ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
REPORT
EPA REGION 6
DALLAS, TEXAS
iViAY 1983
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 27, 1985
SUBJECT: FY85 Environmental Management Report (EMR)
FROM: Jim Stiebing, EMR Coordinator
d'
TO: Addressees
Attached is the final FY85 EMR with a copy of the current distribution
list. If you receive any requests for the EMR please refer them to me for
response. As you know the EMR is an internal document but, like much of our
internal information, it is available to the public upon request.
Addressees
D. Whittington (6A)
F. Phillips (6D)iX
A. Davis (6AW)
J. Fleeter (6M)
M. Knudson (6W)
R. Rhoades (6ES)
P. Seals (60RC)
P. Charles (60PA)
B. Williamson (60CL)
B. Goetz (60CL)
Attachments
-------
Region 6
(Distribution of 1985 EMR)
Name *Copy
EPA Personnel
D. Whittington (6A) 1
F. Phillips (6D) ' 2
A. Davis (6AW) 3
J. Fleeter (6M) 4
M. Knudson (6W) 5
R. Rhoades (6ES) 6
P. Seals (60RC) 7
P. Charles (60PA) 8
B. Williamson (60CL) 9
B. Goetz (60CL) 10
State Personnel
W. J. Molie 11
Denver T. Lope 12
L. S. Pope 13
Zerle L. Carpenter 14
Jack D. Craig 15
Jim Hightower 16
Denise Fort 17
Dick Stamets 18
Buddy Temple 19
Charles Nemir 20
Sandra L. Robinson 21
Phyllis Garnet 22
Benjamin Saltzman 23
Jim Porter 24
Pat Norton 25
Larry Edmison 26
Ed Pugh 27
June Taylor 28
Susan Tixier 29
Dave Criner 30
John Gosdin 31
James Barnett 32
Joan K. Leavitt 33
John Townsend 34
Leonard Soloman 35
Melvin C. Tucker 36
Robert F. Odom 37
*copy number on-manual-
-------
State Personnel
William P. Stephens 38
Robert Bernstein 39
Bill Stewart 40
Bill Wright 41
Cathy Carruthers 42
Roy Bogle 43
Ron White 44
Jerry Mullican ' 45
Jerry Hill 46
Dave Cochran 47
Mark Coleman 48
Paul Hopkins 49
Larry Soward 50
EPA Personnel
B. Hathaway (6AW-DEP) 51
K. Kirkpatrick (6W-DEP) 52
G. Nehman (6M-DEP) 53
0. Ramirez (6ES-DEP) 54
J. Divita (6AW-A) 55
H. Smith (6W-6T) 56
R. Hoppers (6W-G) 57
R. Hartung (6W-E) 58
S. Becker (6W-P) 59
B. Elliott (6W-Q) 60
0. Cabra (6W-S) 61
M. Weaver (6W-S) 62
W. Rhea (6AW-H) 63
J. Hepola (6AW-A) 64
D. Ascenzi (6AW-AT) 65
K. Moore (6AW-AP) 66
J. Kim (6AW-HT) 67
C. Gazda (6ES-E) 68
C. Spotts (6ES-F) 69
D. Ayers (6ES-H) 70
M. Rojo (6ES-E) 71
P. Hatcher (6ES-F) 72
B. Hannesschlager (6AW-S) 73
G. Rausa (RD-674) 74
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TEXAS 7527O
September 23, 1985
To: State Personnel
The 1985 Environmental Management Report (EMR) for Region 6 has been
completed and submitted to the Administrator. As you know, the EMRs from
all of the regions are used to set agency priorities and to guide the
program offices in headquarters. They are an important part of the agency
planning process and I want to share the Region 6 EMR with you.
The EMR is an internal management document and we have made a limited
number of copies for distribution to those who participated 1n its
preparation. Requests for the EMR from the public will be honored as are
all such requests for agency information. Although we have no objection
to your copying all or part of the EMR, we would appreciate your referring
any request from the public for copies to us for response.
We had good participation in the EMR preparation from State agencies in
Region 6 this year. I want to thank you for this support from you and
your staff.
^rely yours,
Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
ifNT REPORT
SUBJECT Pf\GE_
* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Es_1
•* INTRODUCTION ^
* STATE COORDINATION 1?
* MEDIJM BY MEDIUM PREScNTATIONS 22
- AIR QUALITY 23
- WATER QUALITY 82
- DRINKING rfATZR
- GROUNDWATEfl 1 -,2
- UNDERGROUND INOF.CTION CONTROL 150
- TOXICS 155
- SUPERFJND -i7p
HAZARDOUS WASTE -r
RAJI AVION
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
The five States in Region 6...Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma and Texas...lie in the heart of the "Sunbelt". Growth of
population and and industrial activity throughout the Region have
been tremendous, increasing the pressures on the environment in
virtually every area.
The Region features many contrasts, including coastal wetlands and
arid deserts, large cities and vast rangelands, industrial concentra-
tions and fertile farmlands. The Region covers an area of more than
500,000 square miles and includes two of the five largest States in
the union. More than 25 million people live in the Region, with a Cop-
ulation increase of 50 percent expected by the year-2000. ' ;
The States in the Region produce about 55 percent of the nation's
oil and 85 percent of the nation's natural gas. In 198L, Outer
Continental Shelf, or offshore, oil and gas production in the Region
accounted for 96 and 99.8 percent respectively of the national
offshore production.
Manufacturing growth continues on the upswing in the Region, while
commercial and sports fishing are major industries throughout the
Region.
Delegation to States
Congress provided in most of the major environmental laws for a
strong State-Federal partnership built around delegation of the
implementation of environmental programs at the State, rather than
the national, level.
Delegation of environmental progr|ams has been given top priority by
the Reagan Administration. Nationally, in the last 20 months, the
delegation of program responsibility to State environmental agencies
increased from 33 percent to 55 percent. In Region 6, during the
last 16 months, delegation increased from 35 percent to 76 percent.
The States in Region 6 have become national leaders in assuming these
responsibilities.
ES-1
-------
Air Program
Most of Region 6 is currently classified either as "in attainment"
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or as "unclassified"
because of insufficient monitoring data.
There were 64 areas designated as "non-attainment" areas in 1978,
including 32 for ozone, 27 for total suspended particulates, 3 for
carbon monoxide and 4 for sulfur dioxide. Some areas are designated
as non-attainment for more than one pollutant. We believe that most
of these areas are now in attainment with about a dozen remaining in
violation of the standards.
During 1981, 21 counties and parishes in the Region showed measured
values over the alert level for at least one of the national stan-
dards. However, 18 of those were over the alert level only once.
An additional 21 counties/parishes showed measured values over the
primary standard for at least one standard, of which 16 were above
the standard only once. !
Reductions in emissions of pollutants has been achieved through
implementation of control strategies in the States' Implementation
Plans, or SIPs,. and through vigorous enforcement actions against
sources not complying with State or Federal clean air regulations.
Regulations which became effective in December 1982 are expected to
bring further air quality improvements during 1983.
Ozone is the major air quality problem in the Region, impacting
Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and El Paso, Texas; New Orleans and Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Tulsa, Oklahoma and rural non-attainment areas.
Other air problems are Carbon Monoxide in El Paso, Texas and Albuquer-
que, New Mexico; Total Suspended Particulates in Harris, El Paso,
Cameron and Nueces Counties in Texas and Bernalillo and Grant Counties
in New Mexico. A major barrier for reducing the ozone problem in El
Paso is the uncertainty about the amount of ozoneproducing emissions
crossing the border from Juarez, Mexico.
Water Program
Despite .the steady growth, the overall surface water quality of the
Region has remained constant or improved, with a few exceptions.
The major tools for improving water quality are the Construction
Grants and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs.
Since 1956, 4,769 construction grants totaling more than $2.7 billion
in Federal funds have been awarded in the States of Region 61 This
includes 1,877 grants under Public Law 84-660 totaling nearly $621
million and 2,892 grants totaling over $2 billion under Public Law
92-500.
ES-2
-------
Many of the more recently awarded projects are still underway but
the program has led to construction of nearly 1,900 treatment plants,
as well as other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge
handling facilities and lift stations.
A total of 6,686 permits have been issued in the Region since the
NPDES program began, including 1,938 to municipalities, of which 364
are classified as major dischargers, and 4,748 non-municipal, of
which 461 are classified as major. Region 6 has begun issuance of
"second-round" NPUES permits, giving first priority to facilities
discharging to waters where use impairment problems have been identi-
fied and where there is adequate information to issue permits based
on either water quality or on best professional judgment.
The organic chemicals and plastics/synthetics industrial category,
where major water quality problems have been identified, falls into
this priority category. Dischargers to the Lower Mississippi River,
the Houston Ship Channel and the Neches and Sabine Rivers have been
designated to be in the water use impairment category. This means
that generally facilities discharging into these waterways can expect
to have their permits reissued within the next year and a half.
The major water quality problems result from the impact of increased
population on municipal wastewater treatment plants and the increased
industrial development on wasteloads being borne by the surface
waters.
In Arkansas, it is estimated that 4,087 miles of the 6239 miles of
major streams will meet fishable/swimmable standards. In Louisiana,
92 of the 113 stream segments are classified as effluent limited
and 21 as water quality limited. A total of 13 segments are classed
as severely polluted. In New Mexico, water quality is consistent
with standards in more than 90 percent of the estimated 3,500 miles
of perennial streams. In Oklahoma, there are 23,000 miles of streams
and 663,000 acres of major reservoirs, with much of this water of
poor quality due to natural mineralization. Texas has 16,115 miles
of major streams divided into 311 stream and coastal segments. Of
these, 242 segments meet applicable stream standards or are projected
to do so soon, with the remaining 69 segments considered to be pollu-
ted.
Drinking Water Program
\
There are 15,649 public water systems in the Region, of which 8,011
are community systems serving an estimated 23.8 million people and
7,638 non-community systems serving the traveling public.
While most of these systems rely on groundwater for their major
source of water, the larger community systems serving almost two-
thirds of the resident population rely on surface water sources.
ES-3
-------
Tne water supply program has been delegated to all five States in
the Region. The latest evaluation of these programs by the Region
show positive compliance trends in both water quality and monitoring.
They also show a need for continued surveillance activities to maintain
compliance levels.
The majority of the bacteriological and turbidity violations occur
in small public systems. Even so, compliance with bacteriological
and chemical quality is at or about 90 percent throughout the Region.
Operation and maintenance problems are the major obstacles to compli-
ance. These are being addressed through operator training programs
and by technical assistance visits by State engineers.
Concerns for surface water quality in the lower Mississippi, Lake
Houston, Beaver Lake, the Lower Rio Grande, Caddo Lake and other
waters used for drinking water supplies emphasize a need for continu-
ing efforts to protect surface water sources.
Groundwater sources too are threatened by potential degradation
from hazardous waste sites; industrial pits, ponds and lagoons;
landfills, injection wells and other activities which place wastes
below ground level. Although all aquifers have been subjected to
limited incidents of contamination, the general groundwater quality
in the Region is good.
Toxic Substances Program
TSCA requires the Administrator to utilize all laws administered
by EPA when dealing with any chemical substance. Therefore, coordina-
tion is an essential responsibility in the toxics program.
One of the major parts of the toxic substances program deals with
threat of asbestos-containing materials in schools. The regulation
requires all public and private elementary and secondary schools to
identify friable asbestos-containing materials and notify employees
and parents of its presence. All Region 6 States have active pro-
grams underway to comply with the regulation. At this time, all
schools in Oklahoma, 98 percent of the schools in Arkansas, 73 per-
cent of the schools in Louisiana and New Mexico and 67 percent of
the schools in Texas have been surveyed.
The Toxics Program also directs the PCB enforcement strategy in the
Region. This strategy is designed to reduce the risk of spills
while PCBs are in service and to ensure that they are disposed of in a
proper manner when they are removed from service.
ES-4
-------
Another major current activity in the toxics program is the study of
lead in soil and its impact on children around secondary smelters in
Dallas, Texas and around a primary smelter in Bartlesvil le, Oklahoma.
A definitive study in Dallas resulted in a program for protecting pre-
school children from exposure. The Dallas study is being used in
discussions with the Oklahoma State Department of Health on address-
ing the Bartlesville problem.
Superfund Program
Region 6 is moving aggressively to implement the Superfund program.
There are 25 sites in the Region on the National Priority List includ-
ing eight in Texas, seven in Arkansas, four each in Louisiana and
New Mexico and two in Oklahoma. In most cases, the States are taking
the lead in the investigation and feasibility studies at these sites.
In addition, we have completed immediate removal actions at six sites
and planned removals at two. We have enforcement actions under the
Superfund program underway at 11 sites and have notified potentially
responsible parties at nine others. Enforcement actions, including
notice to potentially responsible parties, are underway at eight sites
not on the national priority list.
The major problem in the program at this time is the lack of State
resources in Arkansas and New Mexico to meet the 10 percent State match-
ing requirement of the Superfund program. Both States have requests
before their legislatures for funds to resolve the problem. None of
the five States have funds for the administrative costs of the program.
This lack of funds has led to some delays in the early stages of the
program throughout the Region.
Hazardous Waste Program
Responding to the initial notification requirement, 5,243 facilities
qualified for interim status in the Region by November 1980. In addit-
ion, 8,888 persons notified as generators of hazardous waste and 1,536
notified as transporters. By November 1982, the number of facilities
with interim status had fallen to 1,038, a 71 percent decrease result-
ing from determination that some notifiers were not handling hazardous
waste and from some operators ceasing the handling of hazardous waste.
By "November 1982, the number of generators had dropped to 7,152, a 20
percent decrease, while the number of transporters had increased to
1,582, a four percent increase.
A major problem for the program is the lack of sufficient data concern-
ing such questions as the number of existing and future facilities. This
need is being realized as the program develops and the data base is
being enlarged as rapidly as possible.
ES-5
-------
A second problem area revolves around the speed with which the program
has been implemented, the extensive revisions of the regulations since
their first publication in May of 1980 and the confusion existing not
only within the regulated community but also in the Federal and State
agencies concerning applicability of the rules and methods by which a
facility can achieve compliance.
An aggressive education and training of both facility and.Agency person-
nel is needed. Industry has begun educating and training their person-
nel through trade organizations, but the Federal and State training
activity is lagging.
The involvement of the public in permitting facilities and the general
public resistance to siting hazardous waste facilities are problems
that will be encountered as the program develops.
Pesticides Program
The pesticide enforcement program has been delegated to all five States.
Currently, EPA provides up to 85 percent of the funding for the States
to conduct the program. Training is also provided to State personnel
in investigative techniques, case preparation and analytical techniques.
A problem found in all five States is the drift of herbicides from the
target site to adjacent areas. Arkansas is addressing the problem
through pre-season inspections of commercial applicators to caution
about the dangers of careless application. Louisiana is seeking tighter
legislation to control the problem. New Mexico uses a system of perfor-
mance evaluations and training to reduce the number of incidents.
Oklahoma is making public announcements of operator suspensions and
revocations. Texas is recertifying aerial applicators and proposing
new regulations to limit certain pesticides to certified operators.
New Mexico and Oklahoma have also reported problems from careless use
of pesticides by pest control operators in homes and are addressing
the problem by similar techniques to.those covering drift.
The imported fire ant infests more than 91 million acres in Texas,
Louisiana and Arkansas. While there are registered pesticides to
control this pest in residential, recreation and institutional areas
and pastureland, there is no product registered for aerial application
to cropland since cancellation of Mi rex by EPA in 1977. An application
for registration of Amdro, including aerial application to cropland is
pending.
Radiation Program
Primary responsibility for protection of the public from release of
radiation from nuclear facilities rests with State and local govern-
ments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Department of Energy also have responsibilities in
emergency response and monitoring activities.
ES-6
-------
EPA can become . involved through assignments under the Interagency
Radiological Assistance Plan or under its independent authority, includ-
ing assistance to State and local governments in monitoring, evaluation
and in reaching decisions on protective steps to be taken.
Extensive uranium mining activities have been conducted in the Region,
chiefly in New Mexico and Texas. These activities have not been tightly
regulated, and EPA is presently engaged in assessing the environmental
impact that results.
About a dozen uranium mills have operated in the Region. About half
of them are presently closed with the others generally operating at
less than capacity.
EPA has set standards for the cleanup and disposal 'of tailings from
inactive mills, and the Department of Energy is presently planning
and performing remedial activities.
Standards for active mills are expected to be set later this
year.
A pilot study to determine the significance of radon and radon daughters
concentrations in living areas as a result of energy conservation
effort which reduce the air change rate is being conducted in New
Mexico. The study is expected to contribute to determination of what,
if any, corrective actions are needed.
ES-7
-------
Region 6
The five states in Region 6 — Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas -- lie in the very heart of the "Sunbelt". The contrasts in Region
6 are many: coastal wetlands and arid deserts; large cities and vast range-
lands; industrial centers and fertile farmlands. Region 6 covers an area
of over 560,000 square miles and includes two of the five largest states
in the Union. Its land mass lies within four of the world's five climatic
zones and includes land areas from below sea level in southern Louisiana
to over 13,000 feet above sea level in New Mexico. Availability of water
in Region 6 varies, with average annual rainfall ranging from less than 8
inches to more than 55 inches. Region 6 includes over 11,000 miles of
tidal shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico.
* |
Over 25 million people reside in Region 6, but about half of those li.ve in
the largest fourteen standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA). By
the year 2000, the population here is projected to increase by 50 percent
over the 1970 population. Region 6 includes three of the ten largest
cities as well as two of the fifteen largest SMSA's in the U.S. Population
density varies from 88 people per square mile in Louisiana to 11 people
per square mile in New Mexico. The population of Region 6 is growing at
-------
a rate over twice that of the U.S. as a whole and most of the population
increase is occurring in urban areas.
Region 6 has a broad cultural heritage and contains about one-fourth of
the Nation's Indian and Hispanic population. Of the tribal and trust
allotted, land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, over
15 percent is located in Region 6. A unique feature of Region 6 is a 1200
mile border with Mexico's most densely populated northern region. The
boundary separates nations with great economic disparity.
Region 6 has been and continues to be in the forefront of energy development
in the U.S. The states in Region 6 produce about 55 percent of the Nation's
oil and 85 percent of the Nation's natural gas. From 1954 to 1980, over
17,500 oil and gas wells were drilled in the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico off of Region 6. In 1981, DCS oil and gas
production in Region 6 accounted for 94 percent and 99.8 percent, respec-
tively^ the the national OCS production. Over 40 percent of the Nation's
total mineral production revenue comes from Region 6. In addition,
about 45 percent of the Nation's uranium reserves, 10 percent of the
coal reserves, and 15 percent of the lignite reserves occur in Region 6.
Energy production in the Region generates many associated activities.
These include the petrochemical and refining industries, which account
for about 70 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. production, respectively.
The States in Region 6 also consume a great amount of energy — over 18
percent of the consumption in the U.S. as a whole. Shipping is another
important industry that is tied to energy and industrial development in
Region 6. A number of large ports are located along the Gulf Coast,
including one of the largest ports in the world at New Orleans.
Although energy related development draws the most attention, Region 5
counts on a number of other major industries including agriculture,
construction, commercial fishing, manufacturing and tourism. Each of
the states in Region 6 has important agricultural lands. Over 23 percent
of the farmland and 11 percent of the timberland in the Nation is found in
the Region. Principal commodities are quite varied and include cattle,
poultry, cotton, soybeans, rice, dairy products, sweet potatoes, and citrus
fruits. However, agricultural land is disappearing in many areas of the
Region because of the increasing land requirements for energy develop-
ment and increased urbanization. Agricultural lands will also feel the
pinch as growth causes increased demand for agricultural commodities and
construction materials.
While manufacturing growth in many parts of the U.S. has been slowing,
manufacturing in Region 6 is on the upswing. The largest growth industry
is chemical and allied products although other industries such as non-
electrical machinery, fabricated metals, electrical machinery, primary
-------
metals, and electronics are also strong.
Commercial fishing is an important industry along the Gulf Coast. Sport
fishing is popular there as well as in freshwater lakes and streams
throughout the Region. Recreation and tourism, often focusing on the
diverse and scenic environment, provide additional economic benefits for
many local areas. Recreational opportunities are as diverse in Region 6
as they are anywhere in the country and many depend on the maintenance
of the quality of our outdoor environment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Region 6 has made and continues
to make great efforts to attain and maintain environmental quality in
the area under its jurisdiction. .We have made considerable progress in
many areas, but we still have our work cut out to maintain environmental
quality and to make improvements in areas where meaningful environmental •
gains are possible. A large part of our challenge is that our attractive
position in the the heart of the "Sunbelt" makes us vulnerable to the
environmental problems that so often are associated with growth and
development. We must strive to use our resources to protect the environ-
ment and human health where they will be most effective. Further, we
must accomplish these goals without unnecessary restrictions on economic
activity.
-------
REGION 6
POPULATION GROWTH
1970-1980
AREA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
REGION 6
i
UNITED STATES
POPULATION GROWTH
18.8 %
15.3%
18.2%
11.4%
27.0%
27.7%
23.1%
Modified fronv Stotl«tteo! Abstracts of the U.S. 1981
-------
REGION 6
METROPOLITAN GROWTH
1970-1980
METROPOLITAN AREA*
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.
AUSTIN, TEXAS
BATON ROUGE, LA.
BEAUMONT/PORT ARTHUR/ORANGE,
TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE/ HARLINGEN/SAN
BENITO, TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
DALLAS/FT. WORTH, TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
FT. SMITH, ARK.-OKLAHOMA
HOUSTON, TEXAS
KILLEEN/TEMPLE, TEXAS
LITTLE ROCK/N. LITTLE ROCK, ARK.
LUBBOCK, TEXAS
Me ALLEN/PHARR/EOINBURG, TEXAS
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
POPULATION GROWTH
36.4 %
48.8 %
31.5%
8.0%
49.4%
14.5%
25.1%
33.6%
26.7%
45.3%
34.3%
21.7%
18.0%
13.4%
19.3%
20.7%
12.1%
25.6%
56.0%
Includes metropolitan areas of 200,000 people or more
Source1 Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. 1981
-------
REGION 6
MINERAL PRODUCTION
Value of Mineral Production
1979
Crude Oil Production
1980
Natural Gas Production
1980
OCS Oil Production
1981
OCS Natural Gas Production
1981
-------
REGION 6
GROWTH IN NONAGRICULTRAL EMPLOYMENT
1970 - 1980
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
MEXICO
39,5
50,8
47,5 %
61,2
57,7 %
REGION 6
UNITB STATES
28,2
55,8 %
Mpdified from : Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1972 and 1981
-------
REGION 6
GROWTH IN TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME
1970-1980
co
AREA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES
GROWTH IN TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME
211 %
I
169%
221%
223%
243%
225%
Modified from1 Survey of Current Business —June 1981
-------
ARKANSAS
Arkansas is a beautiful land of mountains and valleys, thick forests and
fertile plains. It is known as the "Land of Opportunity" because of its
many factories, farmland, and rich natural resources. Perhaps because of
its location in the fast growing "Sunbelt", it is becoming a land of
opportunity more today then ever before.
The population in Arkansas increased almost 19 percent from 1970 to 1980 to
a total of over 2.25 million people. As with other states in the Region,
Arkansas's population is shifting from rural to urban areas. Many people
are migrating to Arkansas from northern states in increasing numbers.
Many people visit Arkansas every year as well. About 25 million people are
attracted to the mineral and non-mineral hot springs, the diamond hunting
opportunities, and to a variety of fishing, hunting, and camping activities.
Springs are especially plentiful in Arkansas. Thousands of people visit
some of the State's springs every year in hopes that the waters will relieve
certain physical ailments. Mammoth Spring in the Ozark Mountains is one of
the largest springs in the world.
Arkansas has a warm, rainy climate with warm to hot summers and cool winters.
Yearly precipitation ranges from about 40 inches in the mountainous northwest
to about 55 inches in the western and west-central parts of the State.
-------
Arkansas is a leader in many areas of mineral and energy development. The
State produces about 85 percent of the Nation's bauxite, a mineral used
in making aluminum, and also leads the nation in the production of bromine
and vanadium. Rich deposits of petroleum coal and natural gas can be
found in parts of Arkansas, often beneath fertile farm and timberlands.
Other important minerals produced in the State include barite, clays, and
natural abrasives.
The Mississippi River forms the eastern border of Arkansas. An elaborate
navigation system constructed along the Arkansas River allows boats to
travel from its mouth at the Mississippi all the way to Tulsa, Oklahoma.
This provides a critical transportation line to the Gulf of Mexico for
Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Agriculture also plays a very important role in the Arkansas economy. Not
only does the State produce one-third of the Nation's rice — more than
any other state -- but it also ranks among the leading producers of
soybeans, cotton and poultry. Arkansas leads the Nation in the production
of chicken broilers. Many of Arkansas's major crops are grown in the
alluvial plain along the Mississippi River. Timber development is also
important in Arkansas where forests cover 55 percent of the State.
The Little Rock - North Little Rock area is Arkansas's most important
manufacturing center. Important industries include food products, electric
and electronic equipment, and lumber and wood products.
10
-------
LOUISIANA
Louisiana, the "Bayou State", is characterized by bountiful natural resources
and a richly diverse cultural heritage. Perhaps more than any other
factor, water has been one of the driving forces behind Louisiana's history
of growth. The numerous rivers, bayous, creeks, lakes, marshes, and
bays have contributed to the State's unique personality, as well as its
economic growth.
Louisiana is a growing "Sunbelt" state -- with a current population of
almost four and a quarter million. The annual growth rate is 21 percent
higher than that of the U.S. About two-thirds of the population lives
in urban areas and almost one-half live in the metropolitan areas of New
Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport.
Millions of tourists visit Louisiana each year to see the old French and
Spanish sections of New Orleans and the stately plantations of old- Louisiana
families. Hunters come to shoot ducks and geese, while other sportsmen
pursue fresh and salt water fishing.
Most of the State has a hot, humid, subtropical climate. It is one of
the wettest states, with a yearly average of 56 inches of precipitation.
11
-------
In addition, since 1975, about 30 hurricanes and 55 lesser tropical
storms have battered its shores.
The mighty Mississippi River, the "father of waters", gathers momentum
along its.2,300 mile course and becomes a half-mile wide on its course
through Louisiana where it empties 300 billion gallons of water daily
into the Gulf of Mexico. New Orleans, the State's,largest city, is situated
along the River and ranks among the world's busiest ports. Ocean ships
can travel about 250 miles up the River to Baton Rouge, the State capital.
Louisiana has a tidal shoreline of bays, offshore islands, and river mouths
measuring 7,721 miles. Among the states, only Alaska and Florida have
longer tidal shorelines. Vast areas of important wetlands occur in
the coastal zone Of Louisiana as well as in other parts of the State.
Louisiana leads the Nation in natural gas production and ranks second in
oil production. Between 1954 and 1980, over 15,800 oil and gas wells were
drilled in the Louisiana Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However, production
of natural gas has declined since 1974 and production of oil has declined
since 1971. Louisiana has some 39,000 miles of natural gas and oil
pipelines that extend through every part of the State and more than 100
miles offshore. The 'first phase of the Louisiana Superport is now in
operation; supertankers are unloading crude at offshore terminals to
pipelines that feed r'efineries in Louisiana, the Midwest, and East.
Also, there are significant deposits of lignite throughout the northwest
portion of the State. •
Louisiana is also a major source of several nonfuel minerals. The State
leads the Nation in salt production and ranks second in sulfur mining.
With a yearly catch valued at about $138 million, Louisiana is a leader
among the states in commercial fishing. The State also ranks foremost
in the production of fur from wild animals.
