ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
REPORT
REGION 6
SEPTEMBER 1985
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
REPORT
REGION 6
xvEPA
SEPTEMBER 1985
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject Page
Part I, The Regional Administrator's Overview 1
Part II, Regional Environmental Problems 5
Standard Table Listing and Ranking Environmental Problems 6
Growth 9
Ozone 12
Acci dential Rel eases 16
Muni ci pal SI udge Management Uti 1 i zati on 18
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 20
Nati onal Border 22
Small Public Water Supply System 27
Part III, Regional Recommendations for the Agency's Fiscal Year
1987-1988 Priority List 31
Appendix A ERI Pilot A-l
-------
Part I.
The Regional Administrator's Overview
-------
The five states in Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Texas) have a combined area of 560,000 square miles with a total
population of over 27 million people. There are marked differences in
regional climate, topography and ecosystems which require a wide range
of State and EPA responses to adequately protect the environment and
public health. From the large Industrial centers to the sparsely popu-
lated deserts, great differences are found in demographic make-up,
socioeconomic structure, and environmental problems. These differences
.combined with the rapid population growth, present continual challenges.
Region 6 continues to experience rapid population growth which is pro-
jected to increase 40% by the year 2000. Such rapid and persistent
growth can make maintaining environmental quality more difficult than
achieving improvement in a nongrowth situation. Although there should
not be a compromise of basic environmental goals and objectives, more
flexibility is needed in program policy, regulations and statutes to
allow EPA and the States to bring a broader range of responses to the
special environmental problems of high growth areas.
Ozone continues to be a problem in Region 6 with 31 counties and par-
ishes having not attained the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Both mobile and stationary sources of Volatile Organic Com-
pound (VOC) emissions are continuing to increase. EPA and the States
will begin to evaluate and take corrective action to control ozone
generation in nonattainment areas.
The Bhopal, India tragedy has sensitized the public to episodes of acci-
dental releases. Region 6, in coordination with the Regional Response
Team (RRT), is taking steps to improve the ability of government at all
levels to respond to and, when possible, prevent environmental emergen-
cies.
Progress is being made on the many environmental problems along the U.S./
Mexico Border. In August 1983, Presidents Reagan and de la Madrid signed
the U.S/ Mexico Agreement. This agreement pledges cooperation at the high-
est level between our two countries and designates EPA as the U.S. lead in
this regard. The success of negotiations with Mexico and the securing of
agreements for action are now necessary before all of the parallel actions
required to achieve our environmental objectives can occur.
We are implementing the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. The sche-
dules for UST implementation must be met. The control of leaking under-
ground storage tanks is an important environmental initiative in Region 6
as is the overall UST program.
The proper management and disposal of industrial and municipal wastewater
treatment sludges 1s essential to preventing the return of pollutants to
receiving waters. More emphasis 1s needed in this area. EPA and the
States in Region 6 are committed to a program of education and technical
assistance to improve the management, utilization and disposal of munici-
pal sludges.
-------
Small water supply systems continue to have the most difficulty complying
with State and EPA regulations. EPA and the States in Region 6, through a
combination of education, technical assistance, and, if required, enforce-
ment are making progress in improving the compliance of small water supply
systems.
There was increased consultation with State agencies throughout the EMR
preparation process this year. Most States agreed that growth and the
pressures of maintaining environmental quality which it exerts were major
issues. New Mexico and Texas agencies agreed that environmental problems
associated with the international border is a major issue. One State
agency emphasized the need to consider economic status, demographic pat-
terns and history when searching for solutions to environmental problems
in areas like the border with Mexico. Individual State agencies were also
concerned about issues such as RCRA small quantity generators, pesticides,
underground injection, loss of RCRA interim status, etc. A more general
theme reflected in many State responses has been a concern with increasing
demands without parallel increases in the ability to respond. The States
for the most part agree with the need for long range planning and priority
setting which the EMR represents, but believe that to have a real impact
it must result in flexible and stable objectives for dealing with major
environmental problems.
There are many issues and initiatives which are not discussed elsewhere in
this report. Some of these will be discussed very briefly here.
Groundwater protection continues to be a high priority in Region 6. Sign-
ificant issues and accomplishments in this area are:
1) Extensive progress has been made in FY 85 to better coordinate all
groundwater related programs in the Region at both the federal and state
level. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) have been developed between
key offices at EPA and the states which deal with water supplies and
groundwater contamination in the vicinity of industrial or hazardous
waste sites. Public notification procedures are also embodied in these
MOUs. In addition, internal control procedures within the Region have
been developed to insure adequate followup and coordination of all site
investigations.
(2) In cooperation with HQs and the States, specific funding has been set
aside and grants have been made to all States to develop State ground-
water strategies or implement existing strategies. Additional funding
was made available for FY 85, using Clean Water Act Section 106 supple-
mental funds.
(3) With the promulgation of the "Osage" regulation in 1984, the largest
single UIC program on Indian lands was established and actual permit-
ting of injection wells began in early FY 85. There are some 3800
Class II (oil and gas-related) injection wells on the Osage Mineral
Reserve in Oklahoma.
-------
(4) Regional Task Forces have been established to assist the Region's
Implementation of Groundwater Classification Guidelines and the EPA
Groundwater Monitoring Strategy.
The improvement of surface water quality has been a long term objective of
EPA and the States. In many ways it is the cornerstone of other environ-
mental initiatives. There has been an improvement in the water quality
of many streams despite increases in the volume of wastewater discharges.
Maintenance of water quality in some high growth areas has in itself been
a major accomplishment. Many gains have occurred in the area of delegations
and an improved State/EPA partnership which have served to strengthen the
water quality program.
Region 6 and Region 4 have worked together to issue a general permit for
oil and gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. Other opportunities exist
for jointly addressing ocean program issues. We expect that this coordi-
nation and cooperation will continue to produce environmental results
in both Regions.
An emerging administrative problem is the difficulty we sometimes encounter
when interagency cooperation is required to achieve environmental results.
The problems involved are very complex and consequently the need for coop-
eration is often poorly understood. This lack of understanding can be
further complicated by a difference in mandates between EPA and another
agency. Managing complex issues to achieve environmental results requires
understanding and cooperation at all levels from other agencies if the
public interest is to be well served. In our experience the key to achiev-
ing cooperation is clear, concise, and timely communication with other
agencies to insure that their management at all levels recognizes the need
for the support sought.
The adequacy and reliability of data bases continues to be a problem.
Although we have made a great deal of progress, we frequently fall short
of our goal. Given the importance of all of our data bases in assessing
problems, making management decisions, and gauging progress this problem
should have a high priority.
-------
Part II.
Regional Environmental Problems
DESCRIPTION OF THE RANKING AND SELECTION CRITERIA FOR PART II;
The environmental problems chosen for inclusion in the 1985 EMR are
those which will have a significant impact on our goal of managing for
environmental results. Their ranking, while subjective, is based first
on the seriousness of the environmental impact of the problem in Region 6.
