ana of the Stream Pollution Control Board. The
Technical Secretary of the Stream Pollution Control Board
serves as Assistant Comraissionsr for Environmental Health of
the State Board of Health agency, and in that role directs the
State's water pollution control effort.
A proposed joint study of manpower staffing requirements for
Indiana's overall environmental protection effort would include
a review of the internal structuring and interface of
functional activities within the Bureau of Engineering,
including decentralized activities and coordination with local,
intra and inter state, and other State governmental agencies.
The design, diagnostic and evaluative functions of the study
would be performed by an independent organisation possessing
significant expertise in the field of environmental pollution
control functions, end in particular, the evaluation and
planning of functional structuring and staffing of such an
agency to assure maximum effectivenesss of effort.
2. Interagency Coordination. The Agency has in the past communi-
cated effectively with other State and Federal agencies involved
in water-related activities. The Indiana Stream Pollution
Control Board meets monthly and provides an effective coord~
ination Mechanism, This and similar activities will be
continued during FY 1972.
3. Public Information, This element of the State's program is
satisfactory.
4. Legal Counsel. Lc,"Gl counsel includes advice to the Board on
legal matters, acting as State's counsel at hearings and court
actions, and preparing legal notices and orders. The services
-------
- 12 -
are provided by the State Board of Health Hearing
Commissioner and a Deputy Attorney General on a part-
time basis. The Board has requested and we recommend
that the services of at least two full time lawyers be
made available for the preparation and coordination of
enforcement casesf including those cases selected for
prosecution by the State's Attorney Genera]..
C. Auxiliary Functions
Auxiliary functions in the form of accounting, data processing,
procurement and personnel services, appear adequate to support
the basic program activities of the Agency, Development of
present manpower resources through training programs and other
career development vehicles should be given serious consideration.
V. Regional- Support.
A. Interrelationship of Projects in Regional V7ork Plan. The
Regional Office plans to offer the assistance it is in a position
to provide, in the program elements of technical support, manpower
training, planning, and the RAPP program. It is not likely that
the number of man-years that would be necessary to fully support
the two elements - basin planning and refuse act permits - will
be available. An increase in State staff is mandatory if the
Board is to meet its responsibilities in these areas.
The Region also can provide technical support, assistance in
evaluating and training waste treatment plant operating and lab-
oratory personnel and such other support as may be requested for
training prograns,
B. Feasibility of Plan being evaluated.
The Indiana Program Plan lists goals that are clearly beyond its
manpower capability. The amount of assistance likely to be
necessary for refuse act permit processing and the basin 'regional
planning requirements for construction grant assistance is
beyond tho present capability of the Region to provide without
defaulting other program responsibilities.
-------
IN vi.',,::.,
1 North ;.';
fh.Lec~o3 1.'":.: rig
------- |