Rich alluvial soil covers about a third of Louisiana. Few regions of the
world have so large a proportion of fertile farmland. The State's 34,500
farms, plantations, and ranches cover about 10 million acres. About a
fourth of the State's cash farm income is produced from soybean crops.
Louisiana ranks among the Nation's leaders in the production of cotton
and rice and nearly 20 percent of all the sugar cane grown in the U.S.
is raised in Louisiana.
Manufacturing in Louisiana is becoming more diversified. Petroleum,
chemicals, food products, metals and machinery, paper, transportation
equipment, lumber and wood, and electronics provide the base for a rich
and expanding industrial complex.
12
-------
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico is a rugged state with mountain ranges, canyons, and rocky
deserts covering much of its expanse. The State is the fifth largest in
area in the U.S., but it is very thinly populated. New Mexico is known
as the "Land of Enchantment" because of its scenic beauty and rich history.
Although still sparsely populated, New Mexico is growing rapidly because
of its position in the "Sunbelt". The 1980 population of almost 1.3
million represents an increase of about 28 percent over the 1970 population,
Although urban areas constitute less than 1 percent of the State's
total land area, over 70 percent of the New Mexico population resides in
those areas. The State is also very attractive to tourists who go there
for sightseeing, skiing, hunting, fishing, and camping.
New Mexico has a diverse cultural heritage. Most of today's residents are
descended from one of three major groups that settled the area: Indians,
Hispanics, and Anglos. Almost 18 percent of the Indian trust allotted and
tribal land in the U.S. is located in New Mexico. The Federal government
owns or reserves about a third of the land in New Mexico. National
forests, defense installations, energy operations, and Indian reservations
take up most of this area.
13
-------
New Mexico has a dry climate. Precipitation ranges from over 20 inches
— much of which is from snow -- in the northern mountains to less than
10 inches in the south. The mountain areas, which attract the snow skiers,
may get as much as 300 inches of snow a year. Temperatures may vary widely
across the State with generally warm summers and cool to cold winters.
Historically, New Mexico has depended upon farming, ranching, and mineral
production as the bases for its economy. Presently, other sectors of the
economy -- including recreation/tourism, government at all levels, and retail
.trade and services -- are broadening the economic base.
New Mexico's land is rich in minerals and part of its soils are fertile,
but water is extremely scarce. ! This lack of.water has limited New Mexico's
growth somewhat, but it has spurred the State to make the best use of
the water it has.
New Mexico has large reserves of energy minerals such as coal, natural
gas, petroleum and uranium. More uranium is produced in New Mexico than
any other state. New Mexico also has the largest U.S. reserves of potash
'and has imprortant deposits of other mineral's such as copper and zinc.
Farms and ranches .cover about 47 million acres in New Mexico. The most
'important agricultural activity is ranching, and cattle and sheep out-
.number people by almost two'to one. Important fjeld crops include hay,
[wheat, cotton, and pecans. Much of the irrigated:farmland is located
along the Rio Grande — which forms the backbone of the State -- and the
Pecos River.
14
-------
OKLAHOMA
Mild climate, abundant natural resources, plentiful recreation opportunities,
and bustling cities and towns have made Oklahoma a contemporary land'of
opportunity. Oklahoma is strategically located in the middle of the
U.S. and has been called "the Buckle of the Sunbelt". It includes ten
major land regions and is characterized by grassy plains, rolling hills,
granite peaks, forests, and prairies. Sunny skies and.an abundance of
surface water make fishing, swimming, boating, and water skiing a major
part of the myriad recreational opportunities throughout the State.
Oklahoma experienced an 18 percent population increase in the ten years
proceeding 1980. About two-thirds of the current population of over
three million live in urban areas. Over half of those live in the two
largest metropolitan areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Due to lower
living costs and lower taxes, Oklahoma ranks nationally near the top in
personal disposal income.
Rainfall across Oklahoma varies from 16 inches per year in the high
plains of northwest Oklahoma to as much as 56 inches in the eastern
"rainbarrel", where there is a concentration of ten lakes with power
generating installations. Each year, about 30 million acre-feet of water
pass through hydroelectric turbines to generate electrical energy to serve
the power needs of Oklahoma and nearby states.
Oil and natural gas activities have a long history of important contributions
to the growth of the State's economy. Oklahoma's oil reserves are among the
largest in the U.S. Presently known recoverble gas reserves in Oklahoma are
11 trillion cubic feet, while production averages about 1.7 trillion cubic
feet annually. And this doesn't count the recently discovered and partially
15
-------
developed Deep Anadarko Basin in western Oklahoma. Oklahoma oil production
is forecast to increase in 1983, marking the third straight year of
oil production increases. About 50,000 miles of pipelines carry Oklahoma's
oil, natural gas, and refined products to other states.
The value of non-petroleum minerals produced in Oklahoma totaled an estimated
$234 million in 1981. Minerals are produced in varying amounts, but those of
economic significance include bituminous coal, stone, clay, sand and gravel,
gypsum, tripoli, salt, granite, iodine, and heluim.
Manufacturing in Oklahoma is widely diversified, with products ranging
from automotive parts and aircraft to valves and window glass. The
nonelectric machinery industry's leading products include oil field.
machinery and equipment and electronic computing equipment. Since.1960,
Oklahoma has experienced an increase of 120 percent in manufacturing employ-
ment compared to an increase of 21.2 percent for the U.S. as a whole.
Agriculture accounts for about 20 percent of the value of goods produced in the
State. Oklahoma ranks second among states in wheat production, and livestock
production accounts for about 63 percent of Oklahoma's annual agricultural
sales. The livestock Industry has boomed in recent years, and Oklahoma .
now ranks third nationally, in the number,of cows with more than 2.4 million
animals. Lumber and related industries also play an important part in the
Oklahoma economy. |! ' '
16
-------
TEXAS
Texas Is a land of contrasts. Its amazing variety of resources and people
has left a profound mark on the Nation's history and the State promises to
retain a position of influence, guiding the country's future. The spirited
contrast of cultures is accented by a diversity of land forms and climates.
Texas is 267,336 square miles of moist eastern piney woods, open savannah,
subtropical coastline, fertile prairies, high treeless plains, broad
stretches of Chihuahuan desert broken by Trans-Pecos extensions of the
Rocky Mountains, and barrier islands. Rainfall ranges from less than 10
inches a year in the west to over 48 inches a year in the east. Texas
includes vast open spaces with few roads and few people, as well as 25
metropolitan areas. Nearly 70 state parks and two national parks, as
well as a total of 6,300 square miles of lakes and streams, offer scenic,
historic, and recreational opportunities.
Change is certain to be as much a part of Texas' future as its past. In
the 15-month period between April 1980 and July 1981, Texas emerged as
the new leader in the U.S. in absolute population growth. During the decade
from 1970 to 1980, Texas' population increased 27.0 percent, compared to the
17
-------
national rate of 11.4 percent. It is estimated that as much as 60 percent
of the State's population gain over the decade has been due to in-migration.
As the population grows, pressures are increasing on water supplies and
transportation facilities.
Texas' momentum in recent years is the product of special circumstances,
among them the rapid rise in energy prices, the State's generally favorable
climate, good job opportunites, and attractive circumstances for private
enterprise. Despite the historical record, however, the high growth
rate cannot be counted on to persist.
Energy has always been important to Texas and will continue to be so in the
future. A declining trend in Texas' oil and gas production, however, has
significant implications for State revenues as well as for every sector of the
Texas economy. Even so, Texas continues to lead the Nation in petroleum and
natural gas reserves. Over 1,900 oil and gas wells were drilled in the Gulf
of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off of Texas since 1954. Texas
also leads the Nation in both the number and capacity of refining operations,
as well as in capacity for the production of basic petrochemicals.
Lignita, coal, and uranium production .has increased substantially over
the past ten years. As significant as the increase' in coal and uranium
production has been, the increase has offset only a;bout 25 percent of the
petroleum production decline in the same time frame1.
Given the likelihood of a continuing decline in Texas energy production
and the likelihood of a considerable expansion in Texas energy consumption
requirements, the economic growth of Texas may have to depend increasingly
on energy imports. The advantages Texas has enjoyed over the past decade
as a net energy exporter may be constrained somewhat in the future.
The two most important industrial centers in Texas are Houston and Dallas-Fort
Worth, which together represent over 50 percent of the State's manufacturing
output. Aside from energy production, leading industries include non-
electric machinery, fabricated metal products, food products, transportation
equipment, and electrical and electronic equipment manufacturing. Texas
produces all of the graphite and magnesium in the country and ranks first
in the Nation in electric power production.
Texas has 600 miles of coastline and more than 400 miles of intracoastal
waterway, including|25 ports. Commercial fishing is an important industry,
and shrimp production is among the highest in the Nation.
Texas leads the country in the production of cattle, cotton, sheep, and
wool. It has more farms and farmed area than any other state. However,
the rate of increase in agricultural productivity was halved between 1973
and 1978 as a result of the increasing cost of inputs.
18
-------
STATE COORDINATION
The success of environmental programs require strong state-federal part-
nerships. Congress envisioned these strong partnerships when it created
.the major environmental laws that provide for ultimate implementation of
environmental protection at the state level. This is a continuation of
the concept that laws are best effected by those closest to the matter.
Region 6 State environmental program responsibilities are outlined in
Table I.
Delegation of environmental programs as envisioned by Congress is a
top priority of the Agency. Nationwide in the last twenty months the
delegation of program responsibility to state agencies increased from
33 percent to 55 percent of those programs that can be potentially
delegated. In Region 6 during the last sixteen months this state
delegation has increased from 35 percent to 76 percent. The status of
delegation in Region 6 is summarized in Table II.
The success of this delegation is evidenced by marked improvements i.n
the quality of our environment. For example, in the public water supply
program, bacteriological violations account for about 85 percent of total
violations reported. Since 1977, when our five states assumed this
responsibility; the compliance with monitoring and reporting regulations
improved from 61 percent to 72 percent . Compliance with the bacteriolog-
ical standard for drinking water (actual water quality) improved from
89 percent to 93 percent.
The states in Region 6 are national leaders in assuming responsibilities
for environmental programs. Texas and Louisiana share the honors of
being the first states in the nation to be delegated the entire Under-
ground Injection Control (UIC) program. Oklahoma has been fully delegated
the (UIC) program, with Arkansas and New Mexico being partially delegated.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Texas became
first in the nation to assume Phase Two of the hazardous waste management
program, and Arkansas was third. All states in Region 6 are responsible
for enforcement of pesticide regulations and certification of pesticide
applicators. In the Superfund program, to date 91 percent of the sites
in Region 6 are state leads or under Cooperative Agreements. All states
in Region 6. are also active in the air and water programs. Significant
delegations have also been accomplished in the air programs and in other
water programs.
The real achievements in environmental protection and improvements are the
results of our strong state partnerships. With the cooperative efforts of
state agencies and federal government, the citizens of our states c3n look
forward to continued environmental improvement in the years to come.
19
-------
TABLE I
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES
STATE
AIR QUALITY
HATER
QUALITY
OR INK INS
WATER
UIC
TOXICS
SUPERFUNO
RCRA
PESTICIDES
RA21AT10N
ARKANSAS
Dept. of
Pollution
Control 1
Ecology
Dept. of
Pol lution
Control t
Ecology
Dept. of
Health
Dept. of
Pollution
Control S
Ecology
011 S Gas
C omission
Oept. of
Pollution
Control 1
Ecology
Dept. of
Healtn
Oept. of
Education
Oept. of
Pollution
Control S
Ecology
Dept. of
Pollution
Control S
Ecology
Plant Board
Oept. of
Health
LOUISIANA
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
Oept. of
Natural
Resources
Oept. of
Healtn 1
Human
Resources
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
Dept. of
Health S
Human Res.
Dept. of
Education
Oept. of
Natural
Resources
Dept. of
Natural ,
Resources
Oept. of
Agriculture
Dept. of
Natural
Resources
NEW MEXICO
Envlronmen-
til
Improvement
Division
Environmen-
tal
Improvement
Division
Environmen-
tal
Improvement
Division
Environmen-
tal
Improvement
Division
Energy 1
Mineral!
Dept.
Env1 ronmen-
ta!
Improvement
Division
Oept. of
Education
Envi ronmen-
tal
Improvement
Division
Environmen-
tal
I.nprovenent
Division
State Dept.
Agriculture
Env» ronmen-
tal
Division
OKLAHOMA TEXAS
State Dept.
of Health
Itate Dept.
of Healtn
Oept. of
Water Res.
Conservation
Comission
Dept. of
Poll. Con.
State Dept.
of Health
State Dept.
of Health
Corporation
Comission
State Oept.
of Health
State Dept.
of Healtn
Dept. of
water
Resources
State Oeot.
of Healtn
Dept. of
Agriculture
State Oept.
of Healtn
A1r Control
Board
Dept. of
water
Resources
Dept. of
Healtn
Oept. of
water
Resources
Railroad
Commission
Dept. of
Healtn
Texas
Education
Agency
Oept. of
Water
Resources
1
Oept. of
Water
Resources
Oept. of
Healtn
Oept. of
Agriculture
Oept. of
Health
20
-------
TABLE II
STATUS OF DELEGATION
no
cnsiiuc.
tin
own
UIC
..,..1.5
teliWIM
a;/ lo/ii
,-. -.:. :
0«lt94ttd
ot/2*/ai
-. -
AeplKtUOM lor
CUif II to t«
lubvlttt* in
•47 «* . ...
lOUUIAM
teUwtttf"
8WO//W
" ~ '-. '.
iUlt otcliH«d
to »*»«
d*(4«4tlM «t
Sisir
NU NftICO
kli'iilM
04/UI/IH
Slit. ..II
catttotr
iicrtUM
I. II 11
Ctltl 1,111.1V .-
It iMItwid
OJ/Oi/ll -
OIIMW
0>K«ii
f '".
0*14 tt4
M/U/ 71
Cl«tl 1,111, It. t
11 Ml* 44 ltd
V4/2J/U
rvtitq |S:«tt 1 IP* ...... -.»..",,
. *f0qr4»;au(unlrii, Uo t**>
;• M»ai >»t#;«tion it
10/06/W t'* jit4(* It i
,|^*/ai
ov**lop St»it
Mt iittrtMwctd
Full 4*l«qdt10*
W/lfc/W
09/01/dl -^^
full Ml*4«t1on
vipKtM IK -
*«•
07/U/U
l wl»t
O'/it/ai •:•
Full <*l*9dtlon
)Gtt4 U- - '.
fl U • -
09/14/81
full Ml«f4t10
Firtl4l
dtl*4«tton
01/2VS2
•if, '«t
ration
U/li/JB
Q9/1I/BI :
full dtl*4«ttoi>
01/30/K
US/JJ/H? '-
Full Mli9«il
tip*cim ID
'
Full Wltg
I2/29/B2
ll/WK
1 VHUC II
)*epiicjt)en
'^'"9 fT U
C* '*(;*(«
12/01/U 01/Z3/«2
|fT aj
I "
t>ppct*d in |Mt«q4t*M tn rip*ct«d i
FT «4 {FT 84 FT II
o - [••>.•'• .1 ,»
|««gtlC4tlfl«
' >OttttH In
FT 8J
APPUCAMIM
UlUflUtlO*]
I I Delegation Planned
| | Under Consideration
"| Fully Delegated
"| Partially Delegated
21
-------
MEDIUM 3Y MEDIUM
PRESENTATIONS
-------
AIR QUALITY
le of C3nt.«n:3
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Subject
AIR PROGRAM 26
AH QIALITY 26
Ozone (03)
Caroon Monoxide ;CO)
ro-..^l E'js^anjad ^ari-icuiatas (TSP)
Sulfur D'oxide (302)
NHrogan Dioxide (Ml?)
Lead
Air Toxics
Acia Rain
PART I! - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AMD IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
;.If. fJI-'MiT' PJ.SF.l.HM
Si('mfic:c;ir: A1:* QiMlit.v Svoh1;'in:> 39
Existing Proaltrs
Em«i*ging Problems
Discussion of Significant Air Quality Prcblanvs 59
Ozore Prob'.'cin Areas 39
-- Harris Cct.nty fHai'r.ton), Toxas
- Dallas Courty (Dallas), Taxas
- Varraiii: County (Fort Worth), [?'ina
- Ti.l'sa UUP;;/, OkUhona
- R'jra" Ncr,att;dinn«,ii; ^rees, 7(-./as and Louisiana
Priicipal fJi,7i&iM' 50
Iiulicatif.rt for A-jancy Mariagsmsnt 53
Carbon Mroo/.ids Prop1 ».TI \'-e&* 53
- ^lijucuarqwa., .Nfiw f'eirco
- El !Ja;o, T-^xii i
Principal Harris.-? 55
Imp1icacicr:> fT- Aqency
Total Suscencej cc rti cul ate Prcr.lem Prtjji 57
- Texas
- New Mexico
Princioal 3?rr>iars 53
s for Aot?n :y Managcinjnt 63
23
-------
Tacle Q': Ccrten:? (Coin d)
.Subject, - ?$3.
Lead Problem Areas 65
Principsl Barriers 65
Implication; for Agency Managam^rt 66
Air Toxics
ATTACHMENT A: MEDIUM OVERVIEW 69
Ozone
Carbon Monoxic's
Total Suspended Farticul&tes
Sulfur Diox'de
Nitrogen Dioxiae
I.?! Etc!
Air Toxic?
Acid .Uin
LIST CF TABLES
> ] - Summary of Na;iiral Anibv ant Aiv> U'd"1'!
Standards iid -'.I'tri, Levels
Tible 2 - Ncral-.tafnris.nt Areai in R?gior f>, 3S"f"
Tc.ble 3 - 0: Tr:?.nds in ?.tyir»n 5
Tabl.:-: •* • CO Trends 'n Region 6
Table. S •• TSP Trends • 11 Ragion 6
Table (5 - 'JOc '"I'srd-i in Rs County, Texas
FIGURE 4 - Ozone - Tarrant County, Te/.&j
FIGURE 5 - Ozone - Fl Paso Ccunty, Texss
FIGURE 6 - OZOOP - Orleans Perish, Louisiana
FIGURE 7 - Ozone - ess* Baton xouge, Louiflapa
cIGUfsiors for Ozone frct-lttT
Araas, l"-?7 \- .''exlcc
FIGUPE 11 •• G: - T1 "330 Cojrtv, "'V-as
FIGURE 12 - TS° - l-h^Hs Cru;r:y, "exas
FIGURE 13 - Toc - El Jasc Cotrvcy., Texas
FIGURE 14 - TSP - Umeror. Ccunty, Te/.ai
FIGURE .1.5 - TSP - Nueces Ccninr.y, Texas
-------
Talle ov Contents
LIST OF FIGURES, Ccnt'd Page
FIGURE 16 - TS? - Sarnaliro Court.y. &«v Merico
FIGURE 17 - TSP - Grant County, New Mexico
FIGURE 13 - Lead - El Paso and Dallas Counties, Texas
FIGURE 19 - txeeeciance o* tre Primary Standard
and Aler*. level for 03 In
Region o, 1S' Region 5, 1381
FIGURE 25 - S02 Atta^riTient Status in Region u, 1978- 1?82
FIGURE 26 - Exceeaarce of the Mroary Standard and Alert
level for S:)p in Region 6. 1981.-
FIGURE 27 - Excaedancs or the Primary Standard ana Alert Level
for In Re:ion 6. 1981
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
AIR PROGRAM
The Clean Air Act (CAA) states that the "prevention and control of air
pollution at its source is the primary responsibility of State and local
governments." The Federal Government is generally responsible for setting
air quality standards, promulgating regulations, and overviewing the State's
programs. The CAA requires States to prepare plans for attaining and
maintaining the air quality. These State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
include control strategies describing how the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) established under the CAA will be met. EPA reviews and
approves these plans and the States implement them.
The CAA (Section 105) authorizes funds for the State and local governments
to use in improving and maintaining air quality. These funds are provided
through performance based grant agreements. These agreements contain
objectives for the States' planning, monitoring, compliance, emissions
inventory and other air program activities. In Region 6, the States of
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and New Mexico and the cities of
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, Galveston, Houston,
and San Antonio, Texas receive 105 grant support for air pollution control
programs.
The CAA provides for States to assume authority for programs controlling
emissions from new sources. These include the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) programs.
In.Region 6, Arkansas has full authority for these three programs; Texas
has partial authority for the PSD program and full authority for the NSPS
and NESHAPs programs: Louisiana has partial authority for the PSD and NESHAPs
program and full authority for the NSPS program; Oklahoma has partial
authority for the PSD (their PSD SIP has been proposed for approval) and
partial authority for NSPS and NESHAPs while New Mexico has partial authority
for all three programs.
AIR QUALITY
The status of and trends in air quality in Region 6 can most easily be
shown through a comparision of the values obtained in monitored areas to
the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants. Measured values over the primary
standard, or exceedances, are an indicator of the air quality. EPA also
established levels greater than the NAAQS for each criteria pollutant at
which public health could be endangered. The level at which the first
stage control actions are to begin is called the alert level. These levels,
along with the primary and secondary NAAQS for the criteria pollGtants,
are shown in Table 1.
During 1981, 21 counties and parishes in Region 6 showed measured values
over the alert level for at least one of the NAAQS, (Figure 1). However,
18 counties/parishes exceeded the level only once, and 11 were only
for total suspended particulates. Twenty-one additional counties/parishes
showed measured values over the primary standard for at least one NAAQS;
26
-------
TABLE 1 --.-.-..
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ALERT LEVELS
., !
POLLUTANT
Paniculate
Matter
'
Sulfur
Dioxide
Carbon
Monoxide
'
Mi troyen
fJi oxide
Ozone
Lead
AVERAGING;
TIME
Annual
(Geometric Mean)
24-hour*
Annual
(Arithmetic mean)
24-hour*
3-hour*
8-hour*
1-hour*
Annual
(Arithmetic mean)
1-hour
24-hour
1-hour**
i
Calendar Quarter
PRIMARY
STANDARDS
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
00 ug/in3
(0.03 ppm)
365 ug/m3
(0.14 ppm)
10 mg/m3
(9 ppm)
40 mg/m3
(3b ppm)
100 ug/m3
(0.05 ppm)
235 ug/m3
(0.12 ppm)
1 .5 ug/m3
(.006 ppm)
SECONDARY
STANDARDS
60 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
1300 ug/m3
(0.5 ppm)
(Same as primary)
(Same as primary)
{Same as primary)
(Same as primary)
ALERT
LEVEL
375 ug/m3
800 ug/m3
(0.3 ppm)
17 mg/m3 (15ppm)
1130 ug/m3
(0.6 ppm)
2fi2 ug/m3
(0.15 ppm)
400 ug/m3
(0.2 ppm)
1
I COMMENTS
1
|The secondary an-
Inual standard (60
ug/m3) is a guide
for assessing SIPs
to achieve the 24-
hr, secondary std.
I . uwu |JP'" I
•Not to he exceeded more than once per year, for primary and secondary standards.
**IJot more than 1.0 exoected exceedance ner year. 3-year averaqe.
-------
FIGURE 1 - Counties in Region 6 Exceeding the Alert or Primary Standard for at Least One Pollutant - 1981
ro
CO
O No evidence of primary exceedances
for any pollutant
% Primary standard exceedance for at
least one pollutant *
Alert level exceedance for at least
one pollutant
TSP exceedance only
-------
16 of these counties/parishes also had only one exceedance. More detailed
information on these exceedances across the Region is provided for each
criteria pollutant in Attachment A of this report.
The majority of Region 6 is currently classified as attainment for the
NAAQS, or there is insufficent monitoring data to classify the area. There
are 64 areas designated as nonattainment: 32 for ozone (03), 27 for total
suspended particulates (TSP), 3 for carbon monoxide (CO) and 4 for sulfur
dioxide (S02). Some of the areas are designated nonattainment for more
than one pollutant. These areas are contained in 41 counties and parishes;
some cover more than one county while some are only portions of one county.
We believe that the majority of these areas are now attaining the NAAQS with
only approximately 12 areas in 14 counties believed to still be violating a
NAAQS, as shown in Table 2. There are no areas designated as nonattainment
for nitrogen dioxide (N0.2) or lead (Pb).
Reductions in emissions have been achieved through implementation of control
strategies in the States' Implementation Plans (SIPs) and enforcement actions
taken against sources not complying with state or Federal clean air regula-
tions. Additional improvements in air quality are expected in 1983 as a
result of regulations effective in December 1982, which should further
reduce emissions.
The improvement in air quality in major urban and industrial areas in
Region 6 is significant given the industrial concentration and the increase
in population over the past few years in the Region 6 States. In 1982,
there were approximately 2676 major sources in the Region. The Region
has experienced a significant increase in population; in 1980, the Region's
population was 25,042,000 compared to 20,243,000 in 1970 reflecting about
a 24 percent increase. Population increases are closely related to increases
in area sources, such as dry cleaners and mobile sources which in turn
correspond to increases in emissions from these sources.
The trends in air quality in Region 6 are briefly discussed below for each
criteria pollutant and are based on data from the National Aerometric Data
Bank (NADB) for the years 1977 through 1981. The data reflected on the
charts are from those monitors operating during 1977-1981, regardless of
the length of time the monitor was operational. Therefore, these charts
only present general trends in air quality improvements or deterioration.
A change is shown if the concentration of a specific pollutant was found
significant at the 80 percent confidence level so that minor variations
from year to year are not depicted here. The 31 Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR) in Region 6 were separated by State and trends were calculated for
all monitors in these 37 distinct areas. However, not all areas could be
analyzed as some of these areas do not have an established monitor reported
to NADB or there was insufficient data.
Ozone (03): Ozone is the major air quality problem in Region 6; however,
there has been some improvement in monitored areas over the past few years
in ozone concentrations. Air quality is improving or remaining the same in
most of the Region as shown in Table 3. Nine of the areas show improving
air quality, while seven remained about the same level and only one appeared
to be deteriorating. However, the deteriorating area has not exceeded the
29
-------
TABLE 2
Nonattainment Areas in Region 6
1978 - 1982
State
1978 Nonattainment
Designations
1982 Nonattainment
Designations
*Projected to
be Nonattainment
after 12/31/82
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Total
CO
0
0
4
1
1
6
03
1
19
1
3
15
39
TSP
1
0
4
3
9
17
S02
0
0
2
1.
0
3
CO
0
0
2
1
1
4
03
1
19
0
1
11
32
TSP
0
0
4
3
4
11
S02
0
0
2
0
0
2
CO
0
0
n
0
1
2
03
0
5
0
1
tt4
10
TSP
0
0
2
0
4
6
S02
0
0
1
0
0
1
Nonattainment designations are generally Countywide; however, TSP, CO, and S02
nonattainment designations could represent one or more areas within a county
rather than the entire County.
* Rural areas, which may be able to demonstrate that the area would attain the
primary 03 NAAQS except for the effect of transported 03 air pollution, have
been excluded from this category.
* Bernalillo County received an extension until 1987.
t Harris County received an extension until 1987.