Public concern and the perception that EPA and the States should be taking
action to deal with the problem were also an important consideration.
Other considerations were health and economic impacts of the problem in
specific areas and regionwide. The selection and ranking was done by a
panel which included the senior regional staff.
-------
Region 6
1985 Environmental Management Report
Significant Environmental Problems
Relative Ranking
of Environmental
Problems
GROWTH:
Growth
Geographic
Scope
Reglonwide
Major
Source
Numerous
Major
Impacts
Adversely affects
Level of
Public
Concern
Contaminants
of Concern
OZONE:
Ozone non-
attainment
In urban
and rural
counties
Texas,
Louisiana,
& Oklahoma
ACCIDENTAL RELEASE:
Potential for
major upset
episodic
release of
toxic sub-
stances
into the air
Regional
Vehicles and
Industiral
facilities
emitting
volatile
organic com-
pounds (VOCs)
and nitrogen
oxides (NOX)
Industrial
facilities
which manu-
facture/use
toxic chemi-
cals
Moderate EPA's
ability to main-
tain all aspects
of environmen-
tal quality
Exposure of
millions of
residents to
ozone levels
exceeding the
national
health standard
Moderate
Adverse health
effects/risks
to citizens
from exposure
to airborne
contaminants
High
Numerous,
affecting all
media
Ozone
Cancer
causing
non-criteria
pollutants
-------
Relative Ranking
of Environmental Geographic
Problems Scope
Major
Source
Major
Impacts
Level of
Public
Concern
Contaminants
of Concern
MUNCIPIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT UTILIZATION and DISPOSAL:
Public health not Regional
adequately pro-
tected by failure
Land application
of municipal
sludge
Pathogens
1n sludge
and odors
Medium
Pathogens
odors
to use appropriate
treatment techni-
ques for municipal
sludge
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST):
Underground
Storage Tanks
(UST) which
are currently
Leaking
Regional ,
as well as
National
Petroleum
facilities
(e.g. gas
station)
UST Interim
prohibltation
implementation
National
Lack of guidance
documents for UST
owners/operator
National
The need for work-
shops and training
for the UST owner
Regional
Facilities
that plan to
install an
UST after
May 7, 1985
All UST facili-
ties in regu-
lated community
Contamina-
tion of
water supply
& presence
of dangerous
ignitable
vapors
Reduces the
chances of
newly
installed
UST's to
leak in the
future
With the con-
venience of
obtaining
guidance from
EPA the UST
owner will
have more
incentive
to comply
with UST
requirements
Reduce the
chances of
newly
installed
UST's to
leak in the
future
High
Moderate
to High
Moderate
to High
Moderate
to High
Petroleum/
Chemical
substances
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
-------
oo
Relative Ranking
of Environmental
Problems
NATIONAL BORDER:
Transboun-
dary Move-
ment of
Hazardous
wastes
Need for Con-
tingency plann-
ing for environ-
mental emergen-
cies Involving
oil and Hazard-
ous substances
Geographic
Scope
100 KM on
each side
of the U.S.
Mexico
border with
Texas & New
Mexico (1200-
length of Rio
Grande)
Major
Source
1) Industrial
Facilities
2) Transpor-
tation
3) Unknown
1) Internation
2) Regional
3) State
4) Local
5) Industry
Level of
Major Public
Impacts Concern
Illegal Moderate to
Transpor- High
tation
& Disposal
Reduction
of adverse
Impacts to
public
health wel-
fare A envir-
onment as
result of pre-
planning
Contaminants
of concern
Hazardous/
toxic wast
Oil and hazard
ous substance
Water Quality
in Rio Grande
Impact of A1r
emissions in
Ciudad Juarez,
Mexico on air
quality in
El Paso, Texas
El Paso
Juarez
air basin
SMALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM:
Quality of drink-
ing water
served by
small systems
Regionwide
1) Untreated
and inadequa-
tely treated
wastewater
2) Pesticides in
agricultural
run-off
1) Automobile
emissions
2) Small manu-
facturing
facilities
(particularly
brick plants)
3) Burning of
various fuels
by heating
Low-compliance
with drinking
water regula-
tions (standards)
1) Residents of
Rio Grande
valley (U.S.
& Mexico ex-
posed to risk
disease
2) Aquatic
life, pesti-
cides in
fish, approx.
500,000 El
Pasoans and
1-million
residents of
Juarez breath
air that Mexico
fail to meet
Bacteria,viruses
High on Ameri-
can side; has
been brought
to the attent-
ion of the
officials 1n
Mexico
Pesticides,
ozone, carbon
monoxide, lead
particulates
sulfur
Low
Rural and
smal1 towns
people con-
suming contaminated water
Bacteriological
Turbidity
-------
GROWTH
1. Problem Assessment:
The five States of Region 6 -- Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma
and Texas -- lie at the heart of the "Sunbelt". Growth of population and
Industrial activity in and around metropolitan areas throughout the Region
has been tremendous. More than 27 million people now live in Region 6,
and population is expected to increase by almost 40 percent by the year
2000. Almost all of the metropolitan areas in the Region are growing at
rates faster than the national growth rate. Three of the ten largest
cities and two of the ten largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) in
the country are in the Region. Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth were the
fastest growing large metropolitan areas in the country from 1980-83, at
15 percent and 14 percent annually, respectively. Of the 21 MSA's in the
U.S. growing at an annual rate of 15 percent or more, nine are located in
Region 6.
The population and industrial growth phenomenon in Region 6 is burdening
the environment in virtually every medium, by increasing:
- demands for fresh water, which strains the ability of water supply
systems to maintain quality and quantity;
- sewage discharges, which stress treatment facilities, often where the
assimilative capacity of receiving waters is limited, and which encour-
ages proliferation of inadequate individual on-site or residential
septic systems;
- developments in urban areas and around water supply reservoirs near
urban centers, which generate non-point source discharges;
- pumping of groundwater resources, which results in salt water intrusion,
increased susceptibility to contamination and surface subsidence;
- energy exploration and development and their attendant pollution poten-
tials; - mobile sources of air pollution, principally automobiles, in
metropolitan
areas resulting in difficulty in attaining and maintaining ozone and
carbon monoxide standards;
- sources of air emissions from industrial expansion, which add sources
of pollution in attainment areas adjacent to non-attainment areas;
- the development of lignite coal fired power plants, with the associated
discharges of S02 and particulates, and other potential impacts;
- potential for exposure of the population to toxic air pollutants in
growing population centers;
- hazardous waste produced by an increasing number of generators;
- the movement of urban population into surrounding agricultural areas
resulting in higher residential exposure to pesticides;
- the need for coordinated response to accidental releases of hazardous
material because of increased industrial activity, concentration of
people near industrial and transportation corridors, and development
in the vicinity of hazardous waste handling facilities;
- development, which threatens environmentally sensitive areas such as wet-
lands, fishery nursery areas, and floodplains.