30
-------
(AOCR) Geographic Area
Arkansas
(16) Central Area
{20} Northeast Area
(?1) Northwest Area
+(18) West Memphis Area
+(19) El florado Area
+(17) Fort Smith Area
+(22) Texarkana Area
Louisiana
+(19) Monroe Area
+(22) Shreveport Area
+ (10tS) Southern Area
.".ew Mexico
(15?) Alhuquerque- Mid Rio Grande ^rea
(154) Northeastern Plains Area
»(]4) Four Corners Area
(12) Southern Border Area
+(153) Las Cruc?s- Alanonordo Area
(155) Pecos- Permian Basin Area
(156) Southwestern Mountains- j *
Augustine Plains Area
(157) Upper Rio Grande Valley Area | *
Ronge of Average Second High Oj Concentration (ppm) 1977-1981
U.10 0.20 0.30
I
i
Oklahoma
(18i) Central Area
(185) tlortn Central Area
(186) Northeastern Area
(IS?) Northwestern Area
(IflH) Southeastern Area
(1»9) Southwestern Area
«-{17) Fort S:uith Area
Texas
+(153) El Paso Area
+(22) Texarkana- Tyler Area
+(106) Southeast Area
(210) Abilene- Wichita Falls Area
(211) Anarillo- Lubbock Area
(212) Austin- Wjco Area
(213) Brownsville- Laredo Area
(2K) r.orous Christi - Victoria Arna
(215) Dallas- Fort Wortn Area
(216) Houston- Galvp.ston Area
(?17) San Antonio Area
(218) Midland- Odessa- San Angelo Area
A
*
A
TT
..
•
-
A
>-
A
*
*
A
*
>>
>•
>.
A
A
•3
10
TABLE 3 - 03 Trends in Region 6
A Air Quality Improving W ^'r Cu
^» Mo Jiil'ii f ii .'ir.r. Chdtit:^ in Air' Quality
2tsrior.it ,'ic •insufficient or no .-nonitoring data available
» AOCR crosses state border
(Konitoring data from AQCRs crossing State boraers *ere separated Oy State.)
31
-------
primary standard and is classified as attainment. Monitoring data was not
available for 20 areas which are primarily rural areas with few sources of
pollution.
Carbon Monoxide (CO): There has also been some improvement in monitored
areas in carbon monoxide levels in Region 6. Improvements in carbon monoxide
levels were shown in six areas, seven areas remained the same and only two
areas showed deteriorating air quality (Table 4). Of the two deteriorating
areas, one is below the standard and is not a problem area; the other is
the El Paso, Texas area which is discussed further in Part II. Twenty-two
areas lacked sufficient monitoring data to establish a trend.
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP): Within the last several years, progress
has been made in reducing TSP levels in Region 6. As shown in Table 5,
TSP levels improved in 8 areas, 18 remained about the same and 2 measured
higher concentrations. The two areas with highest concentrations are not
exceeding the annual arithmetic mean for TSP and are not problem areas.
Sulfur Dioxide (S02): Table 6 shows the changes in SO;? levels in the
Region; two areas show improvements, eight show the same levels, six show
deteriorating air quality and 21 lack sufficient monitoring data to establish
a trend. However, none of the areas with higher concentrations of S02
exceeded the annual arithmetic mean for S02-
Nitrogen Dioxide (N02): Nitrogen dioxide is not considered a significant
problem in Region 6. The trends in N02 levels are shown in Table 7.
Four areas had improved air quality, four remained about the same, and
five experienced increased concentrations of N02- Of these areas, none
are exceeding the annual arithmetic mean for N02» There was insufficient
monitoring data to establish a trend for the remaining 24 areas.
Lead (Pb): Lead air quality levels for most of Region 6 are unknown at this
time as most National Air Monitoring Station and State and Local Air Monitoring
Station (NAMS/SLAMS) monitoring programs for Pb are just getting started. There
are two areas in which levels'exceeding the Pb NAAQS were observed in Texas.
New Mexico has also observed elevated lead levels because of a lead source in
Texas. Texas, in cooperation with EPA, has developed a monitoring program to
determine the air quality levels and the extent of the problem in these areas.
Oklahoma, Lousisana and Arkansas have no know ambient lead problems, however,
ambient monitoring will be fully operation in all States soon.
Air Toxics: Airborne toxics is becoming a more visible issue in Region 6,
particularly in Texas and Louisiana due to the concentration of highly
industrialized areas in these States. Several States are now able to
concentrate a portion of their resources on efforts to determine-the
presence and extent of potentially toxic airborne contaminants, as basic
air programs are generally established. Since there is very limited ambient
and emissions data available on air toxics, these States are now undertaking
research and monitoring efforts in targeted areas.
Acid Rain: Another emerging issue in Region 6 may be acid deposition due
to the increased N02 and S02 emissions in some areas of the Region.
32
-------
Recent reports, such as the Texas Energy.and Natural Resources Advisory
Council report en-titled "Plan to Evaluate Acid Deposition Issues in the
State of Texas", January 15, 1982, indicate that acid rain may cause a
natural resource problem in parts of Region 6 due to acidic soils. Several
Region 6 States have initiated research efforts, including participation
in the National Acid Deposition Project, to determine whether an acid
deposition problem exists. Dry deposition is currently thought to be a
more significant problem than acid rain in Region 6 due to the climatology
of the Region.
33
-------
(AOCR) Geographic Area | Z
Arkansas
(16) Central Area
(20) Northpjst Art;a
(21) Northwest Area
-(IP) West Memphis Area
+(19) El Dorado Area
+(17) Fort Smith Area
+(22) Texirkana Arsa
Louisiana
-( 19) Monro? Area
-(22) Shreveport Area
-(10M Southern Area
'
Mew Mexico
) Albuquerque- Hid Rio Granoe Area
(1S4) Northeastern Plains Arej
+ (Jd) Four Corners Area
(12) Southern Rpr.ier Area
-(153! Las Cruces- Alanogoroo Area
(155) Pecos- Permian B.isin Area
(!Sn) Southwestern Mountains-
Augustine Plains Area
(157) tipper Rio C.rande Valley Area
Ok 1 a homa
(IS^) Central Area
(185) North Central Area
*
*•
»
*
*
A
*
»•
A
#
#
*
i
Range of Average Second High CO Concentration (,r,g/m3) 1977-1931
1" 20 20 a,-,
1 ' > i
i
C|
TABLE 4 - CO Trends in Region 6 .'
o|
u
R ,
s!
T :
f: '
D •
ci-
I
^-.
1
» * I
1
I
t
[
t
t
I
(IRS) Northeastern Area
(1«7) Northwestern Area
(Iflfl) Southeastern Area
(139) Southwestern Area
»(17) Fort Snitn Area
Texas
-(153) El Paso Area
+(22) Texarkana- Tyler Area
+(106) Southeast Area j
(21H) Abilene- Wichita Falls Area
(211) Anarillo- L'-'bhock Area
(212) Austin- Waco Area
(213) Brownsville- Laredo Area
(2K) Corpus Christ;- Victoria Area
(21S) Dallas- Fort Worth Area
(21fi) Houston- GalvESton Area
(217) San Antonio Area
(218) Midland- Odessa- San Anaelo Area
A
*
A
A
f
i Air Quality Improving
Air Quality Osteriorating -insufficient or no monitoring dut.i available
•• <;:.,,,i-i ,nr '"hjnce in Air "uaiity * Ar'cs crosses state border
,., v.j,n.n.jnt -hjnge in rtir ,u n-y (Monitoring data fron AOCSs crossing State borders were separated by State.)
34
-------
A
(AQCR) Ideographic Area
Arkansas
(16) Central Area
(20) Northeast Area
(21) Northwest Area
*(1P) West Memphis Area
+ (19) E'l dorado Area
»(17) Fort Smith Area
+(22) Texarkana Area
Louisiana
+(19) Monroe Area j »
+(22) Shreveport Area ] «
I w
+(106) Southern Area | T
|
Mew Mexico
(IS?) Albuquerque- Mid Rio Grande Area
(1?4) Northeastern Plains Area
+(14) Four Corners Area
(12) Southern Border Area
»(153) Las Cruces- Alamogordo Area
(155) Pecos- Peroian Basin Area
(156) Southwestern Mountains-
Augustine Plains Area
(157) Upper Rio Grande Valley Area
Oklahoma
(184) Centra) Area
] (185) North Central Area
(186) Northeastern Area
(1S7) Northwestern Area
(IRfi) Southeastern Area !
i
(189) Southwestern Area I
+(17.) Fort Snith Area j
Texas
»(153) El Paso Area
»(22) Texarkana- Tyler Area
+(106) Southeast Area
(210) Abilene- Wichita Falls Area
(211) Anarillo- Lubhock Area
(212) Austin- Waco Area
(213) Brownsville- Larertn Area
(21*) Corpus Christi- Victoria Area
(215) Dallas- Fort Worth Area
(2'.fi) Houston- GalvPSton Area \
(?17) San Antonio Area |
(218) Midland- Odessa- San Angelo Area j
A
A
>•
A
i A
Range of Average Second High TSP Concentration (ug/m3) 1977-1381
s" "P 6Q Sp 100 120
1
1 TABLE 5 - TSP.Trends in
i Region 6
A
IN
N
'o
'"
'?
1C
iM
E
A
i Air Quality Improving W Air Quality Oeterioratincj
^ ;;.i Significant Change in Air Quality
•Insufficient or no monitoring data
35
- AQCR crosses state border
(Monitoring data from AQCSs crossing State borders were separated by itate.)
-------
(AQCR) Geographic Area
Arkansas
(!fi) Central Area
(2(1) Northeast Area
(?1) Northwest Are*
*(!•') West Memphis Area j
i
+ (1?) El Dorado Area j
I
+ ( 17) Fort Smith Area |
'(22) Texarkana Area |
i
i
Lou i s iana i
-(19) Monroe Ared j
-(22) Shreveport Area
i
+(106) Southprn Ar^i j
|
I
f;ew Mexico \
i
(15?) Albuquerque- Mid Rio Grande Area j
i
(ISA) Northeastern Plains Area I
1
+(14) Four Corners Area
I
(12) Southern Border Area |
*(153) Las Cruces- Alanogordo Area '
i
(155) Pecos- Pernian Basin Area !
(15fi) Southwestern Mountains-
Augustine Plains Area
(157) Upper Rio Grande Valley Area
Oklahoma
(lfl-3) Central Area
(1R5) North Central 'rea
I
(186) Northeastern Area ]
I
(]S7) Northwestern Area |
i
(1KR) Southeastern Area 1
(1R9) Southwestern Area |
+(17) Fort Snith Area j
i
i
Texas i
-(153) El.'Paso Area
+(22) Texarkana- Tyler Area
+(106) Southeast Area
(210) Abilene- Wichita Falls Area
(211) Amarillo- Lubhock Area
(212) Austin- Waco Area
(213) Brownsvi 1 Is- Lareiio Areu
(J1-) Corpus Christi- Victoria Area
(?.\ei) Oallas- Fnrt Worth Area
(?1F) Koustnn- fi.ilvi>stnn Area
(217) San Antonio Area
(218) Midland- Odessa- San Anoelo Area
Range of Average Second High SOj Concentration (ug/m3) 1377-1931
(Annual Arithmetic Mean UO ug/m^)
1£ 20 3£ 4J
TABLE 6 - S02 Trends in Region 6
i Air Quality Improving ^ A1r 5
^ ;:o Sj.jniricant Change in Air Quiiity
' D'-
tariorating 'Insufficient or no monitoring data availaole
AOCR crosses state border
ipnitoring data from AOCSts crossing State borders -ere separated hy State.
36
-------
(AfJCR) Geographic Area
Arkansas
(16) Centra] Area
.(20) Northeast Area
(71) Northwest Area
'(IP) West Memphis Area
+ (11) El Dorado Area
-(!7) Fort Smith Area
+(22) Texarkana Area
Louisiana
+ (19) Monroe Area |
+(22) Shreveport Area
+(106) Southern Area
Mew Mexico
(IS?) Albuquerque- Mid Rio Grande- Area
(154) Northeastern Plains Area |
+(14) Four Corners Area
(12) Southern Border Area
+ (153) Las Cruces- Alanogordo Area
' (155) Pecos- Penman Basin Area
Southwestern Moun.tains-
Augustine Plain's Area
(157)'Upper Rio firande Valley Area
; • i
Oklahoma !
| .
(184) Central Area j A
(185) north Central Area j *
(18fi) Northeastern Area
(187) Northwestern Area
' (!K^! Southeastern Area | »
(Ia9) Southwestern Area I *
+(17) Fort Snith Arsa | .
Texas
+(153) El Paso Area
+(22) Texarkana- Tyler Area
+(106) Southeast Area
(21f) Abilene- Wichita Falls Area
(211) Amarillo- Lubhpck Area
(?!2) Austin- Waco Area
(213) Brownsville- Laredo Area
(21i} r.orpus Christi- victoria Ar?a
(215) Oallas- Fnrt Worth Area
(21K) Houston- Galvpston Area i
(?!7) San Antonio Area
(213) Midland- Odessa- Sjn Angelo Area
M
f
Range of Average Second High UQ-, Concentration (mg/m^) 1977-1981
(Anniidl Arithmetic Mean 100
_ 10 _ 20
30
an
TABLE 7 - N02 Trends in Region 6
A Air Quality proving y Air Quality Deteriorating
B» ;:^ Significant Change in Air Qujiity
•Insufficient or no nonitcring dati
37
- AOCR crosses state border
(Monitoring data from AOCRs crossing State borders were separated Sy St3Ce.)
-------
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS
Methodology:
Problem Identification: Region 6 used the following criteria to
determine which areas should be initially considered as potentially
significant air quality problem areas:
0 Air quality data - levels and trends
0 Population data
0 Current on-going regulatory and compliance programs
0 Future air control activities for the area
0 Geographic size of the area
The final list of problem areas was developed based on these factors:
0 Air quality data show exceedances of primary NAAQS for at least
two years and at levels of 115% of the standard.
0 Area is either currently designated as nonattainment (and not
expected to attain by December 31, 1982) o_£ area clearly shown
to not be in attainment, regardless of desTgnation.
0 Some areas meeting the above criteria were not included as
significant problems because:
0 the Agency's rural 03 ozone policy applied
0 controls by the State are -expected to soon eliminate
the problem.
Data Analysis: Existing problems are those areas for which
sufficient data and evidence of problems exists. Emerging problems include
those that may be perceived by the States or the public as a significant
problem although data may not be currently available to clearly support
this view. Also, an emerging problem may have been in existence but is
only now being addressed.
Air monitoring data from all SLAMS/NAMS sites listed in the Storage and Retrie-
val of Aerometric Data (SAROAD) system for the years 1977-1981 were used. Data
were taken from the National Aerometric Data Bank Quick Look Reports and State
and Local Air Monitoring Annual Summary Reports. However, ambient data were
used only from selected monitoring sites meeting the following criteria:
0 The monitor must have had at least 50% of the possible observed
time reported (data completeness).
0 The monitor must have had at least 3 years of data collected.
It is important to note that there are few monitors in rural areas unless
there is a major source with the potential to significantly impact air quality
in that area. As air pollution is caused, in large part, by manmade sources
(industrial and mobile), most monitors are located in highly industrialized
38
-------
and/or highly populated areas. However, TSP monitors can be located in
smaller communities since particulate problems can be due to fugitive dust
from unpaved roads, parking lots and agricultural sources.
The emissions inventory data were obtained from 1979 SIPs, except for the
data for Harris County which are from the State's 1982 SIP. The emissions
inventories in these SIPs are based on data collected from surveys of
sources in the appropriate source categories and contain projections of the
amount of emission reductions that should be achieved through the control
strategies outlined in the appropriate SIP.
Significant Air Quality Problems Include:
Existing Problems:
0 Ozone
- Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and El Paso, Texas
- New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana
- Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Rural nonattainment areas in Texas and Louisiana
0 Carbon Monoxide '
- Albuquerque, New Mexico ; '
- El Paso, Texas:'
0 Total Suspended Particulates - : !
- Harris (Houston), El Paso, Cameron' and Nueces Counties, Texas!
- Bernalillo (Albuquerque) and Grant Counties, New Mexico
i
Emerging Problems:
0 Lead
0 Air Toxics
Discussion of Significant Air Quality Problems: The air quality problems
will be described by pollutant, for each area of the Region, and implications
for management, including the barriers and State and EPA actions for solving
the problems are also discussed on a pollutant specific basis.
Ozone Problem Areas:
0 Harris County (Houston), Texas: The most severe ozone problem in
Region 6 is in the Houston area, which received an extension for attain-
ment of the 03 NAAQS until December 31, 1987. This area experiences
numerous violations of the 03 standard, generally during the months of
April through October. The peak value recorded from 1977 to 1981 was a
.340 parts per million (ppm) value in 1980 as shown in Figure 2a. The
lowest of the peak 03 values during this time was .230 ppm, recorded in
1978. The second high 03 values from the monitoring sites in Harris
County, meeting the data completeness criteria, averaged for each year,
indicate values ranging from .210 ppm to .244 ppm with no discernable
trend. (Figure 2b). The number of days exceeding the standard is decreasing
39
-------
in Harris County as shown in Figure 2c. There were only 23 days in 1981
when the standard was expected to be exceeded, compared to 40 days in 1979
and 26 days in 1980. The "expected exceedance" measure is considered a
more accurate indicator of 03 air quality than actual days exceeded since
it accounts for expected exceedances if monitors were not operating for a
sufficient amount of time during that year. Of the time 03 was measured
in 1981, 93 percent were at levels less than the .12 ppm 03 standard as
shown in Figure 2d.
Houston's major source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) is stationary
sources, such as petroleum refineries, storage, transportation and marketing
of petroleum products, and organic chemical manufacturing. Figure 9 shows
the contribution of emissions from stationary and mobile sources and the
change in emissions to be obtained from the 1982 ozone SIP for Harris County.
Modeling analysis indicates that a 41 percent reduction in VOC emissions is
needed to attain the 03 standard in 1987.
The State's plan proposes to achieve the reduction by stationary source
controls, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, a motor vehicle
parameter inspection and maintenance (I/M) program and transportation
control measures. Some of the stationary source controls were implemented
by the end of 1982 and the remainder are to be implemented by the end
of 1987. These controls provide reductions in VOC emissions from pet-
roleum refineries, storage of petroleum products, miscellaneous solvent
usage (degreasing) and industrial surface coating.
As of December 31, 1982, there were 126 major industrial facilities emitting
volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the Houston area, all are currently in
compliance with the State's VOC regulations.
The dramatic growth in population, during 1977 to 1982, may have contributed
to increased VOC emissions. The population increase from 1970 to 1980 of
43 percent, with a 2.42 percent annual increase estimated from 1977 to
1982, led to operation of more dry cleaners and other small sources, known
as area sources, of VOC emissions. However, potential increases in emissions
from new major stationary sources built during this time, were offset by
decreases in emissions from facilities closing down or replacing old equipment.
For mobile source emissions, there has been an increase of approximately
20 percent in the number of vehicles in Harris County and a proportional
increase in vehicle miles traveled. However in the 1979 SIP, the State,
projected that this rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled would still
allow for about a 36 percent decrease in emissions from automobiles due to
replacement of older cars with new cleaner model cars.
0 Dallas County (Dallas), Texas: Ozone air quality in Dallas
County was slightly improved in 1981 compared to 1977, although it had
deteriorated from 1979 and 1980 03 levels. Furthermore, the 1982 levels
have also increased, according to the State's data. The peak 03 value
recorded from 1977 to 1981 was .195 ppm in 1977 and the lowest peak value
was .140 ppm in 1978, as shown in Figure 3a. The State's data indicate a
peak of .200 ppm during 1982. The second high 03 values, averaged over
the monitoring sites in Dallas County, meeting data completeness criteria,
40
-------
0.50.
0.40
0.30.
.50.20.
o.ia
P • Peak
SH « Second High
50.
40'
SH
JL
_SH
SH
30-
SH
SH
°
_(0-i Standard-)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
\ Peak and Second High 0, Values In
'•/ Harris County, Texas
20.
10.
E « Days Expected to Exceed Annually
M * Days Exceeded ('during monitored
days only)
/~\
» '
197719781979 1S80
Number of Days Exceeding the 03
Standard in Harris County, Texas
0.50 •
0.40 .
I 0.30
q 0.20
0.10
60
50-
40-
30
•S 20
•(-03 Standard) §
10
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest 03 Va'lues
in Harris County, Texas
n
l"l n rt i-t
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .31- .25-
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28
/ i\ Percentage of Time in 03 Concentration 3ange,s.
(Q) Harris County. Texas, Selected Sites, 1981
FIGURE 2- Ozone .- Harris County
41
-------
show a range from .130 ppm to .186 ppm with no perceptable trend from 1977
to 1981 (Figure 3b). The number of days expected to exceed the standard
ranged from two days in 1978 to over twelve days in 1980, as shown in
Figure 3c. _It should be noted that only ten days actually exceeded the
standard. The "expected exceedance" measure is considered a more accurate
indicator of 03 air quality since it accounts for expected exceedances
if the monitors were not operating for a sufficient amount of time during
that year. The State's data includes eleven exceedances of the 03 standard
in 1982. Of the time 03 was measured in 1981, 93 percent was at levels
less than the .12 ppm 03 standard, as shown in Figure 3d.
Dallas' major source of VOC emissions are vehicles since 65 percent of the
emissions are from mobile sources (Figure 9). The area's major stationary
sources of VOC emissions include: storage, transportation and marketing of
petroleum products and miscellaneous solvent usage.
The 1979 SIP projected that. Dallas County would attain the 03 standard by
December 31, 1982. The SIP included planned emissions reductions from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and vapor control for service station
loading operations. The ambient data clearly show that Dallas County has not
attained the 0-j standard. It appears that one factor may have been the
increase in emissions from mobile sources, since the annual vehicle miles
of travel in Dallas County increased by roughly 18 percent. The 44 major
VOC stationary sources in Dallas County probably did not experience increased
emissions since there were no major modifications or new facilities without
an offset of emissions. In addition, all of these sources are in compliance
with applicable State regulations.
°Tarrant County (Fort Worth), Texas: The peak 03 value recorded
from 1977 to 1981 was .190 ppm in 1979 and the lowest peak value was .140
ppm in 1981 as shown in Figure 4a. 1982 data includes one exceedance of
.130 ppm (data only available through June). The second high 03 values,
averaged from the monitoring sites in Tarrant County, indicate values
ranging from .130 ppm to .151 ppm with a downward trend from 1977 to 1981,
as shown in Figure 4b. Figure 4c shows the number of days expected to
exceed the standard, ranging from three in 1978 to over twelve in 1979,
with no apparent trend. It appears one day exceeded the standard in
1982, based on the available data. Of the time 03 was measured in 1981,
99 percent was at levels less than the .12 ppm standard, as shown in Figure
4d.
Tarrant County's VOC emissions are contributed in approximately equal
proportions by stationary and mobile sources (Figure 9). There are 48
major VOC stationary sources in Tarrant County, and all are in compliance
with applicable regulations. The area's major stationary sources are
similar to Dallas' and include storage, transportation and markefing of
petroleum products, miscellaneous solvent usage facilities and industrial
surface coating operations.
The 1979 SIP projected attainment of the 03 standard in Tarrant County by
December 31, 1982. The control strategies in the SIP focused on a reduction
in emissions from mobile sources through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program and from stationary sources through controls on industrial surface
42
-------
0.50-
0.40.
0.30.
_. 0.20.
- 0.10.
50-
40.
P « Peak
SH > Second High
30-
i/i
ta
a
P
SH
P
••
cu
jn
P
^
P, SH p 20-
SH
SH
10-
E = Days Expected to Exceed Annually
H = Days Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
E . ,
n
_ M C3M ~
E;M
1
n I
o 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
/ ^ Peak and Second High 0, Values in
\a) Dallas County, Texas
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Number of Days Exceeding the 03
Standard in Dallas County, Texas
0.50-
0.40.
g.
Q.
C
= 0.30-
u.
*J
§
c
0)
I o.io-
60 •
50 .
40 -
30 .
20.
-(03 Standard) S
10 -
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest 0, Values
(5) in Dallas County, Texas
n
n n_
.00- .05-1 .09- .13- .17- .21- .
-------
0.50-
0.40-
0.30.
0.20.
£ 0.10-
a' Tarrant County, Texas
SO,
40.
30-
20-
10-
E = Days Expected to Exceed Annually
H « Days Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
E;M
1573
E;M i
jut
1980 I9EI
1977 1575 1979
Number of Days Exceeding the 03
(c) Standard in Tarrant County, Texas
0.50
0.40
« 0.30
0.10 .
60-
50
40-
.30
o
§,20
. .(03 Standard) jj
10 •
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest 0, Values
(b) in Tarrant County, Texas
(d)
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .21- .25-
.04 .03 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 ppm
Percentage of Time in 0. Concentration Ranges,
Tarrant County, Texas .Selected Sites, 1S81
FIGURE 4 - Ozone - Tarrant County, Texas
44
-------
coating operations. The ambient data clearly show that Tarrant County has not
attained the 03 standard. Population growth in this area may have contri-
buted to increased emissions since Tarrant County experienced about 2.3
percent population increase from 1977 to 1982 with a 1.15 percent annual
growth rate.
0 El Paso County (El Paso), Texas: The 03 air quality in El Paso
has improved slightly over the past 3 years as shown in Figure 5a. The
peak 03 value recorded from 1977 to 1981 was .180 ppm in 1979 and the
lowest was .140 ppm in 1981. The State's data indicate that the highest
value recorded during the first half of 1982 was .140 ppm. The second
high 03 values from the monitoring sites in El Paso County, averaged
each year, include values ranging from .120 ppm to .160 ppm with no
apparent trend (Figure 5b). Figure 5c shows that the number of days
expected to exceed the standard increased from 1977 to 1979, leveled off
in 1980 and decreased in 1981 to only one exceedance-. One exceedance was
reported by the State during the first 2 quarters of 1982. Of the time
03 was measured in 1981, 99 percent of the time was at levels less
than the .12 ppm standard (Figure 5d).
Figure 9 shows the contribution of VOC emissions from mobile and
stationary sources. The area's major stationary sources of VOC emissions
include: storage, transportation and marketing of petroleum products,
miscellaneous solvent use and petroleum refineries. The 1979 SIP
demonstrated that the major reductions in VOC emissions would be from
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and stationary sources such as
petroleum refineries.
The 1979 Texas SIP demonstrated attainment for this area by December 31,
1982, however, the ambient data show that El Paso did not attain the
standard. There was very little population growth or industrial growth
during this time. Furthermore, all of the seven major stationary sources
of VOC are in compliance with the State's regulations. It appears that
the contribution of emissions from Juarez, Mexico located just across
the border, may have a significant impact on the El Paso area.
0 New Orleans, Louisiana: The New Orleans urban area (Orleans,
Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes) has experienced a few violations of
the 03 standard in recent years. This analysis focuses on Orleans
Parish since there is insufficient data to show trends over 5 years for
the Jefferson and St. Bernard Parishes. Figure 6a shows that 03
levels in Orleans Parish have started a slight downward trend as there
were no violations in 1981. However, in the first 3 quarters of 1982
there was one violation with a peak value of .132 ppm. An 03 monitor'was
established in Jefferson Parish in 1982 and in St. Bernard Parish in 1981
to establish the 03 levels in these Parishes. The peak 03 value" in
Jefferson Parish through September 1982, was .188 ppm with six observations
above the 03 standard. Louisiana has indicated that this monitor may
need to be relocated as local facilities may be impacting the monitor.
St. Bernard Parish had one observation (.142 ppm) in the first 3 quarters
45
-------
0.50.
0.40.
0.30-
0.20.
P « Peak
SH = Second High
50-
40-
30-
SH
SH
SH
P.SH
SH
1(03 Standard)
10-
E = Days Expected to Exceed Annually
M * Days Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
E E
E:M pf RM F
n n r
E;M
(a)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second High 0, Values in
£1 Paso County, Texas
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
/_\ Number of Days Exceeding the 03
*c' Standard in tl Paso County, Texas
60
0.50 '
0.40
1
a.
20.30
SO-20
n
O
c
OJ
•50.10.
40
30
_(0, Standard) g
3
w H
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
( h\ Average of Second Highest 0, Values
* ' in El Paso County. Texas
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .21- .25-
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 ppm
Percentage of Time in 0, Concentration Ranges,
(d) El Paso County, Texas .Selected Sites, 1951
FIGURE 5 - Ozone - El Paso .County, Texas
46
-------
0.50.
0.40 .
0.30 .
0.20 .
0.10 .
P » Peak
SH « Second High
•SH-
R.SH-
50
40 .
30 .
20
P,SH-£*;».-P---<03standard>
E3SH 10
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second High 03 Values in
Orleans Parish, Louisiana
E » Oays Expected to Exceed Annually
M « Oays Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
™ |=JM E;H
E;M
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Number of Days Exceeding the 03
Standard in Orleans Parish, Louisiana
0.50
0.40
•2 0.30-
§ 0.20.
0.10
p--p - - - -(03 Standard)
60 .
50
40
30
20
10-.
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest 03 Values
(n Orleans Parish, Louisiana
n
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .21- .25-
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 ppm
Percentage of Time in 03 Concentration Ranqas,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, Selected Sites, 1931
FIGURE 6 - Ozone - Orleans Parish, Louisiana
47
-------
of 1982 above the standard and none in 1981. Figure 6c showing the
number of days expected to exceed the standard does not show any clear
trend.
Figure 9 shows the contribution of VOC emissions from mobile and stationary
sources in Orleans Parish, indicating that approximately 70 percent are
from stationary sources. There are 34 major stationary VOC sources in
New Orleans, one source is not in compliance with applicable State regula-
tions. This source has been issued a compliance order to be in compliance
by April 1, 1983. The major stationary sources of VOC emissions include
storage, transportation and marketing of petroleum products and industrial
processes.
The 1979 .SIP projected attainment of the 03 standard for the Mew Orleans
urban area, including'Orleans Parish, with reductions expected primarily
from controls placed on miscellaneous solvent uses, such as degreasing
operations. .The ambient data, particularly from 1982, show the urban area
did not attain the standard. Although population increases (annual growth
rate of .9 percent from 1977 to 1982) may have contributed to increased
emissions, reductions in emissions in late 1982 and 1983 will be needed
.for the New Orleans urban area to attain and maintain the 03 standard.
0 Baton.Rouge, Louisiana: 03 levels in the Baton Rouge urban area
(including East'and West Baton Rouge Parishes) have fluctuated over the
past few years. This analysis focused on East Baton Rouge since there is
no monitor in West Baton Rouge. The peak 03 level during 1978 to 1981
occurred in 1980 and was .218'ppm (Figure 7a,), In the first 3 quarters
of 1982, seven observations:were above the 03 standard with a peak of
.185 ppm.. As shown in Figures 7b and 7c, the average second highest
values and the number of days exceeding the standard also varied from
year to year, with no apparent trend. There were two days exceeded in
1979.but there were twenty-five in 1978 and eleven in 1980. Of the time
03 was measured in 1981, 96 percent was at levels less than the .12
ppm standard (Figure 7d).
Figure 9 shows the contribution of VOC emissions from mobile and stationary
sources in the Baton Rouge area. Approximately 70 percent are from
stationary sources. The major contributors are industrial processes and
petroleum refineries. Louisiana has implemented additional controls
beyond reasonably available control technology (RACT) on several processes
to lower VOC emissions from stationary sources.
The 1979 SIP projected attainment of the 03 standard in the Baton Rouge araa,
The SIP showed that the major reductions in VOC emissions would be from
stationary source controls. The ambient data show that this area did
not attain the 03 standard. The State believes that the area's jneteorology
contributes to the 03 levels. However, VOC control regulations'did
not become effective until the end of 1982. It should-be noted that 24
of the 28 major stationary sources in the Baton Rouge urban area, or 86
percent are currently in compliance with clean air regulations. Of the
4 sources out of compliance, 2 have been issued notices of violation (NOV)
and the other 2 will have an NOV issued to each soon.
48
-------
0.50-
0.40"
0.30.
5
n
e 0.20-
I
S 0.10.
o
o
P » Peak
50.
40-
SH • Second High
* » No Data Available
.£.
*
•
SH
30.
VI
P I
P
—
SH
•
—
20 .
SH
P
•S- - (O.Standard)
3 10 .
E » Days Expected to Exceed Annually
f. ' Days Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
* » No Sat a Available
E
E;M
*
-
M
E L
- M
- M
E;M
n
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
, v Peak and Second High 0, Values in
13 J East Baton Rouge Parisn, Louisiana
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Number of Days exceeding the 0,
Standard in East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana
0.50
0.40-
0.30.
0.20-
0.10.
No Data Available
403 Standard)
60 •
50
40
30
20
10
n „
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Hfgest 0-, Values
in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
(d)
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .21- .25-
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 p(m
Percentage of Time in 0, Concentration Ranges,
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, Selected
Sites, 1981
FIGURE 7 - Ozone - East. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
49
-------
0 Tulsa, Oklahoma: 03 air quality has improved slightly in Tulsa
County, although the peak and second highest values for every year since
1977 are higher than the standard (Figure 8a). The peak 03 value recorded
from 1977 to 1981 was .201 ppm in 1980 and the lowest was .145 ppm in 1977.
The average second high value remained about the same (Figure 8b). The
Tulsa area has experienced several violations of the ozone standard in
recent years, as shown in Figure 8c. Of the time 03 was measured in
1981, 99 percent was at levels less than the .12 ppm standard as shown
in Figure 8d.
Figure 9 shows the contribution of VOC emissions from mobile and sta-
tionary sources. The area's major stationary sources of VOC emissions
include: storage, transportation and marketing of petroleum products,
industrial processes and other solvent usage. Of the 17 major industrial
air pollution sources in Tulsa, all are currently in compliance with
clean air regulations.
^\
The 1979 Oklahoma SIP demonstrated attainment for this area by December
31, 1982. The 1979 SIP showed that the major reduction in VOC emissions
would be from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and stationary
source controls of such sources as petroleum refineries. The number and
severity of violations has decreased since then but the area is not yet
in attainment and is not predicted to attain by the December 31, 1982,
deadline. It is not :clear what factors may have contributed to the area's
ambient 03 levels. There has been some population growth in the County,
as shown by an annual growth rate of .84 between 1977 and 1982, which
would correspond to a growth in area emissions from such sources as dry
cleaners, etc.
0 Rural Nonattainment Areas in Texas and Louisiana: Region 6 has
several rural counties and parishes which are currently designated as
nonattainment for 03. Monitoring data indicate these areas may not be
able to attain the 03 NAAQS by December 31, 1982. These areas are:
Brazoria, Galveston, Jefferson and Orange Counties, Texas and Calcasieu
and Iberville Parishes, Louisiana. All of these areas have had several
observations over the 03 NAAQS in 1981 and/or 1982. However, these
areas all have populations of less than 200,000 based on 1970 census
data. Texas and Louisiana may be able to demonstrate that the high
levels of 03 in the rural areas are due to transport from nearby urban
areas with high 03 levels.
Principal Barriers:
The principal barrier to reducing the extent of the 03 problem in Region 6
is our lack of full understanding of the mechanisms involved in producing
and affecting high 03 levels in Region 6. This results in a limited
ability to predict how application of control strategies will affect
future levels of 03. The current 03 modeling technique (city specific
Emperical Kenetic Modelling Approach, EKMA) is a significant improvement
over the previous rollback methods, but what is really needed is the much
more sophisticated airshed models to be validated for areas in Louisiana
and Texas.
A barrier for reducing the ozone problem in El Paso, Texas is the uncer-
tainty about the amount of VOC emission contribution from the Juarez, Mexico
50
-------
0.50-
0.40-
0.30-
•=•
j^
-= 0.20-
C
o
L.
1 0.10.
u
I
0*
50-
P • Peak
SH « Second High
30-
VI
I
P
P
0 P
a
SH
—
SH
SH
-
*•
20-
P
SH
SH
. - _ (03 Standard)
10-
•
E » Days Expected to Exceed Annually
M » Days Exceeded (during monitored
days only)
I
- M
E;M
|j E rn E;M
(a)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second High 0, Values in '
Tulsa County, Oklahoma
0.50-
0.40.
50.30.
3 0.20-
0.10.
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest 0, Values
in Tulsa County, Oklahoma
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
\ Number of Days Exceeding the 63
' Standard in Tulsa County, Oklahoma
60-
50 .
40 -
30
20
Standard) a
10.
n „
(d)
.00- .05- .09- .13- .17- .21- .25-
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24 .28 ppm
Percentage of Time in 0, Concentration Ranges,
Tulsa County, Oklahoma .Selected Sites, 1931
FIGURE 8 - Ozone - Tulsa County, Oklahoma
51
-------
zoo -
O Stationary Sources
0 Mobile Sources
01
ro
100 -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
xl
X
X
x _
x r
:
X 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
tt
x
x ra n
[x |x Hil - nn ^ xl mfh
j 1 !i Ma - iil rfil rffl rffi d l 1 1:1 m
1977 1982 1977 1982 1977 10H2 1977 1982 19" 19-"2 1977 19fl2 1977 1982
Harris Dallas Arrant El Paso Orlean; East Mum Uouyu Tulsa
' County County County County Parish Parish Cnunty
FIGURE 9 - Ozone - Volatile Organic Compound Emissions for Ozone Problem Areas, 1977 and 1982
-------
border area. International policy decisions will need to be made to
determine the impact of these emissions on air quality and to develop
appropriate control strategies.
Implications for Agency Management:
State Actions: Active participation by Texas and Louisiana in
the validation and application of 03 airshed models is needed in order
to better understand 03 formation and to identify future control strategies.
The State of Louisiana has committed to perform a monitoring study during
the 1983 03 season to evaluate the 03 site in Jefferson Parish since it
may be influenced by local facilities.
Regional Actions: The Regional office is assisting the States
of Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma in their review and analysis of the
ambient data and control strategies in the significant 03 problem
areas discussed above.
\ Requested Actions from Headquarters': More basic research is
needed into the cause of 03 formation in Region 6 and the further
development and application of 03 airshed models here.
Headquarters needs to work with the Mexican government toward reduction
of air pollution especially in border cities such as Juarez and to get
emission inventories from such areas so that U,S. cities may better plan
for air pollution reductions in their areas. ; '
i
Carbon Monoxide Problem Areas:
0 Albuquerque, New Mexico: Albuquerque (Bernalillo County),
New Mexico has received an extension until December 31, 1987, to bring
the area into attainment with the CO standard. The Albuquerque area has
consistently experienced numerous violations of the CO standard and
'alert levels in recent years, usually in the winter months. Figure lOa
shows that the peak values of CO have decreased since 1978. However, a
new monitoring site was established in 1981. This site began operation in
time to collect data during the last quarter of 1981, and data showed 61
8-hour periods were over the CO standard with a peak value of 26.0 mg/m3.
This is a new "hot spot" which should be closely watched.
The second high CO values from the monitoring sites in Bern.alillo County,
excluding the new site, averaged over each year, show a downward trend from
1979 through 1981 (Figure 10b). The number of 8-hour periods with values
exceeding the standard (Figure lOc) has decreased in general over the 5-
year period, 1977-1981, but with yearly fluctuations. Of the time CO was
measured in 1981, 99 percent was at levels less than the 9 ppm 8-hour standard
as shown in Figure lOd.
The Albuquerque - Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board submitted a
plan demonstrating how the area would attain the standard. Since 90 percent
of the CO emissions are from motor vehicles; these sources are the primary
ones to be controlled. Modeling demonstrated that a 59 percent reduction in
emissions is needed to attain the standard. This will be accomplished
through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (47 percent reduction),
and a vehicle I/M program for all light duty vehicles registered in the
53
-------
50
30
10
P - Peak
SH > Second High
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SO .
2 40
30 -
20 -
• -{CO Standard) 10 •
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second Highest CO Values
1n Bernalillo County, New Mexico
1977 1978 1979 1930 1981
Number of 8 Hour Periods in Mhich the
CO Standard Was Exceeded in Bernalillo
County, New Mexico
•*50
W
I
o30
= 20-
10
-(CO Standard)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average Second Highest CO Values
in Bernalillo County, New Mexico
100 •
90 .
80 .
70 •
60 •
50 .
40 -
30 •
20 '
10 •
"
1 1 n i™i F— i *— •
0- 5- 9- 13- 17- 21-
4 8 12 16 20 24
(d)
ppm 8- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in CO Concentration Ranges,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Selected Sites, 1981
FIGURE 10 - CO - Bernalillcf County, New Mexico
54
-------
City of Albuquerque and in areas outside of other municipalities in
Bernalillo County (12 percent reduction). The plan will also include
transportation control measures (TCMs) such as ridesharing and traffic
flow improvement (6 percent reduction).
0 El Paso, Texas: The City of El Paso has experienced several
exceedances of the CO standard in 1981, as shown in Figure lla. This
figure implies CO levels have increased slightly although there are
yearly variations. The peak 8-hour CO value in 1977 was 11.9 mg/n3 and
in 1981 it was 18.1 mg/irH. The number of 8-hour periods containing a
value over the standard has increased; 1977 included one period and
1981 had 8 periods exceeding the standard .{Figure lie). The second high
CO values from the monitoring sites in El Paso County, averaged over each
year, show an upward trend from 1977 through 1981 (Figure lib). Of the
time CO was measured in 1981, .99 percent was at levels 'less than the 9 ppm
8-hour standard as shown in Figure lid. :
Approximately 99 percent of the CO emissions are from mobile sources. The
1979 Texas SIP demonstrated attainment with the standard by December 31,
1982 through the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program. The SIP projected a
reduction of approximately 20,000 tons per year of CO emissions by December
31, 1982. • The ambient data' clearly show that El Paso has not attained ',
the CO standard. It is possible that air quality in El Paso has not
improved due to the contribution of CO emissions from Juarez, Mexico. ;
Principal Barriers: ,i : • > ;
The principal barrier to reducing the CO problem in El Paso is the ' '.
uncertainty about the amount of CO emission contribution from the Juarez,
Mexico border area. There are international policy decisions that will
need to be made to determine the impact of these emissions on air quality
and to develop appropriate control strategies.
Implications for Agency Management:
State Actions: Albuquerque, New Mexico: The State of New Mexico
has submitted a plan for reducing the CO levels by December 31, 1987.
The City of Albuquerque is currently operating an I/M program and imple-
menting TCMs.
El Paso, Texas: The State of Texas is completing a study of the air
quality in El Paso, Texas. The study is expected to be completed in
1983 and may recommend additional controls for reducing CO emissions
in the area.
Regional Actions: The Regional office will work closeTy with
the City of Albuquerque to ensure the I/M program results in the pro-
jected emissions reductions. For the El Paso area, the Regional office
will review the State's study of air quality in El Paso and will work
with the State in developing appropriate controls or in targeting specific
areas for additional study.
55
-------
50.
|
S 40.
t
_o
a 30-
<£~
4
3
~ 20-
0
£ 10 -
u
1
o
50 -
P = Peak •
SH • Second High | 40 .
L. ,
01
U
1 30 -
00
«*-
o
u
n f I 20 •
HSH z
P P
P ncu -SH ;-,
. QsH. . ~ . - - ~ .SH . . - CCO Standard) 1Q .
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
- n n n fl
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak And Second H'9hest CO Values
in cl Paso County, Texas
, , Number of 8 Hour Periods in Which the
\Cj CO Standard was Exceeded in El Paso
County, Texas
50
§30
S20.
10
100
90
80
g 7°
?60
«50
•9
S 40
1_
OJ
'30
ICO Standard) 20
10
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average Second Highest CO Values
in El Paso County, Texas
(d)
FIGURE 11 - CO - El Paso County, Texas
n ^
0- 5- 9- 13- 17- 21-
48 12 16 20 24
pom 8- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in CO Concentration Ranges,
£1 Paso County, Texas, Selected Sites, 19S1
56
-------
Requested Actions from Headquarters: Work with the Mexican
government to obtain emission inventories from border areas so that U.S.
cities may better plan for air pollution reduction in their areas. EPA
also needs to work with the Mexican government to determine whether both
countries should develop and implement control strategies to reduce
emissions in border cities.
Total Suspended Particulate Problem Areas:
0 Texas: The State of Texas has four counties which contain
nonattainment areas that will not attain the TSP standard by December
31, 1982. These counties are Harris, El Paso, Cameron and Nueces.
Harris County has two areas designated as nonattainment for total suspended
particulates (TSP). One area (Houston #1) is considered not to have
attained the TSP standard by December 31, 1982, since there is no approved
SIP in place for this area and ambient monitoring shows violations of the
standard in this area. The other area is expected to attain the standard
by the December 31, 1982 deadline. Figure 12a shows, the peak and second
high 24-hour average TSP values for the nonattainment area and the county
as a whole, for the years 1971 through 1981. These values include dust
storm days which generally measured extremely high values, however, removal
of the dust storm days will not decrease the peakivalues Figures 12-15.
These days occur infrequently during the year. When ;the high values are from'
wind blown dust and the particle size is usually larger. The tentative
inhalable particulate (IP) standard will probably exclude the dust storm
values because of the particle size criteria that|wi'T1 be included in
the standard. '.
The second high values from the nonattainment area and attainment areas
were each averaged over each year and are presented in Figured 12b. Of the
time TSP was measured in 1981, 91 percent of the time was at levels less
than the 260 ug/m^, 24-hour standard (Figure 12d). One source (a steel
facility) has been identified as the major cause of the problem in the
nonattainment area. The State, City, EPA and the source are presently
developing a consent decree that will establish reasonably available
control technique (RACT) requirements for this source.
El Paso County has one area designated as nonattainment, El Paso #1, for
TSP, that will not attain the TSP standard by December 31, 1982. Figure
13a shows the peak and second highest TSP values in the nonattainment
area as compared to attainment areas of El Paso County. The very high
levels in 1977, 1978 .and 1979 are due to an improperly sited monitor.
The monitor has since been properly sited, however, it still has values
over the standard. The new monitoring site was not included in Figure
13 as it did not satisfy the data completeness criteria for inclusion
of a monitoring site (see Part II, Air Quality Problems). As in Harris
County, dust storms add to the high levels of particulate matter and the
new IP standard should help to eliminate wind blown dust from arid
lands in .West Texas being classified as a problem. Of the time TSP was
measured in 1981, 95 percent was at levels less than the 260 ug/m^, 24-hour
standard as shown in Figure 13d.
57
-------
1400-
1300 •
1200 '
| 1100 .
Cl
* 1000 •
a
= 900 •
c\i
~ 300-
ne
1 700'
| 600-
S 500-
c
01
g 400-
a
Si 300-
200-
100-
SH
P
P
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
x"
X
t
X
X
P = Peak
SH • Second High
P
SH
SH
SH
p'
"*"
J(
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
SH
_
SK
P
=
x
X
X
x
x
X
X
SH
P
P
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
SH
SH
P
f
c
P
x . _(TSP Standard)
x
x
x
x
x
m Honattainment Area Monitors
pj Other Monitors
(a)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second Highest TSP Values
in Harris County, Texas
30
20 -
10
Ik
(c)
1977 1978 197
Number of Days Above the TSP Standard'in
Harris County, Texas
1300-!
i
I2oor
2 noo-
* 1000-
0
- 900-
CXJ
_ 800-
"E
1 700!
§ 600-
4~*
C
u
§ 400-
^
ft 300-
)•
200-
100-
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
r
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
ri
-(TSP Standard
60-
50-
40-
30
20-
10.
n
n
(b)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest TSP Values
In Harris County, Texas
(d)
0- 66- 131- 196- 261- 325- 391- over
65 130 195 260 ,334 390 445 445
ug/m 24- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration Ranges,
Harris County, Texas. Selected Sites, 1981
FIGURE 12 - TSP - Harris County, Texas
58
-------
1300-
1200-
1100-
f looo-
a
§ 500-
£ 400.
e
i 300-
o
ft 200-
100-
sj
p
—
p
r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SH
SH
P
""
P
•M
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
SH
SH
P
-
X
»
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
;H
;H
p
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
SHC
SH x
X
SHpx
X
X
X
g
30 i
20.
10-
f * Peak
SH « Second High
(xj Nonattainraent Area Mr-itors
D Other Monitors
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
/ \ Peak and Second High TSP Values in
\dl El Paso County, Texas
1977 1978 1979 1930
1981
Number of Days Above the TSP Standard in
El Paso County, Texas
3.
- 20 .
3 10 -
n
(b)
1977 1973 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest TSP Values
in El Paso County, Texas
D
0-
65
(d)
66- 131- 196- 261- 325- 391- over
130 19^ 260 324 390 445 445 (ug/m3)
24-,Hour Average
Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration
Ranges, El Paso County, Texas, Selected Sites, 1981
FIGURE 13 - TSP - El Paso County, Texas
59
-------
According to the 1979 SIP, the State identified fugitive dust from wind
erosion of arid lands, and unpaved parking lots and roads as the major
causes for nonattainment. According to the 1977 emission inventory,
approximately 33 percent of emissions are due to point sources, and 67
percent due to fugitive sources. Attainment in El Paso was to be achieved
by December 31, 1982, through the application of controls for fugitive
emissions, to the extent, needed for attainment. However, the State of
Texas has not provided information to EPA on the controls implemented or
a demonstration of their effectiveness.
The nonattainment area in Cameron County is in the town of San Benito.
Figure 14a shows the peak and second highest TSP values for each year
(1977-1981). As can be seen by this figure, the nonattainment area in
San Benito is the only monitored problem area in Cameron County.
Particulate levels are shown to have decreased in San Benito since 1978.
However, there has not been a monitor in the nonattainment area since
1980 and there was less than one half of a year of data reported for 1980
and 1979. Monitoring needs to be conducted in the nonattainment area to
determine the status of this area.
According to the 1979 SIP, the State identified fugitive emissions from a
grain storage elevator and cotton gin, and unpaved streets and parking lots
as the major causes for nonattainment. According to the 1977 emission
inventory, approximately 6 percent of the emissions are due to point sources,
and 94 percent from fugitive sources. Attainment was to be achieved by December
31, 1982, through the application of controls for fugitive emissions, to •
the extent needed, and the agriculture facilities were to be brought
into compliance through enforcement of SIP Regulation I, Control of Air
Pollution From Visible Emission and Particulate Matter.
The designated nonattainment area in Nueces County that will not attain the
TSP standard by December 31, 1982, is a portion of the city of Corpus
Christi (Corpus Christi #1). The peak and second highest TSP values for
each year, 1977-1981, are shown in Figure 15a. This figure shows TSP
levels for the nonattainment area and the remainder (attainment portion)
of the county. Air quality has been below the standard in the whole
county since 1979. However, in the first two quarters 1982, monitoring
data in the nonattainment area shows two 24-hour periods with values over
the 260 ug/m 3 standard. The maximum values for the 2 periods are 320
and 265 ug/m^. The nonattainment area has also been violating the annual
geometric mean for TSP (75 ug/m^) since 1977. The annual geometric means
for the years 1977 to 1981 have ranged from 104 to 135 ug/m^.
According.to the 1979 SIP, the State identified fugitive emissions from
roads and parking lots as the major causes for nonattainment. According
to the 1977 emission inventory, all emissions are due to fugitive emissions.
Attainment was to be achieved by December 31, 1982, through the application
of controls for fugitive emissions to the extent needed. However, the
State has not provided information to EPA on the controls implemented or
their effectiveness.
0 Mew Mexico: The State of Mew Mexico has two counties which
contain nonattainment areas that will not attain the TSP standard by
December 31, 1982; Bernalillo and Grant.
60
-------
1300
1200 •
noo •
V
S1 1000 '
fc
5 900-
i.
1 800 '
3 700 .
rT"
-| 600-
3
s 500 •
0
TT
2 400 '
| 300-
5
g. 200-
^
100-
_p_
p
SH
SH
1
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SH
SHF
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
P » Peak
SH > Second High
P
~
. 3jt f . . . JL 4TSP Standard)
.I < P T >H !>
< C x £
SH " t SH ' x SH x
( x x
< X X
* .
Q Nonattalnment Area Monitors
D Other Monitors
* No Data Available
30 J
20'
10-
J3_
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second Highest TSP Values
(a) In Cameron County, Texas
1977 1978 1979 1980 1931
Number of Days Above tha TSP Standard in
Cameron County, Texas
1300 •
izoo-
01
ffuoo-
t.
01
« 1000 -
1 900.
I
~ 800'
n
1 700-
§ 600"
S 500-
c
§ 400"
3
ft 300'
200-
100-
ll
19
x
x
X
X
X
X
Y
77
n
IS
7
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
7£
r
i 19
«
(
(
c
i
t
'9
r
19
M
X
X
X
X
X
80
60 •
50 .
o
5 40 .
o
i 30 ,
OJ
u
b.
at
Q.
20 •
- - - - ^TSP Standard)
10 -
JL
1981
0
6
5
6i
i:
•i
0
n «
131- 196- 261- 325- 391- over
195 260 , 324 390 145. 445
/,x Average of Second Highest TSP Values
\0j in Cameron County, Texas
(d)
ug/m"' 24- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration Ranges,
Cameron County, Texas, Seiected Sites, 1981
FIGURE 14 - TSP - Cameron County, Texas
-------
1300 .
1200 .
11100 .
•* 1000 -
L.
= 900
5 800 .
P - Peak
SH <• Second High
[xj Honattalnment Area Monitors
D Other Monitors
4*/au -
CP»
3
C
'O
I.500 •
g'400 •
f 300 •
'200'-
100 •
p
p
' "p"
SHf"
x
X
x
X
X
X
SH
SH
*P
x
X
•J
X
X
X
x
-r" p
"SH
SH
x
x
x
X
fl
[H~ "
"f
r
x
x
X
X
r-J -P- -(TSP Standard)
SH RSH
P x
SHFX
\\
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Peak and Second Highest TSp Values
(3) in Hueces County, Texas
30 '
20-
10
(c)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Number of Days Above the TSP Standard in
Nueces County, Texas
1300 •
1200.
OJ
S no° •
^ 1000-
o
x
^ 900-
CVJ
•r SOD'
I 600-
1 500-
| 400-
Q.
12 300-
200-
100-
n x * " fx
lL""l"I-l;
60 '
50 -
-(TSP Standard)
30 -
20 .
10
_n
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest TSP Values
W/ in Mueces County, Texas
(d)
0- 66- 131- 196- 261- 325- 391- over
65 130 195 260 3324 390 445 445
ug/m 24- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration Ranges.
tlueces County, Texas, Selected Sites, 1SS1
FIGURE 15 - TSP - Nueces County, Texas
62
-------
Portions of the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, do not meet the
primary TSP standard and are designated as nonattainment areas. Figure
16a shows the peak and second highest TSP values for each year, 1977-
1981, for the designated nonattainment areas and the attainment portions
of Bernalillo County. The values for the county have varied over the
years and do not show any trends. The nonattainment areas, which will
not attain the TSP standard by December 31, 1982, consist of 2 areas
approximately 3 square miles each, in Albuquerque. Both nonattainment
areas had annual geometric mean (AGM) above the 75 ug/rn-^ AGM standard
in 1981. The values were 126 ug/m^ and 101 ug/m^. Figure 16c shows days
above the standard in attainment and nonattainment portions of the county.
The sources of the high TSP values are not known at this time, but they
are believed to be a mixture of fugitive dust from unpaved roads and
parking lots and other fugitive emission sources. No strategy has been
developed for reducing emissions although there is a continuing study of
the problem in preparation for the inhalable particulate (IP) standard.