-------
The general public does not view growth per se as a significant problem.
Moreover, appreciable concern for potential environmental problems asso-
ciated with growth tends to elude the citizenry until the problems become
actual, and either the advantage or necessity of confronting a particular
dilemma becomes apparent. The resolution of these environmental concerns
is dependent, in large measure, on the sensitivity and commitment of local
governments to the environmental effects of population increases.
2. Regional Agenda/Barriers:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - EPA, Region 6 will work to in-
crease the awareness of State and local governments and elected officials
as to the nature and extent of prospective environmental problems. By anti-
cipating environmental problems, governments at all levels may be able to
lessen the risks to the population and reduce the costs of corrective
actions by incorporating environmental concerns into their planning efforts.
b. Extent of State Participation - EPA, Region 6, will provide infor-
mation to the States on the potential environmental effects of the growth
phenomenon. We will request the assistance of appropriate state agencies
in providing such information to local governments and elected officials at
all levels.
c. Timing requirements - Dealing with growth as an environmental pro-
blem will be required for the forseeable future.
d. Barriers - The principal barriers are: 1) the pervasiveness and com-
plexity of the problem; 2) the number of entities with which activities must
be coordinated; 3) the difficulty in promoting any initiative which might be
viewed as land use control; and 4) the involvement of interest groups which
sometimes yield an influence wholly out of proportion to their real or
supported constituencies.
3. Headquarters Action Needed:
a. Specific Action Requested - EPA, Region 6, requests that: 1) head-
quarters provide support in time and resources in developing and implement-
ing policies geared toward providing information to state and local govern-
ments and elected officials on the environmental effects of growth; and
2) statutes and regulations be drafted or amended to allow EPA flexibility
in administering its programs to productivelu address anticipated problems
due to growth rather than being limited to dealing with the resultant effect
once growth has occurred. Environmental critics and observers should
appreciate that the unparalleled growth which continues to transform the
Southwest often establishes the preservation of the status quo in relation
to the environment as the equivalent of measurable progress elsewhere. The
Region, therefore, needs a degree of flexibility in the application of cer-
tain traditional indicators of environmental results.
10
-------
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - EPA, Region 6, forsees all
EPA offices and programs to be involved, some continuously.
c. Timing Requirements - Dealing with growth as an environmental
problems will be necessary as long as present trends continue.
4. Environmental Reuslts:
a. Changes Seen from Previous Actions - No changes are evident. How-
ever, it is important to remember that preservation of the status quo may
actually represent positive results.
b. Environmental Objectives - EPA seeks to maintain environmental
quality and achieve improvements in the environment where such gain is a
reasonable expectation.
c. Expected Environmental Results - Developing specific measureable
results expected from the regional agenda and the requested headquarters
action is extremely difficult for this parameter. This is due to the fact
that: 1) growth does not lend itself readily to EPA or State government
influence; 2) growth affects a wide range of programs in varying degrees
and often at unpredictable times; and most importantly, 3) the preservation
of the status quo in high growth areas may be the equivalent of measurable
progress relative to areas with stable populations. However, certain en-
vironmental impacts, as measured through the various media trends analyses,
could possible be evaluated to determine relationships by the growth of
levels of contaminants, and, to some extend our ability in controlling such
factors.
11
-------
OZONE
1. Problem Assessment:
Region 6 has an ozone problem that needs further national guidance and
must use unique approaches to protect the health of citizens regionwide.
This will be a resource intensive effort.
There are currently 31 counties/parishes in Region 6 that are classified
as nonattainment for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). (See Figure 1.) Six urban areas (Dallas, Tarrant, and El Paso
Counties in Texas, East and West Baton Rouge Parishes in Louisiana, and
Tulsa County in Oklahoma) are classified as post 1982 nonattainment areas
and received calls to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions by
February 24, 1985. Harris County, Texas which is also an urban nonattain-
ment area, has been given an extension to demonstrate attainment by
December 31, 1987. Eighteen counties/parishes are considered rural ozone
nonattainment areas and are not now subject to SIP revisions that require
attainment of the NAAQS. A call for a SIP revision was made for another
potential rural nonattainment area, Denton County, Texas, with the re-
vision due in October 1985. The remaining areas are urban nonattainment
areas which are expected to be redesignated to attainment. They are:
Nueces County in Texas; and Bossier, Caddo, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and
Orleans Parishes in Louisiana.
The major components of the ozone problem are hydrocarbons (HC) and nit-
rogen oxides (NOX) emitted by automobiles and Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) emissions from stationary sources. Region 6 suspects that the lack
of continuous compliance from major stationary sources and increased auto-
mobile emissions because of a high rate of tampering and misfueling are
major contributors to the continuing ozone problems in Region 6.
Listed in Table 1 are the 18 ozone nonattainment areas in Region 6 which
are classified as rural nonattainment areas because they lack central city
populations of 200,000 or greater. The official EPA position in the past
was that they exceed the NAAQS because of the impact of emissions from
nearby urban areas. In January of 1984, the policy was revised to consider
the potential of a rural nonattainment area causing its own nonattainment.
In Region 6, we believe some of these areas are generating their own
problems. For example, in 1982 Jefferson County, Texas had VOC emissions
totaling 103,800 TPY. By comparison, Dallas County, an urban nonattainment
area, had VOC emissions of 82,400 TPY during that same year. The petroleum
Industry and other sources of VOC emissions in the Gulf Coast area have
created this unique situation in Region 6.
12
-------
7
Figure 1. Ozone nonattainment areas
1n Region 6
-------
Table 1
Rural Nonattainment Areas in Region 6
Orange Co., TX Ascension Par., LA Grant Par., LA
Jefferson Co., TX Iberville Par., LA Beauregard Par., LA
Victoria Co., TX St. James Par., LA Lafourche Par., LA
Brazoria Co., TX St. John the Baptist Par., LA Lafeyette Par., LA
Gregg Co., TX Calcasieu Par., LA St. Mary Par., LA
Galveston Co., TX Point Coupee Par., LA St. Charles Par., LA
2. Regional Agenda:
a. Regional Action/Plans - 1) A major initiative will be required to
determine if the problem is due mainly to emissions from automobiles or
stationary sources. Also, the impact of source upsets and malfuctions will
be evaluated so that corrective measures can be incorporated into the SIP
control strategy development process. 2) Additional ozone modeling will
be performed to determine the extent of VOC controls necessary. 3) A set
of criteria to determine ozone self-generation in rural areas has been
devised by Region 6. OAQPS reviewed the criteria and suggested modifica-
tions. Region 6 intends to identify self-generators by criteria based on
air flow patterns, ozone contamination from other areas, and natural ozone
levels. Then, Region 6 will call for SIP revisions for VOC controls in the
identified counties/parishes. 4) Region 6 plans to finish categorizing the
rural counties and discussing the results with the states by Fall 1985.