The other area in New Mexico that will not attain by December 31, 1982,
is a portion of Grant County. Figure 17a shows the peak and second
highest TSP values for each year, 1977-1981, for the nonattainment and
attainment areas of Grant County. Monitoring data in the nonattainment
area in 1979, 1980 and 1981 show TSP levels have not appreciably changed,
with values well above the 75 ug/m^ annual geometric mean standard.
The sources of emissions in the nonattainment area are a combination of
fugitive emissions from roads in the City of Hurley and fugitive emissions
from a copper smelter. Attainment was to be achieved by December 31,
1982, through the application of controls for fugitive emissions such as
paving or coating, roads and enclosing of fugitive sources in the copper
smelter. The addition of controls to the copper smelter was completed
the first of 1982 and the smelter shut down from May through October, 1982.
Therefore, it is not known at this time what effect the controls will
have when the smelter is operational, as no ambient data has been entered
into NADB since the smelter began operations.
Principal barriers:
Principal barriers to reducing the extent of the TSP problem in Region 6
include the geography of the Region since a large portion of the region
is characterized by arid lands with little vegetation. This allows wind
blown dust to be a significant problem in this Region.
In addition, there is significant uncertainty about the proposed changes to
the inhalable particulate (IP) standard and the impact it will have
on the attainment status of the areas discussed above. There is* also
uncertainty about the influence of the smelter in New Mexico, on existing
TSP levels, after application of controls.
Implications for Agency Management:
State Actions: Texas Counties: The State to Texas needs to
reevaluate the 1979 control strategy and develop and/or apply additional
controls for areas not attaining the standard, as necessary.
63
-------
1300
1200 -
1
inoo •
<
1.1000 .
3
o
T 900 -
CSJ
•r eoo -
^>
- 700 '
c
o
•Z 600 -
£
1 500 -
5 400 -
CL
-300 .
'200 -
100 -
P =
SH =
P
P
SH
"
•~
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
*
D
SH
r
J>
x
X
X
X
Peak
Second High
-SH
SH
p
i_
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
SH
SH
';
-
X
x"
x
x
x
x
X
X
Y
SH
SH
P
J>
T
X
X
X
X
Y
1— 1 Nonattainment Area Monitors
rj Other Monitors
30-
I
20 -
- fTSP Standard)
!H; ' 10-
m
i— r LI r-r
I p^ ^^ .J*i ) njn _
1 IA i fi ii 1 III it
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
/ \ Peak and Second Highest TSP'Values
\°/ in Bernalillo County, Mew Mexico
1977 1978 1979 1980 1S31
Number of Days Above the TSP Standard in.
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
1300 •
1200 •
Cl
EllOO .
I
ulOOO .
1
4. 90° "
CM
•^800 -
1700 .
| 600 -
k.
I 5°° "
3 400 •
£ 300 -
200 •
100 "
_n x x
x fx x x x
x x x x x
x 1 x 1 x , „
60 -
50-
40.
30 -
20
(TSP Standard)
10 •
_TL
(b)
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Average of Second Highest TSP Values
in Sernalillo County, New Mexico
0- 66- 131- 196- 261- 325- 391- over
65 130 195 260 ,324 390 445 44S
ug/m 24- Hour Average
Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration Ranges,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Selected Sites, 19S1
FIGURE 16 - TSP - Bernalillo County, New Mexico
64
-------
1300 '
1200 .
1100 -
1000 •
H
J
"
1
JP.
P
SH
SH
P
x
x
7
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
SH
SH
P
•
M
X
X
X
X
7
X
x
X
X
X
X
ft
SH £,SH P
P * Pi-v
~ X JU
•srC x 'SH-p * . -
iq
£30 •
CJ
(J
OJ
c»
20 -
• -(TSP Standard)
10 .
fl
0- f
55 1
6
3
- 1
3 1
31
95
n „ .
- 196- 261- 325- '391- over
250 324 390 445 44 S
(b)
Average of Second Highest TSP Values
In Grant County, New Mexico
ug/n' 24- Hour Average
. , Percentage of Time in TSP Concentration Parties,
(dj Grant County, New Mexico. Selected Sites, 1931
FIGURE 17 - TSP - Grant County, New Mexico
65
-------
New Mexico Counties: The responsible agencies in New Mexico may need to
perform further analysis and develop localized control strategies for
the nonattainment areas in Bernalillo and Grant counties.
Regional Actions: The Regional office will continue working
with Texas and New Mexico in developing additional control strategies to
attain the TSP standard.
Requested Actions from Headquarters: EPA Headquarters needs
to proceed expeditiously with promulgation of an IP standard which will
provide some flexibility for regional variations in TSP problem
identification and control requirements.
Lead Problem Areas:
Texas: The State of Texas has two problem areas for attainment
of the lead standard, El Paso and Dallas. Both areas have stationary
sources of lead. Monitoring programs are currently being conducted to
determine the extent of the problem around each source.
The City of El Paso is monitoring lead emissions around one source, a
primary lead and copper smelter, which is the major cause of the.lead
problem in the El Paso area. Source specific and fugitive emissions along
with possibly mobile source emissions of lead contribute to the problem.
Under a TACB consent order, particulate and 862 controls were installed
in 1979 and 1980. Monitoring data (Figure 18) show many high values
previous to 1980. However, some of those values were from improperly
sited monitors, which were subsequently correctly sited in 1979.
Monitoring data show a decrease in lead levels in the area in 1979,
1980 and 1982. It is not clear if this decrease is due to the controls
or to a reduction in operating capacity, due to poor economic conditions.
TACB is investigating bringing enforcement action against the smelter
and requiring more controls. Lead emissions from the smelter are contributing
to elevated lead levels in the adjacent areas of New Mexico.
The City of Dallas, in cooperation with TACB, is operating special purpose
monitoring around the 2 secondary lead smelters in Dallas. There are
only 3 quarters (April - December, 1982) of data available for lead
levels at this time. More data will be available in the future as the
study continues. Figure 18 summarizes the data that is available. The
State of Texas will develop a control strategy if necessary for the Dallas
area after the study of the problem area is completed. The State is presently
investigating bringing enforcement action against one of the smelters.
Principal Barriers:
Principal barriers to reducing the extent of the lead problem in Region 6
focus on the need to complete the State's studies of lead emissions in
El Paso and Dallas and then to determine what enforcement actions may be
taken toward the source in El Paso and one smelter in Dallas.
Current economic conditions may prohibit these sources from complying quickly
with the State's requirements.
66
-------
l/l
c
o
01
o
c
o
o
•o
(O
(1)
15 -
in
CD
to
a> 10
s_
•>
E
01
5 -
El Paso Source sPec1f1c
Ambient monitors
Dallas —•—Ambient monitors
\ y / \ x. \ /
* Lead Standard, Quarterly Average / s^. L L
• - - - v - 7 V'""" ^ '" ^IF "
1977
I
4 ' 2
1978
i
4
2
1979
l
4
1 '
1980
i I
4 2
1981
4 2
1982
Calendar Quarters
FIGURE 18 - Lead - Highest Quarterly Averages for Lead in El Paso and Dallas, Texas
-------
Implications for Agency Management:
State Actions: Lead control strategies need to be developed
for the lead sources in Dallas and El Paso, after completion of the
State's studies.
Regional Actions: The Region will work with the appropriate
agencies to continue the monitoring studies and to develop control
strategies for each area.
Requested Action from Headquarters: Information is needed on
cost effective methods to control fugitive lead emissions from smelters.
*
Air Toxics:
The States in Region 6 are concerned about the issue of toxic air
contaminants. Texas and Louisiana have many sources of toxic chemicals.
The State of Texas is currently setting up monitoring programs for two
studies. One study is a comprehensive sampling program in Deer Park,
Texas to investigate chemicals in the air which may be causing a suspected
unusual increase in skin disorders in the area. This sampling program
resulted from requests by citizens and analyses were conducted for various
organic compounds, heavy metals, and elements. The other study is to
define the problem of several selected toxic air contaminants in 4 counties
along the upper Gulf Coast; Harris, Galveston, Jefferson and Orange.
The State of Louisiana has recently completed short-term special purpose
monitoring in six areas using a mobile van. Permanent sites will be
selected after preliminary data is analyzed.
The State of Oklahoma has also started to define air toxic problems in
the State. Oklahoma is currently conducting studies for benzene and
toluene in Tulsa and for cadmium in Bartlesville and Miami.
The State of New Mexico has initiated a monitoring program for air toxics.
At the present time monitoring is being conducted in Anapra and Silver
City for arsenic and cadmium. The State is also investigating other toxic
elements such as HC1 in Monument, New Mexico.
Arkansas' primary area of concern for air toxic activities is El Dorado.
Two sites have been established for 2 priority sources in this area; a
hazardous waste incinerator and a brominated compound manufacturing
facility.
68
-------
ATTACHMENT A: MEDIUM OVERVIEW
Ozone (03):
Ozone is the major air quality problem in Region 6. Figure 19 shows the
areas exceeding the primary standard and alert levels for 03 in 1981.
This map shows counties exceeding the alert level in 1981 to include
Harris, Jefferson and Brazoria counties. Other areas in the Region with
several Exceedances of the primary standard include the counties of
Dallas, Tarrant, Orange and Denton in Texas; East Baton Rouge, Iberville,
and St. John the Baptist Parishes in Louisiana; and Tulsa County in
Oklahoma. Part II of this report discusses the Harris, Dallas, Tarrant,
El Paso, East Baton Rouge and Tulsa areas. It also identifies those
rural areas classified as not attaining the 03 standard that bave
measured 03 exceedances as significant problem areas. Rural 03 areas
are defined by EPA as areas containing fewer than 200,000 people in
1970. EPA believes the 03 air quality in these counties is due primarily
to the contributions from sources in industrialized urban areas. Any
States with rural 03 areas exceeding the 03 standard after 1982 are re-
quired to demonstrate that these exceedances are caused by emissions trans-
ported from other areas.
Figure 20 shows the 03 attainment status for Region 6 from 1978 to 1932.
In 1978, 38 counties or parishes in Region 6 were designated as nonattain-
ment since they contained areas in which primary violations occurred; in
1981 this number was reduced to 32. We believe that only 10 of these areas
still exceed the 03 standard, since we expect States to demonstrate that the
remaining 22 nonattainment areas would attain the standard on the basis of
monitoring data, modeling analysis or other data available to EPA.
Of the 631 major stationary sources which emit volatile organic compounds
(VOC) in Region 6, 93 percent are currently in compliance with
Federal ar"^ ^ta-t-o air ronnlatinnc Tho mainr r 1 acci f i rati nn nf
-------
s—P.-.—npT'7'1
i? i ...;
'''
--4
o
I I :••-• I"" !, '!'
L "• I < ;
;* vr. " ».:'.-,; -S.M - -- I .12 ppm '•«,! t
•«. «•
Q 2-5 observations >.12 ppm
A 6-15 observations > .12 ppm
-A- more than 15 observations > .12 ppm
0 observations between .12 and .20 ppm
(jp 1 observation > .20 ppm
(gj 2-5 observations > .20 ppm
0 6-15 observations > .20 ppm
(£) more than 15 observations > .20
FIGURE 19- Exceedances of the primary standard and alert level
for 0- in Region 6, 1981
-------
!;V"r ' J .XI-.J-U, p"j
1^C~bS-d>H
TT~rr^
-
._
E ; *r^-"
'!"" | Designated attainment/unclassified
Redesignated as attainment
rgn Designated nonattainment but projected
to be in attainment
[-J-I Projected not to be attainment
rT-rrn Designated nonattainment but projected to be in
•^ attainment only by EPA's rural ozone policy
Hill Received an extension until 1987
FIGURE
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO):
There has been some improvement in CO levels in Region 6 over the past
few years. Figure 21 is a map of areas exceeding the primary standard
and alert levels for CO. This map shows that the major problem areas are
Albuquerque, New Mexico; El Paso, Texas; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Other areas
depicted on the map have only one exceedance of the standard in 1981 which
is allowed.
Figure 22 shows the CO attainment status in the Region from 1978 to 1982.
In 1978, six counties in Region 6 States were designated as nonattainment
for CO since they violated the standard; in 1981, this number had been
reduced to four counties: Bernalillo (Albuquerque) and Dona Ana Counties,
New Mexico; El Paso, Texas and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Bernalillo County has
been granted an extension until 1987 to attain the CO standard. EPA
believes Dona Ana and Tulsa should'be able to demonstrate attainment
soon. El Paso is still exceeding the standard and was discussed in Part
II as a problem area.
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE (TSP): i
Progress has been made in Region 6 in reducing TSP levels. Figure 23
shows those areas exceeding the primary standard and the alert levels for
TSP. This map shows that El Paso County, Texas is the area with the most
exceedances in the Region. Harris County, Texas and Dona Ana County, New
Mexico also had numerous exceedances of the TSP 24-hour standard, however, the
alert level (375 ug/m^, 24-hour average) was only exceeded one time in
each county. Eight counties have exceeded the 24-hour TSP standard two
to five times in 1981; six of these exceeded the alert level once.
Nineteen counties exceeded the 24-hour standard once; seven of these
were over the alert level, however, one exceedance per year is allowed
so none of these are violations.
Figure 24 shows the TSP attainment status of Region 6 from 1978 to
1982. In 1978, eighteen counties in Region 6 States were designated as
nonattainment since they contained areas in which primary violations
occurred; in 1981, the number of counties had been reduced to 11. EPA
believes that only 6 of these areas still exceed the standard as discussed
in Part II.
TSP problems in Region 6 are believed to be primarily due to wind blown
dust, unpaved roads, agricultural sources and fugitive dust from several
sources in one State. The reduction in TSP has been achieved through the
control of fugitive emissions from stationary sources, and paving of roads
and parking lots. Of the 1966 major industrial sources of TSP in^ Region 6,
98.4 percent are in compliance with Federal and State air regulations.
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Figure 25 shows the SOg attainment status of Region 6 from 1978 to 1982.
Only 2 counties in one state in Region 6 contain primary S02 nonattainment
areas in 1981: San Juan and Grant. The problems were due to coal-fired power
plants and a copper smelter. New Mexico has requested redesignation of
72
-------
CO
O
"l-"-1'"" isv=jri...u
cri.MJ—AF'"--"
(j 1 observation > 10 mg/m
i-j
(S 2-5 observations >10 mg/m
A6-15
observations > 10 mg/m
more than 15 observations > 10 mg/m
i
observations between 10 and 17 mg/m
3
1 observation > 17 mg/m
3
2- 5 observations > 17 mg/m
3
6-15 observations > 17 mg/m
^ more than 15 observations > 17 mg/m"
FIGURE 21 - Exceedances of the primary standard and alert level
for CO in Region 6, 1981
-------
[ I Designated attainment/unclassified
Redesignated as attainment after 1978
Designated nonattainment but projected
to be in attainment
Projected not to be attainment
Received an extension until 1987
Attainment for portion of County
FIGURE 22 - CO Attainment Status in Region 6, 1978-1982
-------
I
/.»--_.'- L
/ 6
•
I-
A
..,-. .
.,6:_ri;f
(|) 1 observation > 260 ug/m
2-5 observations > 260 ug/m
6-15 observations > 260 ug/m
3
more than 15 observations > 260 ug/m
observations between 260 and 375 ug/m
3
1 observation > 375 ug/m
3
2-5 observations > 375 ug/m
6- 15 observations > 375 ug/m
3
more than 15 observations > 375 ug/m
FIGURE 23 - Exceedances of the primary standard and alert ilevel
for TSP in Region 6, 1981
-------
cn
JL._ LF_,^4V-Vk j
• -
- ii\. A ^ - --"'
-
-TrcuT
V- •'""-- f^'""l f
\ A -r^x V/ \ \ i
( ] Designated attainment/unclassified
Redesignated as attainment after 1978
Designated nonattainment but projected
to be in attainment
Projected not to be attainment
Attainment status for portion of County; number
indicates more than one area with same designation
FIGURE 24 - TSP Attainment Status in Region 6, 1978-1982
-------
^tri*M*?
.. : r-r'-^/'^^-H Mq-i.V" m- V
I"" I....... / ' -<-•••f--ii ":.'"A -rA * 'i-^T:
x i i '..'i :•••• ..-- -,-. • v ••-:••-, ^-- --\ [, v —'
.^/-.J... j ,- W-.r^'-^x.^v/. A, I V. W-1'. C .J
v )--.•-,-W-v.> /,.v-;4.-
.
j~"_~| Designated attainment/unclassified
[@)|Redesignated as attainment after 1978
[^Designated nonattainment but projected
^^^to be in attainment
[.<3)JProjected not to be attainment
iAttainment status for portion of County; number indicates
than one area with same designation
FIGURE 25 - S02 Attainment Status in Region 6, 1978-1982
-------
CO
©
6
O 2-5 observations > 365 ug/m
1 observation > 365 ug/m •.
3
6-15 observations > 365 ug/mJ
3
more than 15 observations > 365 ug/m
4
3 3
observations between 365 ug/m and 800 ug/m
1 observation > 800 ug/m
3
2-15 observations > 800 ug/m
3
6-15 observations > 800 ug/m
more than 15 observations > 800 ug/m
FIGURE 26 - Exceedances of the primary standard and alert level
for S02 in Region 6, 1981
-------
the S02 nonattainment area surrounding the coal-fired power plants in
San Juan. The supplementary control system being used at the copper
smelter should keep the ambient levels of SOj below the standard.
NITROGEN DIOXIDE (N02):
No areas exceeded the NC>2 standard in 1981, although one urban area exceeded
the alert level (282 ug/m3, 24 hour average), Figure 27. An exceedance of
the alert level does not constitute a violation of any standard. This
measure is only to alert authorities and the public that if the trend
continues public health could be impacted and measures should be taken
to prevent this occurrence. In 1978, there were no areas in Region 6
designated as nonattainment for N02- There are also no N02 nonattainment
areas currently in the Region. :
LEAD (Pb): . :
Currently there are only 2 areas in the region with known lead pollution
problems, Dallas, Texas and an area around El Paso, Texas in Texas and
New Mexico. Oklahoma is to start monitoring lead in Bartlesyille as
there is a potential source of high lead levels in that area. Louisiana
has established a lead monitoring network and should start analyzing data
soon. Arkansas does not anticipate any lead problems as they do not have
any point.sources of lead; however, Arkansas is committed to establish 2
SLAMS for-Head. •"• • ;'
AIR TOXICS: :
The states of Region 6 are currently starting monitoring programs around
potential sources,of air toxics. Part II discusses more fully each
state's program. ;
ACID RAIN: .
Acid rain is not a problem of immediate concern throughout most of Texas;
however, there are two areas in Texas that appear susceptible to potential
acid rain deposition impacts. These are the northeast and southeast portion
of Texas. The northeast corner of Texas appears to be the area in Texas most
likely to be susceptible to potential impact. Vegetation in this region,
particularly that found in sandy pinelands and boggy wet lands, is potenti-
ally sensitive to acid deposition. Soils in this region are also potentially
sensitive, due to their naturally acidic nature.
The southeast portion of Texas also appears to be susceptible to some of
the acid deposition impacts. This area is of major importance in the
overall acid deposition issue due to the high density of air pollution
emission sources and levels of precipitation acidity found there.
The region west of a line drawn approximately from Corpus Christi through
Dallas - Fort Worth to the Red River appears to be relatively immune to
impacts of acid deposition. Soils in this area have a sufficient natural
alkaline buffering capacity to neutralize acid depositions which may
occur.
79
-------
oo
o
PO--—I
,-J ^
f—-"-wrr.
-.—-s.----™...
'••'*
'•N
(", " I7^~..;
i_.
r-.
55S"
~i..--.
.,
"I
\
H
•
-,-i
(jjjj) 1 observation > 282 ug/m"5
@ 2-5 observations > 282 ug/m3
3
@ 6-15 observations > 282 ug/m
(D more than 15 observations > 282 ug/m"
. r-.A -n-j-
^ i J—L.j ;, ,:?'.>.^-,:^<-S .X v ^7^ '\ 3^5]
FIGURE 27 - Observations greater than the alert level for
N02 in Region 6, 1981
-------
Dry deposition is probably at least as important as wet deposition in
Texas. This is due in part to the large portion of nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions in the State. NOX is converted to nitric acid (HMC^), which is
removed primarily by dry deposition mechanisms. The climatology of
Texas, with less frequent precipitation events, more sunshine, and higher
temperatures than most of the northeastern U.S., also enhances the relative
contribution of dry deposition.
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) currently operates event monitors at
regional offices located in Tyler, Beaumont, and Fort Worth. Sample pH
and conductivity are measured at both the regional and central laboratories.
Sample analyses of specific cations and anions are performed at the TACB
central laboratory. For 1982 at the Tyler site, pH values measured ranged
from 3.7 to 5.3 with a pH arithmetic mean of 4.3. The TACB also operates
one National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) monitor at Longview.
Data collection began in June, 1982.
New Mexico is planning to operate 2 acid rain monitors. One site may be
located at Chaco Canyon National Monument where it is suspected that acid
rain may be accelerating weathering of the unique archaeological sites.
The other may be located in the Santa Fe National Forest as private
studies in the past have recorded pH values as low as 4.0 in this area.
Acid rain may be also impacting New Mexico at higher elevations where
there less potential for neutralization.
Arkansas currently has a specialized'.sequential sampler located in Little
Rock that analyzes rain fractions for ;pH during each rainfall event.
The State uses lab analysis to determine sulfate, nitrate and metals
content of samples. The pH values observed at the site range from 4 to 6.
Oklahoma will install two acid rain monitors in late 1983. [ They will
probably be located in the southeastern portion of the State, which may
be the most susceptible area to potential impact.
Louisiana has initiated a preliminary program monitoring rainfall pH at
two sites in the Baton Rouge area. Data collection began in August,
1982. The pH values as low as 3.4 have been observed at one site.
Louisiana will step up acid rain monitoring in 1983.
81
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WAFER QUALITY
WrfANSAS Page
PART I - OVERVIEW ANJt ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Introduction
'Men Quality
Taole A - Toxic Water guilty P-oblems
Figure 1 - Dissolved Oxygen
Figure ?. - pH
Figure 3 - Col i form
Pigira 4 - Water Qualuy S:atus and Trends
PART n - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ,v\'D IMPLICATIONS 30
Si griifi cants Problems
°rincipa] Barriers
Imp! ica: ions for Agency Management
Vat»2r Quality
Construction Grants
NPOES Permits
LOUISIANA
PART I - OVERVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL SLUl'S m TRENDS 94
Introduction
Uater Quality
Figure 1 - Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 2 - pH
Figure 3 - Coli form
Figure 4. Water (j^rry s^fjs and Tren-js
PAT.T i: - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
i
Sicjvrnca.rf. crotl«trs
.Tp'l U:atio'is for Agency
Quality
jci. i on iiran^s
NPI'^S Permits
Carpi lance
Figure 5 - Phenolic?
Figure S - Total Chlorina'xnl Hy.jrocarbon;
Figure 7 •• C'lrtm'ium
a 8 - Oxygen Damnndinc Po'iKtants
52
-------
FART 1 - OVERVIEW Ar-'D -NVIUO.'IMENrA'- STAi'U: AND TR£NDS 1C
"nu reduction
Surface Water Quality
Table 3 - Significant St'-ii-i! dat?r ^la'ny 'riD^von.s
Figure 1 - LMssoivad GxyO'-iM
Figure 2 - pH
Figure 3 - Colifonn
Groundwater Ouality
PART II - SIOMFjCAST ^^Vlrt'JNMSNTAL PR031.F.KS ANC IMPLICATIONS
Si gni fi cent Prch'i
-------
TEXAS Page
^•L-.IJ-m J
PART I - OVERVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS 127
Introduction
Water Quality
Figure 1 - Dissolved Oxygen
Figure 2 - pH '•
Figure 3 - Coliform
Figure 4 - Status of St,-?am Segments
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS 133
Significant Problems
Principal Barriers
Implications for Agency Management
Water Quality
Construction Grants
Compliance
Table C - Enforcement Activity FY 82
EPA REGION VI AGENCY CONCERNS 138
Second-Round NPDES Permitting
General Permitting
Table 0 - NPDES Permits Issued
84
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
INTRODUCTION - ARKANSAS
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPC&E) is
authorized to act as the "State Water Pollution Control Agency" for the
State of Arkansas. One of their many functions is to maintain the ambient
surface water monitoring program. There are 103 ambient river and stream
monitoring stations, 24 fish, shellfish, and sediment stations, and 42
biological monitoring stations.
There are six major river basins in Arkansas (the White, Arkansas, St.
Francis, Ouachita, Red and Mississippi) which are further divided into
thirty-nine water quality planning segments based on hydrological charac-
teristics, man's activities, etc. The streams within each segment are
classified as effluent limited or water quality limited on the basis of
present and projected water quality problems. Based on 1974 data, there
are approximately 309 water quality limited streams and 214 effluent
limited streams.
Of the 6,239 miles of major Arkansas streams, it is estimated by the State
that 4,087 miles, or 77 percent, will meet fishable/swimmable standards.
The,remaining 23. percent of stream miles fall short of fishable/swimmable
goals due to physical manipulation of the stream through dredging, stream
channelization, land clearing for agriculture, and the resulting nonpoint
source pollution as well as municipal industrial point source discharges.
In these streams, mean fecal coliform levels frequently exceed the criteria
for swimming. Turbidity levels are also exceeding levels suitable for
recreation. Many Arkansas streams experience atypical dilution ratios
and low reaeration rates due to low streambed slopes.
ADPC&E is presently involved in two water pollution control permit programs:
the State program and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program administered by EPA.
In 1980, the statewide population was 2,285,513. In the year 2000, the
population is expected to increase approximately 33% and reach 3,032,046.
WATER QUALITY
Despite a steady growth in the State's population and in industrial and
agricultural production, the overall water quality has remained fa-irly
high. Throughout the State, water quality varies widely, depending on
local economic activities and natural conditions. The highly agricultur-
al i zed Delta region is heavily influenced by nonpoint source agricultural
runoff, i.e., turbidity, suspended solids, and nutrients. The west central
region is showing some degrading trends concerning dissolved oxygen, nutrients
and total dissolved solids. The southwest region continues to exhibit signs
of the petroleum production which occurred primarily in the past.
85
-------
In addition, the lowland stream characteristics are evident in water
quality conditions specifically, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, suspended
solids, turbidity, and pH. The extreme northwest region is experiencing
a decline in water quality due to increasing population and increased
usage of animal waste for land application. The north central region is
showing current land use changes, where hardwood forests are being con-
verted to pasturelands. These changes are affecting the silts and sus-
pended sediments being measured in surface waters.
Progress has been made toward eliminating pesticides from the environment.
Table A presents results of monitoring activities. The number of
water samples containing concentrations exceeding recommended criteria by
year are reported.
Table A: Toxic Water Quality Problems in Arkansas
YEAR 74/75 76/77 78/79 80/81
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Lindane
Toxaphene
Methyl Pa rath ion
42
41
33
No Data
67
No Data
31
50
29
2
41
19
11
10
17
No Data
20
No Data
0
0
0
0
2
3
Remnants of past usage of the more persistent pesticides are still being
observed in the food chain organisms and some sediment samples. For the
most part it appears that the fish tissue sampling results are lagging
behind the surface water sampling explained above and following the same
general trend.
Currently, there are also several regions in the State where point source
pollution control programs are inadequate. For example, there are approx-
imately 349 towns without sewer systems. There are also many municipal
facilities that are inadequate or overloaded.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 present information relating to violations of Water
Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen, pH and coliform at stream moni-
toring stations throughout Arkansas. These figures were developed using
the monitoring data in STORET for the years 1978-1981. The stations
were selected using the following criteria:
- The station must have had at least 30 observations for
dissolved oxygen and pH, and at least 15 observations
for coliform.
- The station must have had at least 45 months of coverage.
86
-------
'8 E N T 0 N g"** * ROLL
I BOONE ••*«
Hfrim ! Htll.M
,-Z_ .X
c- —i. J
-jy-p-L ,—L_
-j i i
ufc-.T.-.-r!^" l\'-iM^6 ! ser?i L '*
riiA>v-'?
• "$jjjgy""*f— JT^
i POLK > MONTGOMERY
Figure I
Dissolved Oxygen % Exceedence
• 0-9%
A 10-24%
B ^ 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
87
-------
U-fe-T^ £L#4 c
) I w H i 25%
(>30 samples between I978H98I)
88
-------
*oeeapgna
'FULTOW^11\ RANDOLPH li
SoUnrfSn . ""l ^ *.i
• r | /* "
.-'*——...IL.*»Hl«Ljf
,y , i—w-«5-nan r-
//jiEWTOM j SEARCY [^S
rM£ CT'^tfA CROSJ^W.on f^i
(SEBASTIAN J L ^ A_ N/^—^^^^__ j^t"on ^ULKNERj S*<"':V HL- ' uflC^P **"''' "W'CRITTENDE^^
I A^-(ClJsH~^- ® •fff^^Kci r3t->*^"j"v / 1" ST^A^S ! ^lr*
r^-^Q-R-^f^^-i^-.f^.
iS^i'S^^^^'^4-^
v"' \ «•••• 4 cT'.-iraSic sK98BCai "~" i. ' ; •"—L J*ii i — •»
I' POLK . MONTGOMERY j ^pl"m9,U.jlgaa.^T, J_.i.l -v^ Stuttgart ^W ®'"""10/
i _,~^ k s. i -^—^AV-/' i S I »iw J
I ^~"rsT"^- "aa^F' Shvdo" i«\««oJ ARKANSAS V / «^'
l—L^"*" i-W -- pBt^-- 4-m^ ! s\« A N T ; ^'W^Lj^ A.--LI*
Risen ]'
^NoshviHe
, V^.x Vf"|'^ ri..^^ . A~ _£*-*:. o <>%i ^Xl f'" ~" " ~U 0 E S H A '
jUTTLE mvERt^TMEMPSTEAO .
L AshdOm ~l'V O I AM ACM (TA -X I
NEVADA ,OU4CHr\A< CALHOUN '""""b / O i'S "CrtVo
,' IComdenO A O^k <^OR£W |~f—?j
-L _1 _-.J ^-"Pton ^ SI M Y-*
,'BRAOLE'grak ,
£1 Owa
ASH
Figure 3
Coliform % Exceedence
0-9%
10-24%
> 25%
(>I5 samples between 1978-1981)
89
-------
Figure 4 illustrates the water quality status and trends for several para-
meters for the sixteen hydrologic basins. Despite industrial and population
growth in Arkansas, the water quality in the State remains fairly stable.
PART II SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
The sixteen hydrologic basins vary in population density and growth rate,
water quality, point sources of pollution, and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. The major point sources of pollution are municipalities and industry.
The major nonpoint sources of pollution are failing septic tanks, agricul-
tural runoff, animal waste land application and runoff, construction runoff,
oil and brine disposal, and silvicultural runoff.
Water Quality monitoring over the past decade has indicated a potential
problem with pesticides found in streams, particularly in the eastern
or delta portion of the state. However, more recently the trend in
pesticide levels in this area has been decreasing.
In 1979-1980, one particular stream, Bayou Meto, was found to have relatively
low levels of dioxin in sediment and fish tissue and was subsequently quaran-
tined by the State. More recent testing has indicated that dioxin levels in
sediment and fish tissue samples from Bayou Meto have decreased. The miles
of stream reach affected by dioxin have also decreased.
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS
At present, one of the greatest problems facing the voluntary nonpoint source
pollution control program is an economic one. Land owners and land users
have no incentive to implement best management practices (BMPs) that will
not help increase production immediately. Poor economic conditions also
tend to accelerate the consolidation of small farms and concentration of
land ownership.
With the increased population growth, there are increasing demands on muni-
cipal wastewater treatment plants, with the result, in some cases, of exceeding
their design capacity. This can result in either inefficient or inadequate
treatment of the wastewater, or spills of raw sewage into watercourses.
Another problem of increased population growth and development is increased
eutrophication in water supply lakes. One example is Beaver Reservoir. It
has been degraded by both point and nonpoint sources from the surrounding
area.
Because of resource constraints, the State will have difficulties in
evaluating the attainment of Water Quality Standards and the protection of
designated uses for all Arkansas streams.
90
-------
Rfjure4- Water Quality Status and Trends-Arkansas
^
Rivers/Streams
Creek
fbur-che. Larave
LiUie River
flea River
StJphor "River
Upper Mississippi.
Bayou
'
Bayou
Lower Mississippi.
Boeaf Rive
//£/
<
X Z/X
j
• •
ra
ill
-•
u.
'///-•
' / / S /
-m
lilii
u
li
...
ppa
i!i i!it
1 ' X
v v!
X X XX
U
:?ir':::
:|ii
ijiii:
ilii7!:!
',i»i'X i
ill " "
%tM "
i^lN :!!:! "
il
— ".;
•,;-H;
u.
W^
Si
1;;
U.
••
n
I'lil'l' ''•'/
ii^iiiijiii; -
'f: It
u. u u.
n
;;S • • • '
ill ^ "
u. u. u.
^5 ••
|i;i||ii -
'-iifi? -
Se\/eriVv
M;
M<
jjor-Freqaenl
Violations
Derate -Occas
Violations
Minor -Uses
^enfi*^LLy r
Few to Hone
- iiiili;
.. J .
/xxx ;xxx
'4// xxx
^'li!!^
"iMiiL
iSimisL
•• l^itr
i { ..
U. U- U.
..] j ..
•- I ,. ;
/
tl ////
•1 1 /xTx
U. U. U.
/ / / / ! ' V ( ,
iijif; ;|i|'ft
- 1 s^
t
'ifinaL i
-let
j
•
• •
•
u.
i ,
'#
'•
u_
*
'
'&
(
«
Unknown
> Primary Causes
Nonpomt, Mu-'^iclpaL
Municipal, Nonpoint
Municipal) Nonpoint
Montcipat,U»>baa Runoff,
Industrial, Nonpoint
«. I " J L
Nonpotnt
IftaVstriaL ManicjpaL .
, Monpolnt
Point ,Monpoint
N on point
Mon point,
Muni
Industrial 'Municipal,
Point,
Urban RonoW.Mu^iaf pal. Aqri
-------
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY
ADPC&E is currently using Section 205(j) funds to reclassify Arkansas
streams. Site specific standards for selected waters to protect existing
and attainable uses will be developed. The State Water Quality Standards
will be revised when this data becomes available.
EPA has funded the State through Section 208 to study the cause and effect
and the management of several honpoint source pollution problems. These
studies include best management practices for septic tanks, forestry,
agriculture, animal waste, and construction runoff.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Arkansas has modified its construction grant priority rating system to
meet the requirements of P.L. 97-117. The priority system ranking formula
includes a segment index which is determined by the percent of stream
measurements which violate Water Quality Standards.
Due to the high population growth rate for the city of Fayetteville and
the surrounding communities, EPA has provided funding for the facilities
planning for new treatment facilities for the city of Fayetteville (White
River) and the construction of several treatment plants for the surrounding
smaller communities.
The high level of coliform and low dissolved oxygen level in the Arkansas
River in the Little Rock area appear to be caused by urban runoff and an
overloaded wastewater treatment facility. To alleviate this problem EPA
has provided the funding for the construction of a new treatment facility
which is nearly complete. Completion of the new facilities should result
in a decrease in the coliform level and an increase the dissolved oxygen
level in the Arkansas River.
Wastewater operator training has been completely restructured. This should
result in better operated and maintained wastewater treatment facilities
and reduced Water Quality Standards violations.
Since 1956 over 642 construction grants totaling over $266,586,796 in
Federal funds have been awarded in the state of Arkansas. This includes
294 grants awarded under P.L. 84-660 and 348 grants awarded under P.L.
92-500. A further breakdown is as follows:
92
-------
Number of Grants Amount Awarded
P.L. 84-660 294 $ 62,148,070
P.L. 92-500
• - Step 0 Delegation 3 $ 3,574,100
• - Step 1 Planning 172 $ 6,646,734
. - Step 2 Design 81 $ 9,666,421
- Step 3 Construction 52 $140,306,529
: ^ Step 4 (2+3) 37 $ 43,368,168
- Step 5 Advance of Allowance 1 $ 199,321
- Step 6 WQM Planning " 1 $ 177,453
- Step 9 State Training Center 1 $ 500,000
P.L. 92-500 Total 348 $204,438,726
•To date the P.L. 84-660 projects have resulted in the construction of many
/treatment works including 237 treatment plants. Many of the P.L. 92-500
projects are! still under way. As of October 1, 1982, the Step 3 and 2+3
grants have resulted in the .completion of 49 treatment plants as well as
.other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge handling facilities
and lift stations.
NPOES PERMITS
EPA is presently working with the State to reissue municipal and industrial
NPDES permits. Additionally, the State is completing the requirements to
undertake NPDES delegation. A tabulation of NPDES permits issued in Region II
and Arkansas is included in Table D.
93
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
INTRODUCTION - LOUISIANA
The responsibility for maintaining the water quality in Louisiana lies with
the Water Pollution Control Division (WPCD) of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources (LDNR). WPCD is responsible for maintaining 119 ambient
water quality monitoring stations and 72 pesticide'sampling stations. In
addition, the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources collects
samples for bacteria analysis at 208 stations statewide. The above listed
monitoring stations are located in eleven stream basins which are subdivided
into 113 stream segments. Currently, 92 of these stream segments are classi-
fied as effluent limited and 21 as water quality limited. Preliminary indica-
tions from an ongoing study to review and revise the segment classifications
show that the number of water quality limited segments will most likely
increase. There are eighteen segments within the State that can be classified
as severely polluted and are considered to be unacceptable with respect to
meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act.
WPCD also uses intensive surveys to further define water quality in the State
of Louisiana. Between FY 78 and FY 82, 69 intensive surveys were completed.
These surveys are being used to assess segment classifications as well as
developing defensible wasteload allocations for municipal dischargers.
LDNR is currently issuing State permits and collecting a State permit fee
from all dischargers in Louisiana. Although LDNR has not drafted National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in recent years, an
effort toward the drafting of NPDES permits will be undertaken in FY 83.
Louisiana has expressed interest in accepting the delegation of the NPDES
program in the near future. A tabulation of NPDES permits issued in the
Region and in the State of Louisiana is included in Table D.
Within these eleven stream basins, the Louisiana Water Quality Management
Plan states that there will be a 26.6% increase in population between 1970
and 2000. The 1980 population was projected in the WQM Plan to be 3,984,432
and growing to 4,632,220 by 2000. The greatest growth rates were predicted
to be in the Barataria, Lake Pontchartrain, and Terrebonne basins. The
standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs) were predicted to have an
average population increase of 30.3%. SMSAs predicted to have the greatest
growth rates in the WQM Plan were Baton Rouge, Lafayette, Monroe, and New
Orleans.
-------
WATER QUALITY
Despite the growth in the population and industry in the State, the overall
water quality has remained reasonably constant. Each of the eleven river
basin systems has several parameters of concern to the citizens of Louisiana.
The basins and concerns are as follows:
Atchafalaya - sediment/turbidity.
Barataria - dissolved oxygen.
Calcasieu - chlorides, sulfates, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,
taste, and odor.
Lake Pontchartrain - dissolved oxygen and pH.
Mermentau - Vermilion - Teche - dissolved oxygen, sulfates, pH, and
coliform.
Mississippi - coliform, salt water intrusion, phenols, and other toxics.
Ouachita - chlorides, sulfates, dissolved oxygen, p.H, and pesticides.
Pearl - occasional pH and coliform.
Red - dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, and coliform.
Sabine - chloride, sulfate, dissolved oxygen, and coliform.
Terrebonne - coliform, and dissolved "Oxygen.
Although the parameters listed above indicate areas of concern in Louisiana
waters, some of these problems can be attributed to natural conditions. These
include sediment carried by the Atchafalaya River; seasonal Tow flows in the
Calcasieu and Ouachita Rivers; and flow from back water swamp areas in the
Calcasieu, Ouachita, and Sabine Rivers.' In other Louisiana waters, some of
the problems can be attributed to increasing population and the need for better
municipal treatment and/or urban stormwater runoff control in the Barataria
basin, the Lake Pontchartrain basin, the Mermentau-Vermilion-Teche basin,
and the Terrebonne basin. In recent years the Calcasieu and Pearl River
basins have shown improvements in water quality due to water pollution
control activities.
There is also concern in Louisiana over the concentration of pesticides in the
heavily agricultural areas of the State. LDNR is conducting a semi-annual
pesticide sampling program at 72 sites around the State to assess the extent
of the problem. No conclusions have been drawn on these studies as yet.
Figures 1,2, and 3 present information relating to violations of the Louisiana
Water Quality .Standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, and coliform at the 119 stream
monitoring stations throughout the Region. Figure 4 illustrates the water in
quality status and trends for the eleven river basins in Louisiana.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS -
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
The eleven water quality basins in the State of Louisiana vary in population
density and growth rate, water quality and quantity, fresh water versus salt
water, and kinds of problems and accomplishments. The major point sources
of pollution are municipalities and industries. The major nonpoint sources
of pollution are agricultural runoff, urban runoff, salt water intrusion,
and residual wastes. Of principal concern to the State of Louisiana are the
95
-------
93*
8S-
Figure I
Dissolved Oxygen % Exceedence
© 0-9%
A 10-24%
II > 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
96
-------
*^$^W*3^%
Figure 2
pH % Exceedence
© 0-9%
A 10-24%
H > 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
97
-------
93"
90'
89-
Figure 3
Coliform % Exceedence
® 0-9%
Jk 10-24%
H > 25%
(>I5 samples between 1978-1981)
98
-------
-Water Quality Status and Trends-Louisiana
Rivers/Basins o
w
.0
Alchafalaya
Ba rat aria
Calcasieu.
Merroentau.-
Vermilicn-Teene
Upper and Low«r
pearl
Red
Sabine
m
I
u
Major -Fraquent
J
Violations
Minor- Uses <3ene/al!y
Met 7
Few -to None
ULn known
:!„;
Primary Causes
>
bid, Kgtaral
Muni Sp'ali Industrial,
Point, Natural&ndib'civs,
Nonpoint
Point, Urban
B*t)e
Discharge
int^ Mo n point
Point
Point;
Munf
jS-ferm wa-bs r
Trend
Improving
No Significant
Datg
99
-------
many industrial dischargers located along the Mississippi River, the source
of drinking water supply for New Orleans. Other areas of concern include
the threat of pesticide contamination in highly agricultural areas; bacterial
contamination in shellfish areas due to raw or inadequately treated municipal
sewage; the degradation in the water quality of Lake Pontchartrain; and the
large concentration of industrial dischargers in the Calcasieu River basin.
Also of concern are the impacts associated with oil and gas production,
particularly in the coastal marsh and near offshore areas.
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS
Louisiana, a prime sunbelt state, has experienced a large population
increase in recent years which was not predicted. This has caused many
municipal sewage treatment facilities to be undersized and inefficient,
resulting in the discharge of raw or inadequately treated municipal sewage
into State streams. With this growth has also come equivalent, if not
greater growth in the industrial sector, which is also discharging into
the waters of Louisiana.
With the increased population and industrial growth, the State water
pollution control program has had to expand to meet the new and changing
needs of the State. Federal funding has only increased slightly while
the program is expanding in the need for more water quality monitoring and
enforcement activities. Louisiana has instituted a completely new State
funded surveillance and enforcement program on the lower Mississippi River.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources is currently reviewing and revising
the State Water Quality Standards based on new ambient and intensive survey
data. These revised Water Quality Standards should be available during FY 83.
EPA has funded the State through the Section 208 Water Quality Management
Program to develop the needed effluent limits for municipal dischargers, to
reclassify the stream segments, to develop nonpoint source control plans, to
revise the State population projections for water quality planning, and to
assess agricultural best management practices. In addition, several studies
are underway to assess the impact of toxic substances on certain Louisiana
waters.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Louisiana has modified its construction grant priority rating system to meet
the requirements of P.L. 97-117. The priority system ranking formula includes
a segment ranking factor which is based on whether the segment is effluent
limited or water quality limited and the number of Water Quality Standard
parameters violated.
100
-------
Louisiana's naturally slow moving streams and bayous play a large role in
surface water related problems which can be attributed to inadequate munici-
pal wastewater treatment. These problems exist statewide to some extent.
More than 30 Federally assisted projects are underway in the southern third
of the state where low stream dissolved oxygen levels and bacterial contami-
nation are affecting fish and numerous shellfish beds.
EPA has recently funded LDNR for the training of wastewater operators.
LDNR is developing a strategy for the use of these funds.
Since 1956 over 718 construction grants totaling over $ 457,708,709 in
Federal funds have been awarded in the state of Louisiana. This, includes
209 grants awarded under P.L. 84-660 and 509 grants awarded under P.L. 92-500.
A further breakdown is as follows: . :
Number of Grants
Amount Awarded
P.L. 84-660 209
P.L. 92-500 ;
- Step 0 Delegation 0
-. 'Step 1 Planning 263
- Step 2 Design 99
- Step 3 Construction, 76
- Step 4 (2+3) 71
- Step 5 Advance of Allowance 0
- Step 6'WQM Planning , 0
- Step. 9 State Training Center 0
P.L. 92-500 Total 509
$126,493,937
$ '0
$ 28,149,104
$ 26,838,065
$ 209,439,528
$ 66,788,075
$ - 0 -
$ - 0 -
$ 0
$ 331,214,772
To date the P.L. 84-660 projects have resulted in the construction of many
treatment works including 177 treatment plants. Many of the P.L. 92-500
projects are still under way. As of October 1, 1982, the Step 3 and 2+3
grants have resulted in the completion of 47 treatment plants as well as
other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge handling facilities
and lift stations.
NPDES PERMITS
LDNR is currently placing a very concerted effort on compliance of dis-
chargers to the Mississippi River. This effort should result in more
surveillance, better enforcement of State and NPDES permits, and a decrease
in illegal discharges to the river. A tabulation of NPDES permits issued
in the Region and the State of Louisiana is included in Table D.
TO]
-------
COMPLIANCE
.At the end of FY 82, the State's industrial NPDES permit compliance rate
was 80% and the municipal NPDES permit compliance rate was 45%.
To initiate implementation of Region 6's municipal enforcement policy in
FY 82 and FY 83, EPA and the LDNR have directed efforts to affect municipal
NPDES permit compliance in oyster bed closures areas due to ambient waters
contamination along Louisiana coastline (Atchafalaya, Four-league, Terrebonne,
and Barataria Bay areas) through compliance inspections, enforcement confer-
ences, Administrative Orders and initiation of litigation with four munici-
palities and three Parishes affecting twenty-three wastewater treatment
facilities.
During FY 82, negotiations involving LDNR, EPA and Jefferson Parish officials
resulted in a decision to discharge treated domestic wastes from the Parish's
seven East Bank facilities to the Mississipi River in lieu of the present
discharge locations into Lake Ponchartrain. This will bring the East Bank
facilities into compliance with their NPDES permits at a faster pace and
relieve the impact of their discharge to Lake Pontchartrain..
During the last decade, permitting and enforcement efforts by EPA and LDNR
have resulted in dramatic reductions in total pollutant loadings in the
Lower Mississippi River (Baton Rouge to New Orleans).
Examples of these reductions are illustrated in Figures 5, 6, and 7 and 8.
Summarizing these figures:
Phenolics - 90% reduction
Total Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - 89% reduction
Oxygen Demanding Pollutants - 85% reduction
Chromium - 98% reduction
During FY 82 and the first quarter of FY 83, EPA issued 15 Administrative
Orders to industrial NPDES permittees in this area and 18 Administrative
Orders to municipalities during this same period. EPA initiated litigation
proceedings against one industrial and three municipal permittees in
Louisiana during this period. LDNR issued 134 Compliance Orders in the
entire State and assessed administrative penalities totaling $935,500
against four industrial permittees on the lower Mississippi in calendar
year 1982.
Based on latest available data, only three industrial permittees in the
Baton Rouge-New Orleans corridor were significantly noncompliant with" their
NPDES permits.
102
-------
c 5 ' -
Ibs/day
I.OOO-i
750-
500-
250-
PHENOLICS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
1,000
(90% REDUCTION)
100
1971/1976
1981
-------
o
Ibs/day
20,000-1
15,000-
10,000-
5,000-
TOTAL CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
15,500
I97I/1976
(89% REDUCTION)
1,600
1981
fl-si-ftt
-------
o
ui
7 --
Ibs/day
3,000-i
2,000-
1,000-
CHROMIUM
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
2,825
tl
(98% REDUCTION)
55
1971/1976
1981
6-il-tl
-------
o
CTV
Ibs/day
750,000—1
500,000-
250,000-
8--OXYGEN DEMANDING POLLUTANTS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
704,000
(85% REDUCTION)
107,000
1971/1976
1981
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS_AND TRENDS
INTRODUCTION - NEW MEXICO
New Mexico is the fifth largest of the 50 States. Of the total area,
46.0 percent is public lands, 9.4 percent Indian lands, and 44.6 per-
cent privately owned lands. About 82 percent of the land area is de-
voted to grazing. Cropland uses less than 3.5 percent, less than half
of which is used for irrigated agriculture. Urban and built-up lands
constitute less than 1 percent,of the State's total land area.
The 1980 State population was 1,302,894, an increase of 28 percent over
the 1970 population of 1,017,055. It is estimated that over 70 percent
of the population resides in urban areas. Future population increase to
the year 2000 is projected to be 1,790,400 and is expected to be associ-
ated with the larger cities in the State, while the rural population is
anticipated to remain static.
New Mexico's water supply is unevenly distributed throughout the State..
The quality of its waters' also varies from place to place. Generally,
water originating in the:high mountains is of excellent quality. Water
in the lower areas frequently is of lesser quality due to the presence
of more readily soluble:minerals.
Approximately 95% of the water supplied by public water supply systems
is from groundwater sources. Three-fourths of the State's population
is supplied^drinking water by these systems. One-half of the total
water, annually withdrawn for all uses in New Mexico is groundwater and
this is the only source of water in many areas of the State. Agricul-
tural operations are the biggest user of water in New'Mexico.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Data from 64 monitoring stations throughout the State for the period 1976-
1981 (water years) indicate that stream water quality is good, in general,
when compared to the Water Quality Standards. There are five major river
basins in New Mexico. They are the Rio Grande, Pecos, San Juan, Lower Colorado
and the Arkansas-White-Red. In addition, there are several closed basins in
New Mexico.
Water quality is consistent with standards in over 90 percent of the
estimated 3,500 miles of perennial streams in New Mexico. Significant
standards violations, caused by both point and nonpoint source pollution,
were recorded in an estimated 200 miles of perennial streams distributed
among 6 of the 59 designated stream segments. In addition, occasional
stream standards violations were recorded in eight stream segments.
107
-------
Table B summarizes significant stream water quality violations, in New
Mexico between 1967 - 1981.
Table B: Significant Stream Water Quality Violations
Stream Reach
Mimbres
Red River
Rio Hondo
Rio Grande
Rio Ruidoso
Pecos River
Standards Violations
phosphorus, temperature
pH, total organic carbon
fecal coliform bacteria
phosp.horus, stream bottom
deposits, turbidity
phosphorus, chlorine
fecal coliform bacteria
phosphorus, chlorine,
ammonia, DO, fecal coTiform
.total organic carbon, tur-
bidity
DO, plant nutrients, odor
Cause
unknown
municipal wastewater,
mining discharges
municipal wastewater,
domestic wastewater
terrestrial runoff
municipal and domestic
wastewater
municipal wastewater,
low stream flow caused
by hydrologic modifi-
cation and diversion.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 present information relating to violations of Water Quality
Standards for dissolved oxygen, pH and coliform at stream monitoring stations
throughout the State.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division (EID) has identified 105
sites in New Mexico with documented or suspected groundwater contamination.
The nature and extent of the contamination involved in these 105 sites vary
greatly. Of the 105 sites, 43 are associated
duction and refinement. Of the 62 remaining,
or will be initiated against 22; sources have
latory action is currently planned against an
water contamination is no longer occurring at
with oil and natural gas pro-
regulatory actions have been
been identified, but no regu-
additional nine sftes; ground-
10 sites; and the current
status of 10 sites
been identified.
remains unknown, as no specific individual sources has
108
-------
j • * ,_•/ •• « »
M E iX I
LS «> A N T v I'
, "! / • • N
• -. I ~~~ SilMf Cit» ^^ /
\ !
ioa*
107*
Figure I
Dissolved Oxygen % Exceedence
© 0-9%
A 10-24%
H > 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
109
-------
_,_„,—- -T
H C « I * L C T
Figure 2
pH % Exceedonce
0-9%
10-24%
> 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
no
-------
108*
» « »
,"
1
t . .
1
1
i -
1 0
, Gallup
|
|
1
1
*
1
' 1
.1
' 1
I
1 C A
1
0 "Mfrv
1
1
1
LG jfl
,
•' !?
1
~
• LortJibgrg
i
•
i
i.
-- - —- r""^ ' i; \f ^ / \» ' - - -, '
T =_. L y y v. T j
- i ; .'"rtf^- -V-yCo," }! 1
I '-, / fZ^'W'" £b -,>. <• H » - 0 , N 0 1 ,
i 8 ?VAt 1 05..T4flr ' <> r— — H
C " ' » L e T ! •"••••! 1 ' A v '
! ;:' / ' ' \ °L" "*"" ™ \ ', r
1 \ X-.l SANTA n , V V> . \ i '
i ^ ->.A jv^. i N-\> » » M ! G u e -'L ' ••_ '^.Al
/—| ,' x , S.molilloJ [ \. ^~--' V^f^^ ~-V«1HK
1 . \ f | I r ~X_/^, ... - 0Tucimcor, 1
." a \ «f *""" i ! i %-> - 1
— J x x / ••— 1- ' ^^ 1 a u * T I
"*«••• c , ~7>\ •""(••-.ti.oL, | J _ ,_.j
; v~»":.?---'.,™. i ...A.v_ _rr-'.i
-*rr-E--w^ M E * rr V^i "-^i
. '.} 1 ; L ..; 1 0£ BAC)| i ' 1
• • i _ i 0£ 8v i
! S«Wo • ,' V \ U / ._[_' """" '
T*ayl«/.. ' *~ "— \ ' ! ( <~ 'HOOSEVELT1
BN.'»eo«i,0| \ 1 L -\ — ' \ i
' I ^ — L ' i
i . ,v ~J — --;rr>-. / U 1
I • ^ 1 L i n e--o L N ! • / ! i
J K & -~'J Oc— ' '~~-! -"-_/ ' —
— —"•- - ** ! "^- ; s"c"7~i v E r-~ ^
•'1 • ^P~ ' \ '}. »»-nH f * E * ! !
, ! .-...--'- ---• | i._. _^--^ K :...., A ; .