5) Calls for SIP revisions have been issued by Region 6 to the affected
states for the urban areas. 6) Additional HC and NOX data collection efforts
are underway in a 1985 special summer monitoring study. 7) Development of
mobile source control programs, such as anti-tampering programs, in all post
1982 non-attainment areas when needed.
b. Extent of State Participation - 1) Texas cooperated with EPA in
monitoring for nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) in eight nonattainment areas
in FY 1984. In the case of the post-1982 urban nonattainment counties,
these data were used in ozone modeling by Texas to obtain the amount of VOC
reductions required of Dallas, Fort Worth, and El Paso. Texas currently
estimates these reductions to be 52.8%, 51.5%, and 10.5%, respectively.
Louisiana worked with a private contractor to estimate VOC reductions needed
in the Baton Rouge area. In FY 1985 Texas and Louisiana are cooperating in
another, similar NMHC monitoring effort. Oklahoma is revising preliminary
ozone modeling for Tulsa by working with a private contractor during the
Summer of 1985. 2) FY 1986 air grants will require the states to study
the impact of source upsets/ malfunctions on attainment, as did the FY 1985
grants.
c. Timing Requirements - A call for SIP revisions is expected to go
out in late 1985.However, it may not include all affected rural areas due
to the Region's limited resources. Some will need to be addressed in 1986.
d. Barriers - 1) Texas and Louisiana may take serious issue with our
rural ozone classification criteria. Any controls ultimately proposed
14
-------
may be difficult to Implement because of increased resistance to tighter
controls on industries. (2) Modeling difficulties may delay control
estimates as would public protests over the proposed control strategies.
3. Headquarters Action Needed:
a. Sped fie Action Requested - Long range guidance needs to be pro-
vided to address nonattainment and its appropriate solutions. Specific
guidance has been, and will continue to be, required for modeling. A
National Policy for reasonable available control technology will continue
to be required. Also, uniform regulations across the Nation need to be
developed.
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Control Programs Branch, and Office of Mobile Sources.
c. Timing Requirements - Guidance should be given to Region 6 by
early 1986 in order for it to effectively evaluate new SIP revisions that
are required to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 1987.
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes Seen From Other Previous Actions - More stringent statio-
nary source controls and I/M programs are planned for several urban areas
of Region 6. Stationary source controls akin to those in effect in the
Houston area may be necessary for the industrialized, self-generating rural
ozone nonattainment areas of Texas and Louisiana.
b. Environmental Objectives - The object of additional controls is
attainment of the 03 NAAQS by the end of 1987.
c. Expected Environmental Results - Attainment of the NAAQS by the end
of 1987 is doubtful in Houston and Dallas Fort-Worth. Reduction of the magni-
tude of the ozone maxima may occur with these additional hydrocarbon controls.
15
-------
ACCIDENTAL RELEASES
1. Problem Assessment:
The Bhopal, India incident has raised a number of concerns from the public
as to EPA's preparedness in a similar toxic release situation. The new
air toxics national strategy, entitled "A Strategy to Reduce Risks to
Public Health from Air Toxics", addresses such accidental releases by
focusing on reinforcement of emergency preparedness and response capa-
bilities at all levels of government. Due to the heavy concentration of
petrochemical industries which manufacture and/or use toxic chemicals in
Region 6, the Regional office is initiating a program with involved States
to increase awareness of episodic releases in terms of preventability and
response, and to provide for increased coordination among involved Federal,
state, and local agencies.
2. Regional Agenda:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - It is anticipated that the
Regional initiative of addressing episodes of accidental release will result
in a clearer definition of this potential problem and increase preparedness
capabilities. This action is being taken in coordination with the Regional
Response Team to ensure that effective, up-to-date contingency plans are
being maintained, and to address the roles and responsibilities of the State
agencies in an emergency episode.
b. Extent of State Participation - The Region 6 States will be
evaluating their state regulations which require reporting in instances of
major upsets or accidental releases. In addition, they will be conducting
in-depth inspections of selected sources having the potential for major
accidental releases of toxic substances.
c. Timing requirements - This project, as outlined, is expected to
be completed under the FY 86 air grant objectives.
d. Barriers - Pending the outcome of the in-depth inspections,
possible barriers may include limited enforcement action, due to statutory
limitations, which may be taken in cases such as those involving reporting
violations.
3. Requested Headquarters Action:
a. Specific Action Requested - The national strategy for air toxics
has defined a direction in which the program will be moving; however, the
Regions need a clearer definition of their role in implementing the provi-
sions of the strategy. A question of funding and resources also exists in
terms of carrying out these strategy initiatives. If the focus in the
future will be on building State capabilities to control toxics as is
planned, Regional expertise must be augmented as well in order to provide
1) technical support to States and 2) public information on pollutants
and actions taken by States.
16
-------
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Federal Emergency Management Administration, Coast Guard.
c. Timing Requirements - In order to implement the strategy im-
mediately ,~gTiTolincT^oF~tFie~iregional office is needed as soon as possible.
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes seen from previous actions - No previous action has been
taken to address this particular problem.
b. Environmental Objectives - Objectives from this project include
1) enhanced capability in terms of emergency preparedness and responsive-
ness of Federal, state, and local governments, 2) identification of exist-
ing gaps in state upset/release reporting requirements, and 3) possible
enforcement action against facilities violating reporting requirements.
c. Expected environmental results - The outcome expected will be
the realization and awareness of the potential in our Region for an en-
vironmental emergency, and in the event of a major accident, what mecha-
nisms can be utilized to abate such an occurrence and prevent future ones.
17
-------
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
UTILIZATION AND DISPOSAL
1. Problem Assessment:
Sludge management, utilization, and disposal problems vary in complexity
and magnitude. Growth of municipalities and higher treatment levels
required to protect water quality creates additional demands for waste-
water treatment facilities that generates more sludge each year. Ineffec-
tive solids removal by wastewater treatment systems pass sludge into the
receiving waters. Inadequate sludge management programs create environ-
mental problems. Emphasis on sludge management is not equal to the
emphasis on wastewater management. While sludge problems are regional in
scope, they are usually site specific. The site specific problems occur
in the humid gulf coastal area as well as in the dry and arid locations.
The communities range in size from small rural communities to large metro-
politan cities.
Major sources and causes are municipal wastewater treatment facilities,
industrial processes that discharge to municipal systems, ineffective or
non-existent sludge management programs, inappropriate technology, and lack
of pretreatment. Sludge contaminants of concern are pathogens and toxic
substances, including hazardous wastes and heavy metals.
Major impacts are possible contamination of food sources, ground and sur-
face waters, transmission of disease, odors, files, and fear of the unknown.
The level of public concern generally is low, however, when ineffective
sludge management programs result in contamination, public concern becomes
high. Also, public concern becomes high on an individual basis when sludge
is introduced for the first time in the local enviroment without adequate
public participation and education. Relevant jurisdictions are States and
local governments.
2. Regional Agenda/Barriers:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - Region 6 has issued a strategy and
guidance for municipal sludge management, co-sponsored and participated in
State workshops. A continuous public information/education program on
sludge management is maintained for engineers, local governments, equipment
manufacturers, sludge generators and handlers working through university
and agricultural extension/cooperative systems. The Region provides over-
sight of State implementation of the EPA National Policy on Municipal Sludge
Management. This includes field inspection and evaluation of construction
grant projects and participation in follow-up enforcement where applicable.
b. Extent of State Participation - All States have been delegated the
Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal Program for Construction grants pro-
jects. Each State has a municipal Sludge Management Coordinator.
18
-------
c. Timing Requirements - A sludge management, utilization, and dispo-
sal program for each fiscal year is planned, including specific objectives
to be accomplished with budgets and dates for accomplishing the objectives.
d. Barriers - The major barriers are public misunderstanding and mis-
information and State codes which are too restrictive in land application
and reuse of sludge.
3. Headquarters Action Needed:
a. Specific Action Requested - Provide personnel and financial assist-
ance in conducting seminars/workshops and assure timely publication of regu-
lations and guidance.
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - Offices of Municipal Pollution
Control, Water Regulations and Standards, Solid Waste, Water Enforcement and
Permits and the Water Engineering Research Laboratory.
c. Timing Requirements - Same as Regional. Each fiscal year will have
a plan to achieve National and Regional objectives and goals.
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes Seen From Previous Actions - Increased beneficial use of
sludge. States and communities are more aware of EPA's Sludge and Manage-
ment Policy of maintaining or improving environmental quality and protect-
ing public health.
b. Environmental Objectives - Increased compliance
c. Expected Environmental Results - Increased beneficial reuse of
sewage sludge while maintaining or improving the environmental quality and
protecting public health. An indicator of environmental results would be
the number of tons beneficially used as related to total tonage generated.
19
-------
Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST)
Program
1. Problem Assessment:
Leaks and spill occuring from an Underground Storage Tank (UST) have been
contaminating the soils and groundwater for many years. It was not until
recently that EPA discovered just how serious the problem was. It is esti-
mated that there are over 2 million USTs operating in the United States
and 200,000 are currently leaking. The above figures do not include USTs
which have been abandoned with substances still remaining inside. In some
cases the contamination of UST leaks (especially gasoline) became so ser-
ious that entire buildings and community areas became a hazard zone due to
explosive vapors and contamination of water supplies. Due to the serious
nature of UST spills, on November 8, 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments were passed by the President. In Subtitle I, of the amendments
addresses the regulatory requirement for USTs storing regulated substances,
including petroleum. The implementation of the entire UST program will
take approximately 4 year. Certain timeframes have been set during the
4 years period in which the EPA, the States, or owner/operator of UST will
have to meet regulatory deadlines for implementing the program, (e.g.
notification requirements, interim prohibition, development of tank stan-
dard, corrective action requirements etc...).
2. Regional Agenda/Barriers:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - Region 6 keeps in constant con-
tact with the State agencies which have been designated by the Governors
of each State to receive the notification of USTs made by the owner/opera-
tor. Any changes or new developments that may occur in the UST program is
transmitted to these State agencies.
Region 6 provides assistance to owner/operators of USTs for the Interim
Prohibition requirements. The Prohibition requirements became effective
on May 7, 1985 and it prohibits the installation of an UST unless: 1) it
will prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the opera-
tional life of the tank; 2) it is cathodically protected against corrosion,
constructed of non-corrosive material, steel clad with a non-corrosive
material material, or designed in a manner to prevent the release of or
threatened release of any stored substance; and 3) the material used in the
construction or lining of the tank is compatible with the substance to be
stored.
The owner/operator of an UST can be exempt from the above requirements if
soil test conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard G57-78 or another
standard approved by the EPA, show that soil resistivity in an Installation
location is 12,000 ohm/cm or more. Any violaiton of the prohibition require-
ments will result in Regional Enforcement Action by the EPA.
20
-------
b. Extent of State Participation - The Region will consider the
possible scheduling of training workshops on the implementation of the UST
program. It will be the intent of the workshop to inform the UST community
of certain UST requirements which they must meet. The Region will also pro-
vide speakers for States and private organizations holding seminars which
includes the UST program. These seminars must be non-profitable or have
enough attendance from different organizations tobe advantageous for EPA to
provide a speaker.
c. Timing Requirements - Region 6 will be reviewing Grant proposals
from the State agencies that were designated to receive UST notifications
for FY 86 appropriations. 7 million dollars has been authorized for FY 86
and Region 6 will receive an allotment for $625k. The amount appropriated
to each state will depend on the need of each State. Some of Region 6
allotment can be used for contract activity that supports the UST program.
d. Barriers - None known at this time since the program has not begun.
3. Headquarters Actions Needed:
a. Specific Action Requested - The major problem in the implementation
of the UST program is the lack of guidance. Headquarters must furnish guid-
ance manuals in a timely manner so that UST facilities will have less trouble
in complying with the UST requirements. In addition, personnel involved in
the UST program should be readily available for seminars and workgroups.
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - Currently Headquarters staff is
in the task force stage.
c. Timing Requirements - Many UST facilities are still uninformed of
some of the recent requirements of the UST program (e.g. interim prohibita-
tion). A wider form of communication should be used to inform these facili-
ties of the current and future standing of the UST program.
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes Seen From Previous Actions - None since program has not
started yet.
b. Environmental Objectives - To ensure that the UST program fulfills
its purpose, there must be high incentive for UST facilities to comply with
the requirements. To accomplish this, EPA must be ready to offer guidance
and recommendations for any request of assistance. In addition, timely and
efficient implementation of the UST timeframes is necessary in order to
resolve the problems of contamination that USTs have been casuing for many
years.
c. Expected Environmental Results - The ultimate goal of the UST pro-
gram is to reduce hazardous waste and petroleum leakage from these tanks.
21
-------
NATIONAL BORDER
1. Problem Assessment:
In August, 1983, Presidents Reagan and de la Madrid signed the U.S.-
Mexico Border Environmental Agreement pledging cooperation at the highest
levels of both governments in the protection and improvement of the envir-
onment along the border.
This agreement designated EPA for the U.S. and the Secretariat for Urban
Development and Ecology (SEDUE) for Mexico as the two agencies in charge
of further coordinating and implementing the agreement. Three technical
workgroups for toxics, water, and air, composed of representatives of
these two Federal agencies, have identified priority issues for each envir-
onmental media in a 100 kilometer zone on each side of the border.
The Rio Grande forms a common international border between the U.S. and
Mexico for approximately 1,200 miles from El Paso to Brownsville, Texas
where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Basin population is approxima-
tely 2,580,000 people in Texas and Mexico (1980). For the most part, the
population is concentrated in municipalities on both sides of the river in
the upper and middle reaches, with the addition of numerous farms and
farming communities in the lower valley. Municipal facilities and oil and
gas production, storage, and transportation facilities are also located
along the river. The EPA/SEDUE technical workgroups have identified the
following as environmental concerns of highest priority.