" "•• "? ^ i i ' ! -:;: S 1
-• | . _ ^p.m or Conugiunut ' ^ — --! (. i
v ' ~- -E. * " • --'! • > i i
AWT / -- ^' , o ^"^ ,^^| ! — • " " "\ LMflswf o 1
% c.,,A} r\ !" \ ^.--~~^-z~-9 ! u « . •!
r -^.- j ^N ! 0 T £ « 0 1 i 1
1 i \ ' ' „......! 1
• * l\ ! I . j £ C n T i '
1 ! \ ! - - - - £ o^o t i.n (
- .; - - • a..., ! ooff.\*«« ! I V^»° 1 i
i -'• • i V"i i ^ j !
! i \ '< i 4 ! J
— , , , -- -- — -- . m . .— --->
| » I 0 * L S 0 1 I \\
i i -i
I I
108*
m
Figure 3
Coliform % Exceedence
© 0-9%
A 10-24%
9 > 25%
(>I5 samples between 1978-1981)
-------
In addition to these cases, the State has identified five major areas of
saline intrusion, or regions where naturally mineralized water is intruding
into a freshwater aquifer.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
The Water Quality Control Commissions (WQCC) Groundwater Regulations have nu-
meric standards for a limited number of toxic substances. Additional numeric
standards for toxic substances are needed to regulate dischargers of pol-
lutants that may be toxic.
Groundwater monitoring (Statewide) is not comprehensive enough to determine
the extent of groundwater contamination. Hydrocarbon fuels have contamin-
ated groundwater at several locations in the State. Also there is suspected
contamination of groundwater by septic tanks and manure-holding ponds. There
is a need to determine where the most serious problems are located and to
address those problems first. In addition, the system of groundwater data
handling needs to be streamlined.
The Bureau must continue to focus on prevention of ground water pollution
through regulation of discharges to ground water under approved discharge
plans as ground water pollution is difficult to correct once it has occurred.
Discharges of concern include domestic wastewater effluents, dairy effluents,
base and precious metal milling discharges, and hydrocarbon fuel leaks.
Questions were raised about the impact of nutrients from wastewater treat-
ment plants on Cochiti Reservoir, even before the reservoir filled. Those
questions still remain unresolved.
Moutain streams are a valuable resource in New Mexico, because they provide
aesthetic beauty, support high quality trout fisheries, and sometimes serve
as a source of domestic water supplies. Yet, the ability of these streams
to assimilate pollutants, especially nutrients, if often limited.
Current surface monitoring is based upon a strategy developed in the 1970s.
All aspects of this monitoring strategy need to be reviewed to determine,if
the monitoring strategy serves current monitoring needs. Moreover, the
strategy needs to be integrated into the priority stream segment approach.
112
-------
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS
Current State surface water regulations do not adequately regulate all
types of discharges to surface waters. That, combined with limited federal
enforcement, may promote continuing noncompliance.
Small package treatment systems are expected to increase in number as a
result of Sunbelt migration and tourism. Such systems often do not receive
adequate operation and maintenance. In mountain areas discharges may be
to streams used for domestic water supplies. These small wastewater dis-
posal systems can result in water pollution and public health risks and re-
quire State compliance efforts in disporportion to their size.
Lack of adequate resources for regulatory implementation, directed toward
groundwater discharge plan review and approval, has resulted in limited
compliance .monitoring to determine whether requirements set forth in
approved discharge plans are met. This has limited the effectiveness of the
evaluation of discharge plans in preventing ground water pollution.
Municipal management of wastewater treatment facilities is a serious
problem in New Mexico.. Despite NMEID's compliance and enforcement activi-
ties and emphasis on effective start-up, Of new constructed plants,inade-
quately operated and maintained wastewater treatment facilities and non-
compliance with permit conditions continue to be a problems. To properly
manage a wastewater facility, municipal management must establish clear
lines of responsibility and authority for operating the facility, set an
equitable fee system to obtain adequate supporting revenues, and establish
an adequate budget and procedures for ongoing facility operations, long
.term maintenence and replacement and emergency repairs. Most of this
problem lies beyond NMEID's expertise and jurisdiction and can do little
beyond recognizing that the problem continues to exist.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY - SURFACE AND GROUND
Planning efforts to identify best management practices to reduce surface
water contamination from nonpoint sources continue to be studied. The
New Mexico Soil and Water Conservation Division (SWCD) and the New Mexico
Forestry Division are nearing completion of studies evaluating the cost
effectiveness of various management practices to reduce or eliminate soil
erosion. SWCD is developing a system to identify specific priority areas
and to track the implementation of conservation practices. The Forestry
Division is evaluating the extent and effectiveness of management practices
by assessing 20 recent timber harvests.
113
-------
EID is 'identifying priorities for stream segments and enforcement acti-
vities.
In both 1980 and 1981, as an example of the significance New Mexico attaches
to groundwater quality protection, almost fifty percent of the EID's total
water pollution control program budget was spent in support of its ground-
water protection programs.
Primary emphasis in the groundwater pollution control program has been
placed on reviewing proposed discharge plans and on insuring that all new
facilities subject to regulatory control develop and implement programs
to protect groundwater. The concentration of effort has been on imple-
mentation of the State's groundwater regulations and not on compliance
with them. Currently 51 dischargers are not submitting setf-monitoring
reports. A lack of State resources in the compliance area has existed,
however the State is presently re-adjusting this posture.
In implementing groundwater regulations, the State has pursued court action
twice to require submission of discharge plans.
NMEID is developing a stream priority ranking system in order to identify
surface waters where NMEID needs to concentrate its resources. The ranking
is based upon violations of stream standards, vulnerability of designated
uses, information needs, and the need for enforcement actions against
point source discharges. The broad range of information needs includes
delineation of the extent and causes of known or suspected water quality
problems, assessment of the effectiveness of point source controls, in-
cluding newly completed construction grants projects, water quality stan-
dards assessments, wasteload allocation assessments, and background water
quality investigations. The priority stream segment ranking system is
expected to serve as an integrated ranking system for the NMEID's surface
water activities.
New Mexico has revised their surface water regulations to allow for more
effective compliance and enforcement efforts. In order to determine
where to target enforcement resources, an enforcement rating system is
being developed to identify those municipal discharges which are priorities
for enforcement actions.
In the last two years, the State adopted four significant changes or addi-
tions to the State's Water Quality Standards and regulations. It adopted
as part of the groundwater regulations a generic definition of "toxic pollu-
tant" to control over 70 listed toxic substances in concentrations which,
upon exposure, injection, or assimilation either directly or through the
food chain, will unreasonably threaten human health or the health of plants
or animals commonly cultivated or protected by man for food or economic
benefit. Further, the WQCC adopted numeric limitations for eight toxic
pollutants which have been found in groundwater in New Mexico.
114
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The New Mexico construction grant priority rating system meets the require-
ments of P.L. 97-117. The rating formula ranks projects based on their
demonstrated impact on the receiving stream water quality.
One primary area of attention with regard to municipal wastewater treatment
is in Albuquerque. Several grant projects have been completed, are underway,
or are planned, to address the pollution abatement in the Rio Grande and to
address sludge reuse. Communities, such as Red River and Chama, are also im-
portant because they are located on high quality cold water mountain streams,
which have little or no assimilative capacity.
Since funding was initiated in 1968, 62 New Mexico communities have
constructed wastewater facilities. Since 1970, the State has.provided
over $25,000,000 to match $133,000,000 in Federal funding.
Since 1956, over 277.construction grants totaling over $ 140,556,927 in
Federal funds have been awarded in the.state of New Mexico. This includes
'141 grants awarded under P.L. 84-660 and 136 grants awarded under P.L.
'92-500. A further breakdown is as follows:
Number of Grants . Amount Awarded
P.L. 84-660 ; 141 $ 30,299,931
P.L. 92-500
- Step 0 Delegation 0 $ 0
- Step 1 Planning 54 $ 3,138,034
- Step 2 Design 34 $ 5,928,966
- Step 3 Construction 41 $ 98,406,581
- Step 4 (2+3) 5 $ 2,165,314
- Step 5 Advance of Allowance 0 $ 0
- Step 6 WQM Planning 1 $ 118,101
- Step 9 State Training Center 1 $ 500,000
P.L. 92-500 Total 136 $ 110,256,996
To date the P.L. 84-660 projects have resulted in the constructi-on of many
treatment works including 94 treatment plants. Many of the P.L. 92-500
projects are still under way. As of October 1, 1982 the Step 3 and 2+3
grants have resulted in the completion of 31 treatment plants as well as
other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge handling facilities
and lift stations.
115
-------
NPDES PERMITS
In New Mexico, the USEPA is responsible for issuing and enforcing NPDES
permits. The State assists the USEPA in administration of the NPDES
system and is responsible for enforcing State surface water regulations.
In 1981, 55 NPDES inspections were made by the EID. Of the total, there
were 38 municipal wastewater facilities inspections and 17 industrial or
other facilities inspections, including schools and a private conference
center.
A tabulation of NPDES permits issued in the Region and the State of New
Mexico is included in Table D.
116
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
INTRODUCTION - OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma is estimated to have approximately 663,000 acres of major reser-
voirs, 23,000 miles of streams, and 53,000 acres of wetlands. With the
steady immigration of population which started in the 1960's, a growth
trend has continued in the State focusing mainly on cities with a popula-
tion of over 2,000. Based on the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
population projections released in 1981, Oklahoma's growth will continue
with a 23% increase projected from 3,025,290 in 1980 to 3,873,000 by the
year 2000.
Oklahoma has two major rivers, the Arkansas and the Red. The amount;of
water leaving the State annually through these 2 basins is approximately
34 million acre-feet. Despite these quantities, State-established benefi-
cial uses of the rivers.are somewhat limited due to poor water quality. In
western Oklahoma natural salt springs and salt flats affect local streams
.by increasing the ionic content. In populous central and eastern' Oklahoma,
Municipal and industrial effluents influence the water quality of many
;Streams. Many of the streams in eastern Oklahoma are of excellent water ;
quality although point source dischargers affect a number of streams here
'as well. "
•WATER QUALITY ; : •
The Arkansas River enters Oklahoma from Kansas with poor water quality due to
enrichment and mineralization. Kaw Reservoir acts as a nutrient sink, so that
water quality improves downstream from the reservoir. There is a major decline
in water quality downstream from Tulsa. Many tributaries in the Arkansas River
basin show degradation, much of which is due to point source discharges from
municipalities and industries. Specific tributaries with major degradation
include portions of the North Canadian River, the Illinois River, and the
Cimarron River. Toxic metals and organic compounds were detected at various
sites in the Arkansas River basin.
The Red River shows continued enrichment and mineralization as well as
elevated levels of some metals. The lower Red River below Lake Texoma
displays gradual improvement, with decreasing levels of mineralization and
low levels of toxic metals, but high levels of iron and manganese. Due to
these factors, fish communities show increasing diversity downstream with
improving water quality conditions. Tributaries in the Red River-Basin are,
in general, improving or stable. The one exception is the Beaver Creek
watershed, which shows severe degradation primarily from increased enrichment
and toxics.
117
-------
The results of recent reservoir studies show that Oklahoma reservoirs are,
in general, free of dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. PCBs are the most
common organic toxic found in fish tissue and were detected in low levels in
44 reservoirs. Nevertheless, only at Fort Gibson Reservoir were FDA Alert
Limits for PCBs in tissue samples exceeded. However, further sampling indi-
cated that this problem was not as severe as initially anticipated. Chiordane
was found in 40 reservoirs, with only Lake Hefner and Northeast (ZOO) Lake
showing levels exceeding FDA Alert Limits. DDT was present in 11 reservoirs,
with the highest level found in Fort Cobb Reservoir. DDT levels were well
below FDA limits. Aldrin, Heptachlor, and Toxaphene were present in a few
reservoirs, but were also below FDA limits.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 present information relating to violations of Water
Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen, pH and coliform at stream monitoring
stations throughout the Region.
PART II SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
ARKANSAS MAIN STEM AND TRIBUTARIES
The Arkansas River in Oklahoma is a mineralized, enriched stream. Mineral-
ization is primarily due to naturally occurring high chlorides in the Salt
Fork and Cimarron River watersheds, with enrichment occurring in the upper
segment from the state line to Muskogee due to high phosphorus and nitrogen
loading from above Kaw Reservoir and the Salt Fork, Black Bear Creek, Cimarron
River, and Verdigris River watersheds. Marked improvement in water quality
is observed at stations downstream from Muskogee to the Arkansas state line.
Temporal trends indicate stable quality conditions throughout the main stem.
The Cimarron River assimilates wastewater from fifty municipal and nine
industrial point sources, most by way of Salt Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and
Skeleton Creek tributaries. In particular, Skeleton Creek and Cottonwood
Creek have a history of severe water quality degradation due to point source
dischargers. The Cottonwood Creek watershed, which includes the Chisholm,
Bluff, and Deer Creek tributaries, is currently under intensive wastewater
treatment plant upgrading.
Marked degradation in water quality continues in the Sand Springs-Tulsa
segment of the Arkansas River due to inadequate wastewater treatment in
these municipalities. However, temporal trends indicate that recent com-
pletion of expanded municipal wastewater facilities in the metropolitan
area are beginning to alleviate enrichment conditions.
118
-------
f.««*rMk i__J--- ;( [ '_ — -.V1' ' " '
mi.*** L*"2L1BI L. I e»«Tfpi ^JOMT!
^^%^K^*1
Figure I
Dissolved Oxygen % Exceedence
© 0-9%
A 10-24%
ii > 25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
119
-------
*«•
Figure 2
pH % Exceedence
• 0-9%
A 10-24%
H >25%
(>30 samples between 1978-1981)
120
-------
Figure 3
Collform % Exceedenca
« 0-9%
A 10-24%
3 >25%
(>I5 samples between 1978-1981)
121
-------
The North Canadian River continues to be one of the most highly enriched
tributaries in the Arkansas River basin. This river is the receiving
stream for seventy-three municipal and thirty-three industrial point source
discharges. Water quality degradation was particularly severe in the El
Reno - Harrah segment. Numerous construction grants are currently underway
to alleviate these degradation trends.
The Illinois River has shown continued degradation due to enrichment. De-
graded aesthetics in this watershed have caused considerable public outcry.
The State of Arkansas is now actively pursuring reducing enrichment contribu-
tions to the Illinois River in Oklahoma.
Toxic organic compounds were detected in the North Canadian River at Wetumka
and Harrah, in the Arkansas River at Muskogee, Bird Creek at Catoosa,
Chickaskia River near Blackwell, and in the Deep Fork near Wellston. Numerous
toxic metals, of unknown origin, exceeded standards throughout the Arkansas
River basin.
RED RIVER MAIN STEM AND TRIBUTARIES
The Red River in Oklahoma is enriched and mineralized thru naturally occurring
salt deposits in the upper segment (state line to Lake Texoma) with,improvement
occurring in the lower segment (Denison Dam to state line). Degradation was
also indicated below the Blue River and Muddy Boggy watersheds due to increased
enrichment, but was not as severe as the problem evidenced in the upper Red
River. The upper Red River is characterized by mineralization and elevated
levels of metals, both toxic and non-toxic. While many of the observed con-
centrations of metals are most likely of background origin, temporal trends
in the levels of nickel, chromium, cadmium, and selenium in the Red River
indicate the possibilty of point source contribution. Significant increases
in the concentrations of these metals have occurred in the past four water
years, with cadmium and chromium showing increases below the North Fork
watershed, and chromium, nickel, and selenium increasing below Beaver Creek.
This condition, combined with increased total organic carbon levels below
these drainages, may be indicative of an increase in man-made pollution.
The lower Red River is characterized by decreased mineralization, high levels
of iron and manganese, and low levels of toxic metals. Lake Texoma acts as
a nutrient and mineral sink, with the water below the dam exhibiting one of
the best water qualities in the State. With exception of enrichment impacts
below the Muddy Boggy, water qualilty shows stability over time and spatial
improvement. The tributaries to the Red River showed either improvement or
stable, fair conditions with the exception of the Beaver Creek Watershed.
122
-------
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS
The sources of elevated pollutant levels found in many segments are unknown.
Therefore, additional data collection is needed to determine the source or
sources before an effective control program can be developed. The necessary
data collection and evaluation process is costly and time consuming. In the
case of nonpoint sources, the State has to develop new sampling and evaluation
procedures. For industrial controls new modeling techniques are seen as key
to effective controls. In the area of municipal sources the guidelines for
modeling are subject to considerable interpretation and change.
It is not always feasible in Oklahoma to attain and maintain national water
quality criteria. Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) is low in some streams due to
natural conditions. In other streams D.O. sags are caused by the discharge
of oxygen demanding substances where there is little flow available for
dilution and the reaeration rate Is-low. Many of these streams are impacted
by publicly owned treatment works. Modeling in the State has shown that: many
of these streams cannot maintain a 5 mg/1 D.O. standard without a level of
treatment greater than secondary. In addition very few communities are willing
or able to fund advanced wastewater treatment plants. Sufficient control of.
industrial effluents to meet Water Quality Standards (WQS) can mean control •:.
beyond BAT. In those instances, the State has indicated that an economic •'.
analysis of the cost of control and consideration of the water quality impacts
is appropriate.
Beneficial uses designated by the 1979 WQS are not always compatible1 with
existing or future beneficial uses. For example, many streams in Oklahoma
are designated public and private water supply, yet the natural total dis-
solved solids in some of these streams will preclude their.use as water
supplies. Therefore, the beneficial use of water supply is not attainable,
and it is not considered feasible to restrict discharges by protecting an
unattainable beneficial use.
In Oklahoma several agencies are involved in controlling pollution sources.
Because it is considered unfair to require stringent control by only one
source, where many types of pollution sources contribute to a problem, .
close cooperation among the agencies is required to achieve equitable
wasteload allocations for all dischargers.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY
The State with Federal, funding assistance is collecting and analyzing ambient,
intensive, high flow and compliance stream data. The most recent program,
about 3 years old, is the high flow or nonpoint source (NPS) monitoring
program. Future implementation of NPS control activities will be built on
the base established by this high flow monitoring effort".
123
-------
Poor water quality in the North Canadian River is indicated by low dissolved
oxygen levels and high fecal coliform levels. One overloaded wastewater
treatment facility is being relieved and one is being abondoned due to the
new Federally funded North Canadian wastewater treatment facility. This new
treatment plant should considerably reduce the fecal coliform and dissolved
oxygen problems in the North Canadian River.
Since 1956 over 1,154 construction grants totaling over $ 368,169,054 in
Federal funds have been awarded in the state of Oklahoma. This includes
427 grants awarded under P.L. 84-660 and 727 grants awarded under P.L.
92-500. A further breakdown is as follows:
Number of Grants Amount Awarded
P.L. 84-660 427 $ 75,921,433
P.L. 92-500
- Step 0 Delegation 5 $ 4,413,960
- Step 1 Planning 286 $ 10,331,944
- Step 2 Design 203 $ 11,406,716
- Step 3 Construction 204 $ 247,114,253
- Step 4 (2+3) 28 $ 18,730,748
- Step 5 Advance of Allowance 0 $ 0
- Step 6 WQM Planning 0 $ 0
- Step 9 State Training Center 1 $ 250,000
P.L. 92-500 Total 727 $ 292,247,621
To date the P.L. 84-660 projects have resulted in the construction of many
treatment works including 338 treatment plants. Many of the P.L. 92-500
projects are still under way. As of October 1, 1982, the Step 3 and 2+3
grants have resulted in the completion of 122 treatment plants as well as
other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge handling facilities
and lift stations.
NPDES PERMITS
The State has been working with EPA to receive delegation of the NPDES
permit program and the 404 dredge and fill program. A tabulation-of NPDES
permits issued in the Region and in the State of Oklahoma is included in
Table D.
124
-------
COMPLIANCE
At the end of FY 82, the State's industrial NPDES permit-compliance rate
was 87% and the municipal NPDES permit compliance rate was 56%.
During FY 82 and the first quarter of FY 83 EPA issued 12 Administrative
Orders to municipal NPDES permittees. The Oklahoma State Department of
Health issued approximately 10 consent orders.
In addition to the Administrative Orders, EPA has initiated litigation
with 1 municipality for a contempt of court action.
Six contract diagnostic inspections were performed in FY 82 of which all
are being followed with enforcement action.
125
-------
Data collection and analysis is also seen as key to successful implementa-
tion of controls for point sources. Section 208 money has been utilized by
the State to perform municipal wasteload allocations and to investigate a
dispersion based modeling approach for conservative pollutants typical in
industrial dischargers.
EPA and Oklahoma have agreed that successful control of pollution will
require greater State participation. In addition, through 208 grants, the
State developed a feasible cost share program for best management practices.
The successful implementation of these programs will depend on whether State
funds will be made available. However through the Section 106 Grant and
Construction Management Assistance Grants from EPA, the NPDES and 205(g)
delegations are proceeding.
The State recognized several years ago that their WQS needed to be closely
reviewed. Federal and State funding has made it possible for the State to
review UQS on the basis of site specific problem assessments. The first
major revision of the WQS resulting from these assessments should be com-
pleted in the late Spring of 1983.
The State statutory and regulatory basis for.pollution control has received
considerable attention in the last few years. Implementation of NPS con-
trols, delegation of Federal programs and increased awareness of toxic
problems all required a close scrutinty^of existing strengths and weakness
in the legal foundation of the State's water quality management program.
The State reviewed their conservation district law and added portions to
strengthen and clarify authorities with respect to nonpoint sources. Pro-
vision was made for a cost share program, although such a program has not
yet been funded. :
The Oklahoma Pollution Control Coordinating Act of 1968 was scheduled for
sunset in 1982. The State reviewed the successes and failures of the ACT.
The concept of a multi-agency board to coordinate multi-agency activities
was found to be sound, although some shifts in composition of the board
were recommended. The State is continuing to stress the need for coordi-
nation and to build vital data and communication linkages in order to pro-
mote an effective water quality management program in the State.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The Oklahoma construction grant priority rating system has been revised to
meet all the requirements of P.L. 97-117. The priority system ranking for-
mula includes a segment ranking factor and effluent quality factor-j these
factors consider the relative quality of the receiving waters and the degree
of noncompliance of the municipality.
Federal construction grants have assisted in the completion of several
secondary wastewater treatment plants in the Tuls-a area. Currently, the
Tulsa Northside treatment facility is being upgraded and will allow abandon-
ment of two treatment works which have been severely degrading water quality.
The segments construction of this facility is expected to be completed by
July, 1988 and should result in a significant improvement in water quality
for Bird Creek, the Verdigris River, and ultimately, the Arkansas River.
126
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
INTRODUCTION - TEXAS
The Texas Department of Water Resources (TDWR), in cooperation with local
governments, has established and is administering an extensive water
quality management program as required by both State and Federal laws.
The State is divided into 23 inland and coastal basins for water quality
management (WQM) and planning purposes. The basins are further divided
into 311 designated stream and coastal segments comprising 16,115 stream
miles. Of the 311 segments, the TDWR has determined that 242 segments are
effluent limited, which is defined as currently meeting all applicable
stream standards, or are projected to be consistently meeting standards
following incorporation of secondary treatment (20 mg/1 BODs and 20 mg/1
TSS as required by State rules) by municipalities and equivalent treatment
levels by industries. The remaining 69 segments are considered to be
water quality limited because they do not consistently meet applicable
standards or because treatment levels more stringent than secondary
(municipalities and best practicable treatment for industries are required
to assure consistent achievement of stream standards.
The Texas Department of Water Resources maintains an ambient surface water
monitoring program consisting of 576 ambient river and stream stations.
Additionally, 1,140 river authority and municipal sites and 748 USGS sites
are also included in the State monitoring network computer files. The
EPA Basic Water Monitoring program is also conducted by the TDWR at 37
stations.
Texas has seven major estuaries and several smaller estuaries spread along
about 400 miles of Gulf of Mexico coastline. The estuarine systems
are generally characterized as drowned river mouths and are complimented
by elongate barrier islands which enclose approximately 1.5 million acres
of bay surface area and more than 1.1 million acres of adjacent marshes
and tidal flats.
There are 173 major reservoirs in the State with 5,000 acre-feet or greater
total capacity. The dependable firm water supply from these reservoirs is
about 11 million acre-feet annually. Of the 11 million acre-feet of depend-
able annual surface water supply, 54 percent or 5.9 million acre-feet, is
now being used to meet surface water supply and the annual water needs of
the State.
In the past decade, the surface and groundwater of Texas have been subjected
to increasing pressures from industrial, agricultural, and recreational
endeavors. In addition to the steadily increasing population (11,198,000
in 1970 to 14,223,380 in 1980), demographic changes have contributed to
changes in the demands for water resources and the needs for water quality
maintenance. With no indications of changes in the demographic patterns,
the population of the State is projected to increase to more than 21,000,000
by the year 2000.
127
-------
TDWR is currently involved in two water pollution control permit programs.
These programs include the State permit program and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program administered by EPA.
A tabulation of NPDES permits issued in the Region and the State of Texas
is included in Table D.
WATER QUALITY
Even with population growth and demographic changes shifting the demands for
waters resources, the overall quality of the State's water has improved or
has been maintained at a relatively high level. In those areas of the State
most affected by population shifts the standard metropolitan statistical area
(SMSA), some very ambitious water management programs have been necessary
to address the increasing demands for water supplies and the concomitant
increases in wastewater flows. In some of these areas, comprehensive
water quality management planning dedicated to improvement of water quality
has succumbed to planning to maintain water quality and prevent degradation
of existing quality. Improvements in water quality have occurred in some
areas of the State and this improvement and maintenance of water quality
is directly related to improved wastewater treatment programs by both
municipalities and industries. These achievements in improving and main-
taining water quality have been accompanied by significant economic growth
activities that are water resource dependent.
Stream segments that are not meeting current stream standards solely from
nonpoint source contributions have not been identified. However, indica-
tions of potential water quality problems resulting from nonpoint sources
have been identified in several stream segments within the State. Erosion.
controls and an extensive soil conservation program established with the
aid of the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Soil Conservation Service
have existed in Texas for approximately 40 years. Many of the activities
coordinated through these agencies have secondary effects of protecting
water quality. Some urban areas of the State have both structural and
non-structural mechanisms to control urban runoff. Long-term site specific
evaluations in areas and stream segments which have been determined to have
the highest potential for water quality problems due to nonpoint sources
are in progress.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 provide a graphic summary of the relationship between
currently adopted surface Water Quality Standards and measured water quality
at monitoring stations throughout the Region as it relates to dissolved
oxygen, pH, and coliform bacteria. Figure 4 provides the status of fishable
and swimmable stream segments within the State as of 1981.
128
-------
ritZrsT^TzJsgd
^ > ' i ' ^i^JlLJ- ••"•.•"• i '->-''• -'• *i' " \:
^^^ ^^.^^-.-.^.-i:--^--^^! y;-4**^j
-1 ^""vf^r-'dP^ '"^^^'^
Figurt I
Dissolved Oxygen % Exceidenca
O 0-9%
A 10-24%
• >29%
(>30 samples between 1978-1980
129
-------
• TV.. f\ xk"':'••!—iic-vj""^—
l~~^-*x ; ••*•» r\j»fc. ™~ /S-">|^;
-i-
*ssas^r-^
Figure 2
pH % Exceedence
• 0-9%
A 10-24%
• >25%
(>30 somples between 1978-1981)
130
-------
f^s^^^s
Figure 3
Coliform %Exceedenca
20-9%
10-24%
a >25%
(>\5 samples between 1973-1981)
131
-------
Status of
Fishable and Swimmable
Stream Segments
1981
Currently (ishable and swimmable ••
Fishable and swimmable by 1983 CZ3
Not fishable or swimmable by 1983 C3
132
-------
PART II SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS
The twenty-three inland and coastal basins in Texas vary in population
density and growth rate, water quantity and quality, point and nonpoint
sources. The major point sources of pollution are municipal treatment
plants and industrial waste effluents. Also there are many streams or
bayous within the State that are sluggish and have naturally low assimi-
lative capacities.