The workgroup on toxics has listed the need for contingency planning for
accidental releases of oil and hazardous substances as well as the trans-
border movement of hazardous wastes as a primary concern. The water
quality concerns in the Rio Grande, as identified by the workgroup on water,
include raw sewage discharges in the Nuevo Laredo and El Paso-Juarez areas,
elevated pesticide levels in fish tissue and sediment, and frequent viola-
tions of water quality standards in some segments.
In addition, El Paso and Ciudad Juarez have a common air basin. The rela-
tively high elevation (3700 feet to approximately 7100 feet) means that
combustion of fossil fuels is less efficient, hence "dirtier," than compar-
able combustion at low altitudes. The situation is complicated by the
presence of an international border. In Ciudad Juarez emissions from
relatively old, uncontrolled automobiles, small manufacturing facilities,
and burning of wood, cardboard, and other "dirty" fuels contribute signi-
ficantly to the particulate, lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
ozone ambient concentrations. Approximately 500,000 El Pasoans and 1-million
Juarez residents are affected by these concentrations. The National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, and total
suspended particulates are regularly violated in El Paso, and the sulfur
dioxide standards are endangered there.
22
-------
[,,/U^/MEXlCAN BORDER ili
AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
CALIFORNIA
U)
NUEVO LEON
TAMAUUPAS-
-------
Region 6 has been coordinating with the States of Texas and New Mexico
to address these issues.
2. Regional Agenda/Barriers:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - Region 6 will continue working with
the border cities through the States to work toward the resolution of the
problems identified by the three U.S./Mexico technical workgroups.
In the area of contingency planning, Region 6 is working with the Texas
Department of Water Resources (TDWR) to insure that the City of Laredo, a
border community, has an effective plan to respond to environmental
emergencies resulting from accidental discharges of oil and hazardous
substances and that the various response plansindustry, city, State, and
Federal are coordinated to insure an effective and expeditious response.
This effort is being undertaken as a pilot exercise with the intent of
conducting similar exercises in the future with other cities along the
U.S./Mexico border.
The Region, working through the State, has implemented a study to iden-
tify the international shipments of hazardous waste from the EPA hazardous
waste manifest system. Region 6 intends to establish a communication link
with SEDUE to exchange information concerning transborder movement of
hazardous waste. The Region also plans to develop a bi-national pilot
training program to provide information to the U.S./Mexican customs and
border patrol officials to effectively implement the environmental re-
gulations and laws regarding transborder movement of hazardous waste. EPA
is presently consulting with the U.S./Mexico Customs Service to develop
the training program and to spotcheck imports/exports. Through the know-
ledge gained, the Region's long term plans include making suggested regula-
tory/ legislative changes and amendments to the U.S./Mexico Environmental
Agreement.
The EPA/SEDUE workgroup for water recently reached a tentative agreement
regarding acquisition and sharing of water quality data for the Rio Grande.
There was also agreement on the need to better define water treatment
requirements for facilities discharging to the Rio Grande from both
countries.
Relative to addressing the air pollution problems along the border with
Mexico, the Region anticipates a better Mexican effort in monitoring and
emissions inventory for the El Paso/Juarez area as a result of recent
training in air monitoring sponsored by Region 6 and provided through the
EPA/SEDUE Air Workgroup in June, 1985.
The Region will work with TACB to effect the most stringent inspection/
maintenance program practicable and will continue to provide training and
engage in technical discussions with SEDUE and enter into cooperative
monitoring/emission inventory work in order to better characterize sources
in the Juarez area.
24
-------
b. Extent of State Participation - TDWR is an active participant in
the contingency planning efforts along the border. The proposal to develop
a joint study for defining water quality problems and needs for the river
has been discussed with TDWR which has expressed a willingness to participate.
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is participating in the solution of the
air problem by developing strategies, timetables, and new regulations to
decrease hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions in El Paso. Specifi-
cally, El Paso ozone and carbon monoxide State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions are expected from TACB by September 1, 1985.
c. Timing Requirements - El Paso ozone and carbon monoxide State Imple-
mentation Plan (SIP) revisions are expected from TACB by September 1, 1985.
d. Barriers - To a large extent, the success of the Region in imple-
menting solutions to the various problems comprising the national border
issue hinges on the success of negotiations and agreements between the two
countries at the international level. Because Mexico's government is
essentially a centralized form of government, it is sometimes difficult for
the Region to coordinate actions at the local level. Region 6 will continue
working with the border cities through the States toward the various goals
established by the the U.S./Mexico technical workgroups.
Potential problems relative to meeting the goals of the water program
include difficulty in securing agreement and actual implementation of con-
trols once a study is complete and needs are better defined along with fund-
ing for data acquisition and water quality studies in fiscal years 1986 and
1987.
Anticipated problems in the air program revolve around the fact that there
is no indication that Mexico's efforts will parallel TACB's preliminary SIP
revisions for carbon monoxide which are intended to result in attainment by
the end of 1987.
3. Headquarters Actions Needed:
a. Specific Actions Requested - Headquarters clarification is reques-
ted on attainment of NAAQS's along international borders when an adjacent
foreign city significantly impacts American territory. In addition, special
appropriation, similar to the Great Lakes program which focuses attention
on unique problems along the Canadian border, is needed. Special monies
for the U.S. border problems would be used for such efforts as air data
collection, binational technical training, water quality studies, etc.
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - These include: Office of
International Activities, Office of Air Quality and Standards, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and Office of Water.
c. Timing Requirements - Guidance from Headquarters must be forth-
coming before December 1987 on the issue of foreign impact upon El Paso,
particularly if the NAAQSs are still violated in El Paso at that time.
25
-------
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes Seen From Previous Actions - Revisions recently proposed
by TACB press for vehicle inspection/SIP maintenance as well as additional
industrial controls will provide for speeded reductions of hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide.
b. Environmental Objectives - The primary objective of the water
pollution workgroup is to insure that wastewater discharged into the Rio
Grande from both sides of the border is adequately treated, thereby lowering
the health risk to users of the river and to define and implement, to the
extent possible, methods of controlling pesticide pollution of the water,
sediment and aquatic life.
Attainment of the NAAQSs for ozone and carbon monoxide by December 31, 1987
is an air objective. Quick reductions in ambient lead and particulate levels
are added objectives.
c. Expected Environmental Results - Expected environmental results from
contingency planning efforts for oil and hazardous substances incidents
along the border will occur primarily from the fact that the potential ramifi-
cations to the public health and welfare and environment should be minimized
as a result of pre-planning.
Regarding the movement of hazardous waste across the border, Region 6 ex-
pects over the next year to be able to estimate the volume and type of
hazardous waste involved in transborder movement from the hazardous waste
manifest forms. Also, Region 6 expects to be able to estimate manifest
violations and increase enforcement of the regulations through the spot-
checks at the border. The increased enforcement will lead to more enforce-
ment actions.
The preliminary TACB SIP revision strategies for El Paso will demonstrate
attainment by the end of 1987 only if comparable pollution reductions are
realized in Ciudad Juarez. In light of current economic and social realities
in Mexico, such reductions are presently highly doubtful. Localized improve-
ments in lead, sulfur dioxide and particulate levels will probably occur in
El Paso areas adjacent to stationary sources for which more stringent controls
will be required by Texas SIP revisions.
26
-------
SMALL PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
1. Problem Assessment:
The Public Water System Regulatory Program involves 15,649 public water
systems in five Region 6 States. Of these, the majority of the systems
and a majority of the problems occur in small systems (i.e. those serving
less than 3,300 people). These include 89.4% of the 8,011 community systems
which serve a resident population. The regional population (See Attachment
1) involved is only 17% of the total, but the problems of small systems
are numerous and worthy of the public health concern.
Many small public water supply syterns have difficulty in complying with
State drinking water regulations for a variety of reasons. They either
fail to comply with maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) for health related
contaminants in their drinking water, or they fail to sample or otherwise
monitor as required by State and Federal regulation. These may be indica-
tive of more severe problems in some instances. Where these problems are
persistent, a system may be supplying drinking water which is either unsafe
or is of unknown quality, evidenced by a failure to adequately sample and
analyze the water supply. A summary of the results of a recent analyses
(FY 79-84) is presented in attachment 2. It indicates a progressive upward
trend in overall compliance for public water systems. However, there con-
tinues to remain a significant number of non-compliant small water systems.
2. Regional Agenda/Barriers:
a. Regional Actions and/or Plans - In cooperation with the States,
other agencies, associations, and Headquarters, the Region is partici-
pating in extensive training and technical assistance programs for
small systems personnel. Technical assistance and compliance programs
are based on priorities aimed at major reduction to persistent
violations.
b. Extent of State Participation - The States have primary enforcement
responsibility (primacy) for the public water supply supervision program.
They participate with EPA in development of priorities for regulatory
operations, training, and technical assistance directed toward elimination
of persistent violations to drinking water regulations.
c. Timing Requirements - The State activities are being further stream-
lined by the adoption of specific timetables to assure "timely and approp-
riate" response to each situation. In the particular case of persistent
violators, each involved system will be tracked quarterly according to a pre-
set compliance/enforcement plan.
d. Barriers - The principal barriers to bacteria and turbidity com-
pliance are operation and maintenance problems within the systems and lack
of commitment by the operators. In small systems the economics are such
that the operator is only working part-time to cover all phases of the
system. These problems are addressed through operator
27
-------
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ATTACHMENT 1
OF COMMUNITY HATER
IN REGION 6
SUPPLY SYSTEMS
00
SIZE CATEGORY;
(population)
VERY SMALL
(<500)
No of CHS
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
(501-3,300) (3,301-10,000) (10,001-100,000)
VERY LARGE
(>100,000)
Population served
NO OF CHS'S;
% POPULATION
SERVED:
4,824
3.4%
2,335
13.5%
516
12.2%
306
32.3%
30
38.7%
8.011 (Total)
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
REGION 6 POBLlt RATER SUPPLY
PERSISTENT VIOLATOR AND TRENDS IN STATE COMPLIANCE RATES
COMMUNITY
FY 84
Persistent Violators - Percent
te
FY 83
v 0.0
I 1.0
1.5
0.2
( 0.9
% PWS
Bact. MCL
FY 84
0.0
0.8
1.3
- 0.3
0.9
With No
T
(0.75)
(0.75)
(1.50)
(0.70)
(0.75)
Violations
Bact. M/R
FY 83 FYJJ4
1.6
0.0
2.2
10.6
10.3
for
1.8
0.0
1.9
3.2
10.3
the Year
_T_
(7.0)
(0.0)
(7.0)
(9.5)
(9.0)
Turb. MCL
FY 83 FY 84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
'Turb. M/R
83 FY 84
0.1
0.0
2.7
7.2
1.6
1.8
1.0
2.8
7.7
1.6
(2.0)
(0.0)
(2.0)
(5.0)
(2.0)
Bact. MCL
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Bact. M/R
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Turb. MCL
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Turb. M/R
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
FY 79
89
85
85
87
92
Reg. ~55
78
88
32
34
64
Reg. 61
98
100
82
100
95
Reg. ~W
97
97
85
80
92
Reg. 91
FY 80
92
86
85
86
93
~5T
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84
99
100
91
100
96
T - TARGET
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
M/R - Monitoring and Reporting
92
92
92
85
95
83
97
63
56
71
73
99
100
85
100
97
"97"
96
100
91
87
92
~9T
Bact.
Turb.
95
90
90
84
94
91
97
70
56
67
72
99
98
83
100
97
-9T
97
100
89
92
96
~9T
- Ba
- Tu
93
98
74
66
69
TT
99
100
86
100
98
95
100
92
92
96
~9T
97
94
91
88
94
~ST
90
98
76
79
66
~7T
99
99
86
100
99
~99~
93
99
69
89
95
TT
(93)
(93)
(92)
(89)
(93)
(79)
(98)
(75)
(65)
(75)
,( 97)
(100)
( 97)
( 97)
( 97)
(100)
( 92)
( 92)
( 92)
29
-------
training and certification programs to upgrade the competence and pro-
fessionalism of the operator and through technical assistance visits by
State engineers to identify system deficiencies and stress the need for
quali ty control.
The barriers to chemical quality problems are public acceptance, the
non-acute nature of the hazard, the technology of treatment, and the
ultimate costs of a solution. These barriers are particularly evident
in the small system with a limited budget, reliance on a single source
of supply, and lack of highly-skilled personnel. These problems are
best addressed through the development of regional water systems, use of
alternate water sources, or application of low-cost treatment technology.
In many cases these solutions must await new technology.
A newly developing barrier in many States is the need to reduce monitor-
ing activities in response to budget cuts by State legislatures.
3. Headquarters Action Needed:
a. Specific Actions Requested - EPA Region 6 requests headquarters to
support State and Regional actions by initiating and completing Phases I-IV
of the Revised Regulations process; strengthening health effects guidance
on existing and new toxics; reviewing required monitoring frequencies and
apply appropriate changes; and developing appropriate guidance for enhancing
State and Federal public water supply enforcement actions against violators,
particularly the small system strategy.
b. EPA Offices and Programs Involved - The Office of Drinking Water
(ODW).
c. Timing Requirements - All of these actions need to be initiated
and completed during FY 86 and FY 87.
4. Environmental Results:
a. Changes Seen From Previous Actions - Compliance among small systems
in Region 6 has improved significantly over the past several years since EPA
and the States have set priorities based on number of violations and concen-
trated efforts on the reduction and possible elimination of persistent
violators.
b. Environmental Objectives - The protection of the public health of
rural and small town populations through the enhancement of water-quality
from small systems.
c. Expected Environmental Results - Safe drinking water from small
water systems.Environmental results indicators will be the reduction in
numbers of bacteriological and turbidity persistent violators and the popu-
lation served by the systems brought into compliance.
30
-------
Part III.
Regional Recommendations for the Agency's
Fiscal Year 1987-1988 Priority List
31
-------
We recommend changes In the priority list:
1. Add the UST program to Priority List because it is a problem which
affects millions of tank owners.
2. Place as #8 and lower all from #8-23 by one.
3. Add as priority #25 the following:
Perform a complete review of all agency data bases and prepare a report
on their reliability and utility for making management decisions to
achieve environmental results.
32
-------
Appendix A.
Environmental Results Indicators Pilot
A-l
-------
PILOT ERI No. I
OZONE in METROPOLITAN AREAS
Region Sis one of the fastest growing Regions in the county and has at
least maintained the ozone levels in their fastest growing cities.
The bar charts for the Cities of Dallas and Houston compare the average
2nd High Ozone Values and the Yearly Average Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
This shows a decrease in the ambient ozone level as compared to the city's
growth.
Average 2nd High Values are determined by averaging the 2nd High Values
from all the monitors within a city's limit for each year from 1980 to
1984. The 2nd High Value is chosen because it is more representative of
ambient zone level in an area.
The Yearly Average VMT is obtained from the city's Council of Government
for each year.
A-2
-------
DATA
Harris County
1
1980 .22
1981 .19
1982 .18
1983 .21
1984 .19
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
2 3
.21 .
.22 .24 .
.14 .18 .
.23 .20 .
.20 .18 .
SITE
1 2
0.13
0.16
0.12 0.16
0.13 0.16
0.12 0.09
SITE NUMBER
4567
27 .30
19 .19
21 .19
26 .28
19 .16
NUMBER
3
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.12
.26 .22
.18 .19
.19 .17
.22 .21
.16 .14
Dallas
4
0.18
0.15
0.16
0.08
0.16
8 9
.22 .24
.14 .16
.19 .19
.20 .20
.18 .17
County
ave
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.12
AVE
.24
.19
.18
.22
.17
VMT
12.0
12.4
12.9
13.4
16.0
VMT
17.5
18.3
18.8
18.9
19.4
mi 1 1 i on
million
million
mi 11 i on
million
03/VMT
billion 1.37
billion 1.04
billion 0.96
billion 1.16
billion 0.88
03/VMT
1.17
1.13
1.09
0.97
0.75
A-3
-------
0.75-
1
I
UJ
3
HARRIS COUNTY
1980
1981 1982 1983
YEARS
1984
Legend
ca OZONE
VMT
-------
1.50 n
DALLAS COUNTY
0.75-
1
1980
1981 1982 1983
YEARS
1984
Legend
E3 OZONE
VMT
-------
PILOT ERI No. 2
U.S./MEXICO AIR QUALITY
El Paso air quality trends for selected pollutants:
Carbon Sulfur
Ozone Monoxide Lead Particulates Dioxide
1981 2.6 8 10.6 215 72*
1982 3.1 10 6.6 159 83*
1983 4.6 7 5.7 116 81
1984 3.1 9 6.7 122 66
Ozone number of expected exceedances of NAAQs (to achieve attainment
the 3-year average must be less than or equal to 1.0); new site
1984 yielded 19.0
Carbon monoxide number of exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS (two exceed-
ance in one year qualifies an area as nonattainment)
lead-- highest quarterly average for year (in micrograms/cubic meter)
(an areas in subject to a SIP call with a quarterly average
reater than or equal to 1.55 microgram/cubic meter)
particulates highest annual geometric mean (AGM)
(in micrograms/cubic meter)
(an area qualifies as nonattainment with an AGM greater
than or equal to 75 micrograms/cubic meter)
sulfur dioxide highest annual aritmetic mean (AAM)
(micrograms/cubic meter)
(an AAM greater than or equal to 80 micrograms/cubic
meter is necessary for designation of an area to non-
attainment)
A-6
-------
Pilot ERI NO. 3
Water Supply Systems Compliance
A-7
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
REGION 6 POBtK RATER SUPPLY
PERSISTENT VIOLATOR AND TRENDS IN STATE COMPLIANCE RATES
COMMUNITY
FY 84
Persistent Violators - Percent
ite
FY
^i
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
83
MMB
0
0
5
2
9
Bact.
FY
^M
0.
" 0.
1.
0.
0.
Ma
84
I ^BIBHI
0 (0.
8
3
3
9
,0.
1.
0.
0.
T FY
*
75) 1.
75
50
70
75
0.
2.
10.
10.
83
6
0
2
6
3
Bact.
FY
»
1.
0.
1.
3.
10.
M/R
84
>
8
0
9
2
3
T
i
(7.
(0.
(7-
(9.
9.
0
0
0
5
0
Turb. Ma
FY 83
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
FY 84
0.0
1.0
5.6
0.0
0.6
Turb. M/R
T FY 83
d.o]
(0.0
(i.o;
ji.o!
0.1
0.0
2.7
7.2
(1.0) 1.6
FY 84
1.8
1.0
2.8
7.7
1.6
T
(2.0)
(0.0)
(2.0
(5.0)
(2.0)
% PWS With No Violations for the Year
Bact. Ma
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Bact. M/R
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Turb. Ma
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Turb. M/R
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
FY 79
Reg.
Reg.
Reg.
Reg.
98
100
82
100
95
97
97
85
80
92
FY 80
78
88
32
34
64
61
92
97
44
45
64
TT
96
92
80
80
92
"8T
T - TARGET
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
M/R - Monitoring and Reporting
FY 81
89
85
85
87
92
15
92
86
85
86
93
"BT
92
92
92
85
95
~W
83
97
63
56
71
96
100
91
87
92
FY 82
95
90
90
84
94
91
97
70
56
67
-JT
99
100
91
100
96
99
100
85
100
97
TT
99
98
83
100
97
H&7
97
100
89
92
96
FY 83
FY 84
97
91
94
89
94
"5T
97
94
91
88
94
"ST
[93)
93
92
89;
93
93
98
74
66
69
TT
90 (79)
98
76
79
66 J
[98)
75
65}
75)
-75- J
99
100
86
100
98
95
100
92
92
96
93
99
69
89
95
Bact.
Turb.
Bacteria
Turbidity
100
92
92
A-8
-------
VO
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SIZE CATEGORY;
(population)
ATTACHMENT 1
OF COMMUNITY HATER
IN REGION 6
SUPPLY SYSTEMS
VERY SMALL , SMALL % , MEDIUM % . LARGE VERY LARGE
(<500) (501-3,300) (3,301-10,000) (10,001-100,000) (>100,000)
No of CMS I I Population served
NO OFCMS'S:
% POPULATION
4,824
3.4%
2,335
13.5%
516
12.2%
306
32.3%
30
38.7%
8.011 (Total)
SERVED:
------- |