Thirteen of the twenty-three basins have been characterized as having good
water quality with minor, infrequent localized water quality problems. Of
the remaining ten basins, the water quality problems which have been identi-
fied are localized, but of a more severe and chronic nature. However, in
actual stream miles, the water quality problem areas represent approximately
20% of the total. Typicar water quality problems noted are low dissolved
oxygen, high and low pH levels, and elevated levels of chlorides, total
dissolved solids, fecal coliform bacteria and nutrients. There are a few
segments where pesticides 'and heavy metal concentrations have been measured
which are higher than might be expected or desired, based on a comparison
with national criteria or with other streams in the State.
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS
The high growth rates (population and industrialization) being experienced
in Texas have increased the State's waste treatment needs significantly
over the last 10 years. In order to maintain the existing Water Quality
Standards and keep up with the growth, additional municipal wastewater
treatment construction will be required. Expected future Federal appro-
priations will be significantly less than that needed to meet current
needs. Failure to construct these needed facilities will result in the
degradation of the State's major waterways. If municipalities cannot
obtain sufficient local funding, maintenance of the existing water quality
and attainment of future water quality goals will be severely restricted.
As mentioned above, increased growth in Texas is placing more demands on
existing resources. Manpower ceilings have limited the State's ability
to take on additional responsibilities and inflationary factors impact
the State's ability to maintain the same level of activities performed
in the past. If Federal WQM planning and pollution control funds-are
reduced significantly, this will affect the State's ability to maintain
the current level of ambient and compliance monitoring, permit issuance,
and enforcement actions.
133
-------
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY
The TDWR is currently using the last of the Section 208 funds to revise
wasteload allocations for approximately 60 stream segments and complete
nonpoint source planning in priority areas throughout the State. The
Section 205(j) funds are going to be used to support the water quality
management planning program and evaluate Water Quality Standards for prio-
rity water bodies. The annual Section 106 grant represents about 35% of
the water pollution control program implemented by the TDWR. This program
includes supporting the construction grant management program, drafting
NPDES permits, revising the State continuing planning process, ambient
and compliance monitoring activities, enforcement activities, emergency
response plan update, and the Water Quality Standards revision process.
In addition to performing activities in support of EPA national1 program
priorities, TDWR carries out an extensive statewide program in Response
to State laws and priorities. The TDWR operates 14 field offices in the
State that implement the compliance and ambient sampling programs.
The TDWR was delegated the 205(g) (Construction Management Activities
Grant) program in 1978 and have since assumed all delegable activities.
During FY 1983 there will be continued emphasis on the State's assumption
of the NPDES program and maintenance of existing water quality management
programs. Attention will continue to be placed on adequate planning in
advance of all water quality decision making.
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
The Texas construction grant priority ranking system has been revised to
meet the requirements of P.L. 97-117. The priority system ranking formula
includes factors for relative effluent quality, designated stream use, and
segment ranking.
Low dissolved oxygen levels have been recorded in the Texarkana area. High
biochemical oxygen demand levels have also been recorded from municipal
point sources. To help alleviate such water quality conditions, construc-
tion grant funds are being directed toward a wastewater treatment plant with
construction scheduled to begin during FY 83.
A high growth rate is being experienced in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan
Area in both population and industrial growth. Significant efforts by local
governments in cooperation with Federal and State agencies have been put
forth to develop regional systems capable of providing wastewater treatment
levels needed to improve and maintain water quality in the Trinity River.
Some existing systems have reached or are nearing the designed treatment
capacity. Construction grant funds have, and are being used primarily
to upgrade and expand area wastewater treatment plants.
134
-------
The rapid growth rate in the Houston area has caused overloading of area
wastewater treatment plants. Improvements in the water quality of the Houston
Ship Channel which was accomplished during the late 60s and during the 70's
involved significant coordinated efforts by local, State and Federal agencies.
Further enhancement and maintenance of water quality in spite of the rapid
growth rate will require the continued and increased efforts on the part of
all these agencies. After construction of the 69th Street/Northside treat-
ment plants, the water quality conditions in the Houston Ship Channel should
improve significantly.
During periods of low flow, the headwaters of the San Antonio River consist
primarily of treated municipal wastewater. This condition results in a low
dissolved oxygen level in the river. The flow in CiboTo Creek is also com-
posed of domestic wastewater effluent and has been the site of algal growths
and fish kills. Construction grant funding has provided for the planning,
design, .and construction of'municipal wastewater treatment plants in the
San Antonio area which 'Should significantly improve water quality of both
the San Antonio River and Cibolo Creek.
Measurements in the lower portion of the Neches River in the Beaumont-Port
Arthur areas have shown that dissolved oxygen criteria are not consistently
achieved;. Factors contributing to low dissolved oxygen levels -include
industrial and municipal wastewater and on-going Federally funded upgrading
of areaimunicipal wastewater treatment plants is resulting in enchancement of
water quality. . : : !
i; p
Since 1956 over 1,978 construction grants totaling over $ 1,469,016,276 in
Federal funds have been awarded in the State of Texas. This includes 806
grants awarded under P.L. 84-660 and 1,172 grants awarded under P.L. 92-500..
A.further breakdown is as follows:
• , Number of Grants .Amount Awarded
P.L. 84-660 806 $ 326,128,944
P.L. 92-500
- Step 0 Delegation 5 $ 20,966,500
- Step 1 Planning 527 $ 46,395,244
- Step 2 Design 253 $ 50,934,079
- Step 3 Construction 282 $ 893,531,434
- Step 4 (2+3) 105 $ - 131,060,075
- Step 5 Advance of Allowance 0 $ 0
- Step 6 WQM Planning 0 $ 0
- Step 9 State Training Center 0 $ 0
P.L. 92-500 Total 1,172 $ 1,142,887,332
135
-------
To date the P.L. 84-660 projects have resulted in the construction of many
treatment works including 625 treatment plants. Many of the P.L. 92-500
projects are still under way. As of October 1, 1982, the Step 3 and 2+3
grants had resulted in the completion of 157 treatment plants as well as
other treatment works such as major interceptors, sludge handling facilities
and lift stations.
COMPLIANCE
Table C is a summary of State and EPA Enforcement Actions.
TABLE C ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FY 82
Type Action Entity
State Federal
Municipal Industrial Municipal Industrial
Adm. Enf. Action 17 17
(A.O. or Equivalent)
Initiate Referral to 13
DOJ or State A.G.
Total 18 20
In FY 83, EPA began implementation of the Region 6 Municipal Enforcement
Policy in Texas. The main features of the Regional Policy are negotiation
of enforceable construction schedules for compliance by no later than
July 1, 1988, with or without Federal grant assistance.
During FY 81, EPA Region 6 issued general permits that encompass approxi-
mately 1400 off-shore oil wells. Approximately 600 are in Texas coastal
waters. The permits require permittee self-monitoring and annual reporting
for drilling-related and domestic wastewater discharges. Region 6 has
initiated the compliance tracking system for these permittees.
During the fourth quarter of FY 82, and continuing into FY 83, TDWR and EPA
have directed the following enforcement efforts to bring about municipal
compliance in the Lake Houston Watershed Area in order to reduce the excessive
fecal coliform and turbidity levels:
EPA: - Inspected 51 facilities to date.
- Scheduled 32 additional inspections through this spri-ng into
summer to cover all facilities in watershed.
- Warning letters sent and follow-up on all permittees delinquent
on reporting effluent quality.
- Continuing to review compliance files of all NPDES permittees
for enforcement actions. Have sent 16 enforcement letters to
date.
- Held 11 enforcement conferences to date with Lake Houston
permittees.
- Have issued four Administrative Orders to noncompliant
permittees.
- Referring one publicly owned treatment facility (POTW) to the
Department of Justice.
- Coordination with TDWR. 136
-------
TDUR; - Reviewing self-reporting data for 165 permittees.
- TDWR field office will collect monthly samples from January to
June 1983 at 6 stations in Lake Houston and 15 stations on
Cypress, Spring, Peach and Caney Creeks and East and West
Forks of the San Jacinto River (Fecal coliform and field
water quality parameters measured at each Station. Also
fecal coliform levels at interface of sediment and water at 6
stations.)
- Collected sample data from 33 POTWs up to five times each from
October 7 through November'3, 1982. Total of 134 samples and
709 analyses made.
- Letters sent, to all POTWs recommending special attention to
O&M and sludge handling.
- Enforcement letters to two POTWs. . ;
- Referred two POTWs to Attorney General for litigation. :
- Continued ongoing litigation with four POTWs. :
- Participated in three meetings in Houston ,to discuss strategy.
to control pollution.
- Sampling inspections of 24 additional dischargers since
October/November survey. ',
137
-------
EPA REGION 6 AGENCY CONCERNS
"SECOND-ROUND" NPDES PERMITTING
EPA Region 6, has begun "second-round" issuance of NPDES permits for
industrial sources. The Region has five priorities for developing and
issuing industrial discharge permits:
The first priority is given to facilities discharging to waters where use
impairment problems have been identified and where there is'adequate infor-
mation to develop either a water quality-based permit or, in some cases, a
permit relying on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ). The organic chemicals
and plastics/synthetics industrial category, where major water quality
problems have been identified, falls into this priority category.
The remaining permit issuance priorities are: (2) facilities for which
applicable BAT effluent limitations guidelines have been promulgated; (3)
facilities suspected of contributing to the impairment of a designated water
use, but where insufficient information exists to confirm the extent of
the use impairment; (4) facilities for which effluent limitations guide-
lines are not scheduled for promulgation and the existing permit limitations
do not reflect sufficient treatment; and (5) facilities for which effluent
limitations guidelines are not scheduled and the existing permit requires
sufficient treatment.
In Region 6, dischargers in the Lower Mississippi River, the Houston Ship
Channel, and the Neches and Sabine Rivers have been designated to be in
the first priority water use impairment priority category. So, generally
speaking, facilities discharging into these waterways can expect to have
their permits reissued within the next year and a half. Facilities within
the second priority BAT guidelines category can expect their reissued per-
mits .nine to twelve months after the promulgation date.
GENERAL PERMITTING
Region 6 has been investigating several areas for potential use of a general
NPDES permit. The general permit program was designed to regulate categories
of point sources located within a designated geographic area which discharge
the same types of wastes and whose discharges warrant similar pollution con-
trol measures. The concept of issuing general permits thereby represents
an important change from the original NPDES regulations, since prior to this
only individual permits could be issued to point sources.
Under the general permit approach, a single NPDES permit can be written with
limitations and conditions applicable to a defined category of dischargers.
Individual permit applications are not required and this significantly reduces
time in the processing and issuance of permits.
138
-------
In order to issue general permits, the category of dischargers to be covered
must involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, discharge
the same type waste, require the same effluent limitations or operating condi-
tions, require the same or similar monitoring, and be more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than under individual permits. The general
permit is written to cover a geographic area corresponding to existing
geographic or political boundaries.
General permits may be issued, revoked and reissued, or terminated in accor-
dance with applicable requirements of the NPDES permit program. In addition,
special procedural provisions apply in the case of general permits. Any point
source otherwise authorized to discharge under a general permit can be excluded
from coverage under the general .permit. Cases where an individual permit may
be required include the following: (1) the discharge is a significant contri-
butor of pollution; (2) the discharger is not in compliance with the conditions
of the general NPDES permit; and (3) effluent limitations guidelines, conditions
or other standards have changed so that the source no longer qualifies for cov-
erage under a general permit. Any interested person may petition the director
to require a source covered under a general permit to apply for an individual
permit. :
Where an individual permit is subsequently: issxied, the applicability of the
general permit to that source is automatically terminated oh the effective
date of the individual permit. Similarly, a source excluded from a general
permit solely because it already has an individual permit may request that
the individual permit be revoked and that it be covered by the general permit.
Upon revocation of the individual permit, the general permit applies.
In many instances, general permits can result in increased environmental pro-
tection because categories of dischargers which EPA and States previously had
no time or resources to permit can now be covered by general permits. In
addition, the provisions for general permits allow the permitting authority
to address the cumulative impacts of numerous point sources operating in the
same geographic area.
Table D lists the number of NPDES Permits issued as of March 4, 1983.
TABLE D: NPDES PERMITS ISSUED
MUNICIPAL
NON-
MUNICIPAL
TOTAL
MAJOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
AR
i
54'
210
46
361
100
571
LA
1
' 69
216
142
1461
211
1677
NM
14
39
16
131
30
170
OK
52
333
38
343
90
676
TX
175
776
219
1991
394
2767
SUB TOTAL
364
1574
461
4287
825
5861
TOTAL
1918
4748
6686
139
-------
The above numbers are for'issued permits only. Approximately 1400 of the
minor facilities shown in Texas and Louisiana are offshore oil and gas
facilities. Besides the above permitted facilities, there are a number of
facilities which have submitted applicatons, but have not been issued permits,
By state, the total number of applications is Arkansas-212, Louisiana-1998,
New Mexico-99, Oklahoma-236, and Texas-2021 for a total of 4566. Approxi-
mately 1800 of these applications are for onshore oil and gas facilities.
140
-------
WINK IMG M7ER
Taole of Contents
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AK13
Figure 1 Public nl-iter Supply in Region 6
Figure 2 Size Distribution of CWS's in Region 6
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY
MANAGEMENT "
(A) Drinking iriatsr Supply Compliance
(1 ) Prirc'pal Barriers
Table 1, Pk'S Violations
Taule 2. Perslstant PWS Violations
Figure 3. CWS Compliance Treid
(2) Implications for Agency Management
(B) Protection of Dnnkirsg Water Sources
(1) .Principal Barriers
Tabls 4. Summary Sheet of GWSS
(2) I^pl
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
In the five Region 6 States there are 15,649 public water systems. Of these,
8,Oil are community water systems which serve a resident population of approx-
imately 23,800,000 people and 7,638 are non-community systems which serve ah
equally large but variable population classed as the traveling public. As
indicated in Figure 1, the majority of the water systems have groundwater
as the major source of supply. However, from a population perspective, the
larger community water systems serving almost two thirds of the resident
population use surface water sources. Figure 2 documents the number of small
and very small systems and the larger amounts of population served by the
larger systems.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA developed water quality limits (MCLs)
and monitoring and reporting (M/R) requirements for all public water supplies.
In Region 6 these requirements are effectively administered by the delegated
primacy programs in each State. These State programs provide to EPA a yearly
status report on their public water systems. Regional analyses of this
data have been used by the States as a guide for future program activities,
to set priorities, and to document trends of improved compliance with National
Standards. These analyses have shown positive compliance, trends in both
water quality and monitoring and have documented the need for continued sur-
veillance activities to maintain compliance levels. Because of the stable
population and the full application of regulatory control, the priority
systems are the community type. ; • ' '
The sources of drinking water, either groundwater or surface water, have had
to coexist with our expanding population and developing technology. Although
there have been but a few instances of toxic contamination found in Region 6
water supply sources, the trends of development have created a greater threat,
to both the groundwater and surface water. Thus, further activities are being
promoted to coordinate the activities of environmental programs, especially
within the water media, to monitor and plan for water; supply source protection.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY
MANAGEMENT
A) Drinking Water Supply Compliance
An analysis of compliance information is made each year from the violation
data included in the States'Annual Reports. Table 1 summarizes the number
of public water systems that had water quality or monitoring violations
in FY 81. The majority of the bacteriological and turbidity violations
occur in small public water systems (i.e. those serving less than 3,300).
Therefore, the majority of the public is served by water systems which
meet drinking water regulations. Table 2 indicates that the number of
priority problem systems with persistant violations. Fortunately, these
violations are a relatively manageable amount of small and very small
systems.
142
-------
FIGURE 1
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IN REGION 6
PWS TYPE
TOTAL PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY
(15,649)
fNON-COMMUNITY PWS
Mft
CO
PWS SOURCE
SURFACE WATER
1664 (20.8%)
COMMUNITY PWS
nm
GROUNDWATER
6347 (79.2%)
SURFACE WATER
517 (6.8%)
POLULATION SERVED
SURFACE WATER
15.0 M (63%)
GKOuMDwATER
8.8 M (37%)
GROUNDWATER I
7121 (93.2%) \
-------
FIGURE 2
SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
INREGIONVI
co
o
SIZE CATEGORY:
(population)
VERY SMALL SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
(<500) (501-3,300) (3,301-10,000) (10,001-100,000)
VERY LARGE
(>100,000)
NO OF CWS'S:
% POPULATION
SERVED:
11 No of CMS
4,824
3.4%
Population served
2,335 516
13.5% 12.2%
306
32.3%
30 8.011 (Total)
38.7%
-------
TABLE 1
PWS Violation - FY 81 - Region 6
State
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
• Totals
CWS
(654)
(1234)
(620)
(1133)
(4370)
(8011)
MCL
49
100
50
166
234
599
Pact.
M/R
84
39
228
501
1256
2108
(CWS Surf)
(165)
(101)
(3*)
(574)
(790)
(1664)
. MCL
1
0
5
2
24
32
Tu rb .
M/R
6
0
3
71
65
145
Chem/Rad
MCL
1
12
62
37
371
483
Abbreviations
PWS- Public Water System
CWS- Community Water System
Bact.- Bacteriological
Turb.- Turbidity
MCL- Maximum Contaminant Level
M/R- Monitoring/ Reporting
CWS Surf.- Community Systems using surface water
Uhem/Rad- Chemical/ Radiochemical
145
-------
TABLE 2
Persistent PWS Violators - FY 81
Bact.
Turb.
State(CWS)
Arkansas
(654)
Louisiana
(1234)
New Mexico
(620)
Oklahoma
(1133)
Texas
(4370)
(8011)
MCL>2Q
7
3
7
41
33
91
M/R >4 Mo
20
0
44
137
390
591
Surf)
(165)
(101)
(34)
(574)
(790)
(1664)
MCL>4 Mo.
0
0
1
0
9
10
M/R>4 Mo
0
. 0
2
69
22
93
146
-------
By developing lists of the specific persistant violators and targeting
specific resources toward them, the State programs have been able to
accomplish positive compliance improvements (See Figure 3). The percen-
tage of community water systems in compliance with bacteriological and
turbidity quality and turbidity monitoring has shown a progressive
upward trends during the period of FY 79 through FY 82 and has reached
the 90% plus level. (7,200 or more public water systems in Region 6
are in full compliance with a specific requirement.) At the level of
present effort and resources, the State programs will do well to hold
these compliance percentages. Bacteriological monitoring/reporting,
has also shown progress over the last four years, however, in most
States it still,has room for further improvement. Bacteriological
sampling is a self monitoring program in all States except Louisiana.
The difficulties of coordination and operator motivation are evident
in the.low compliance levels.
The chemical violations for Region 6 community water systems indicates
a clustering of violations in the States, particularly in Texas, New
Mexico and Oklahoma. Most of the violations are the result of naturally
occurring.fluoride and nitrate levels in groundwater sources which have
not been subjected to treatment for technical and economic reasons. The
fluoride standard is currently undergoing review under the Revised Regu-
lations process and may change the current compliance picture. The
remaining chemical violators are being addressed on a case-by-case basis.
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS: :
The principal barriers to bacteriological and turbidity compliance are
operation and maintenance problems within the systems and a lack of
. committment on the part of many small system operators. These problems
'are addressed through operator training programs and technical assistance
visits by State engineers to identify system deficiencies and stress
the need for quality control. A newly developing barrier in many States
is the need to reduce monitoring activities in response to budget cuts.
This problem can be addressed by setting priorities within programs and
judicious application of available resources.
The barriers to chemical quality problems are public acceptance, a limited
health basis for the standard, the technology of treatment and costs to
the system. The fluoride standard and many others are being addressed
in the Revised Regulations process. Research activities must be designed
to assist 1n this process. Special emphasis should be directed to improve
the health effects data base and to investigate the technical and economic
aspects of treatment of currently regulated constituents as yell as the
newly emerging priority toxic materials that are impacting our environment.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT:
The State and Regional programs must assess PWS compliance frequently and
adjust program activities to meet priority problems. Specific activities
including enforcement should address persistant violators so as to hold
a high maintenance of effort level for bacteriological and turbidity
quality and increase bacteriological M/R.
147
-------
oo
r~ r-
CTI
l*.«
O
CTi
CO
••« CO
co
••»
^^^ta
^•^^
M»
••
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
s
FISCAL YEAR ISf
tr
1
J'l!
'!
j'1'
ty
^
"!
-fj
?/
j4
H
l.*i
i
8
H
u
< &
iv»
••
*
0/8/82
£? %:;
;j
$
i|
>it.
iq
if
75/80/81
BBMH
__,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
jifcj
W
/,
T»*
!l^
0
5
?f
U
i|'5
r
n
'fn
t'i
'It
if
•i*1
|{
Is
i'
u
i*
y
'!*'
__
in
M^^^*
ro
(Ti
^*s rr\
u<
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
*82 79/8(i/81/82 79y
00
n
W:
•::;.;.;
Wi
S:'':'.
M
;*:':"•'•;•
Ivi'v
ioy
j
P
1
L> -t,
I
?i
^
P
1
';4
^
^
?
'1
1
1
i iy
ts<
»js
:?]
1
P
•
^81^2
BACT. MCL
BACT. M/R
TURB, MCL
TURB. M/R
FIGURE 3, COMPLIANCE TRENDS, COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
-------
Chemical violators can be addressed through technical assistance and with
the aid of an enforcement priority system which ranks actions by need.
EPA, Region 6, pioneered and developed a compliance analysis system for
managing environmental results in the drinking water program. Through
the accumulation of State drinking water monitoring information and the
analysis and presentation of the data in a. series of tables, lists, and
maps, Regional personnel have worked closely with State officials to pin-
point problem areas, define trends, establish priorities, and develop
plans/strategies for action. The system has further been extended to
evaluate results and chart water system progress in the Region.
New Mexico has further expanded the EPA compliance system and adapted it
to each individual in their water system supervision program. They estab-
lished PWS compliance goals for each field professional as part of their
individual performance standards. This proved very effective, not only
in upgrading drinking water quality, but also in improving water system
compliance in all environmental areas.
To support State and Regional actions, EPA Headquarters is requested to:
a) complete review of the fluoride standard in line with its own estab-
lished timetable, b) strengthen health effects guidance on existing and
new toxics, and c) review required monitoring frequencies and apply
appropriate changes.
B) Protection of Drinking Water Sources
Drinking Water System sources of supply in Region 6 are being threatened
by the wastes generated in conjunction with an expanding population growth
in the Southwest. A number of incidents have occured in Region 6 which
have emphasized the need for improved protection of our drinking water
sources. Concerns for surface water quality in the Lower Mississippi
River, Lake Houston, Beaver Lake, Lower Rio Grande River, Caddo Lake,
and other water bodies have emphasized the need for continuous efforts
to protect these sources for public water supplies. The discharge of
unregulated compounds could present a real threat to the downstream water
supply. These materials are not regulated because sufficient health
effects, occurrence and treatment data are so lacking that water quality
standards or effluent levels have not been established. A strong effort
must be developed to generate this data so it can be included in the
water quality management and control programs.
Groundwater, too, is subjected to potential degradation from hazardous
waste sites, industrial pits, ponds, lagoons, landfills, inj-ection wells,
and a host of other activities in which waste materials are placed on or
below ground level. Once a freshwater aquifer is contaminated it may
never recover. In 1981, EPA conducted a National Groundwater Survey
which was specifically looking for groundwater occurrence of volatile
organic chemicals. A summary of the initial results from 127 public
149
-------
water systems sampled in Region 6 is given in Table 3. The table lists
the number of specific contaminant occurrences and the range of concen-
trations found. In each cases where a substance was measured, resampling
was performed and follow-up actions were taken. In general, the con-
taminant levels were found to be very low and are not a problem based on
current health-effects information. However, the fact that these volatile
organics can be identified and measured in fresh groundwaters is a concern
for the future. This would warrant continued monitoring to track the
persis'tance of the substances and could prove invaluable if new health
information requires action. (See the section on groundwater for detailed
information on the Region's groundwaters.)
Whether the drinking source is groundwater or surface water, our expand-
ing society has produced a high potential for contaminants by toxic
chemicals.
PRINCIPAL BARRIERS:
The main barriers to improving the protection of drinking water sources
are the needs for health effects and occurrence information. The lack
of this data hampers the establishment of water quality criteria, effluent
limits, drinking water standards, or any other regulations which could
serve as a basis for protecting water sources. Coincidently, the lack
of coordinated water source information resulting from time and resources
constraints has impacted planning efforts and the provision of appropriate
control strategies.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT:
The State and Regional programs must strive to accumulate the basic infor-
mation, complete the appropriate planning, wasteload allocations, etc.,
and develop waste discharge controls that adequately protect all water
uses. Regional and State leaders must continue the priority for this
intermedia coordination effort.
EPA Headquarters support for the protection of water sources should be
centered on developing necessary health-effects information, and support-
ing regional priority actions with resources and appropriate policy/guidance
materials.
150
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY SHEET FOR GROUND WATER SUPPLY SURVEY
Occurrence and Levels (ppb)
AR
LA
1(15.0)
1(0.22)
1(1.0)
1(0.22)
2(.50,2.5)
1(2.9)
2(.61,.91)
NM
OK
1(1.1)
2(1.5, 2.4)
1(5.6)
1(2.7)
TX
3(.23-1.2)
2(1.4-2.5)
5(. 21-15.)
2(.21,.74)
2(.50, .95)
2(.64-.73)
3(.24-.61)
benzene
1,2-Dichloropropane
01chloroi odomethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
ethyl benzene
tetrachloroethylene
p-dichlorobenzene
carbon tetrachloride
bromobenzene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
toluene
xylenes
trichloroethylene
c1s/trans l-2,dichloroethane
Example: 3(.23-1.2)
It occurred 3 times in this State and ranged from .23 to 1.2 ppb.
151
-------
GROUNDWATER
Table of Contents
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Figure 1 Major Aquifers - Region 6
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
(A) Types of Pollution in Region 6
Figure 2 Surf'ace Impoundments
(B) Implicaticns for Agency Management
(1) Implementation of E°A's Regulatory Programs
(2) Assistance to States In Their Groundwater Effort:
152
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF STATUS AND TRENDS
For environmental management purposes we consider groundwater to be that
water below the land surface, in a zone of saturation, which can be utilized
as a source of drinking water or for other benefical uses. While the Agency
does not have a qualitative definition of groundwater, the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program defines groundwater of less than 10,000
mg/1 total dissolved solids as an "Underground Source of Drinking Water".
Groundwater is the water source for approximately 80 percent of the Region's
public water systems. In addition, groundwater plays a major role in
meeting the irrigation and industrial needs of the region. Figure _1
shows the location of the major aquifers (aquifers which contain a suffi-
cient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system) in Region 6.
The map does not distinguish between the recharge zones and the sub-surface
extent of the aquifers; therefore, the potential hazard posed by surface
activities cannot be accurately assessed by superimposing surface activity
locations on the aquifer map.
In general, the status of groundwater quality in Region 6 is very good.
Since the beginning of the federal Drinking Water program, not a single
public water supply system in the Region has been forced to close due to
contaminated groundwater. This is not to imply that contamination inci-
dents have not occurred in Region 6, as many private water wells have been
affected by localized contamination incidents.
There is no consolidated source of data currently available at either the
Federal or State levels to accurately assess the degree of groundwater con-
tamination in the Region. -All aquifers probably have been subjected to
limited incidents of contamination, somewhere at sometime. The knowledge
of the pollutants and the specific locations of contamination is fragmented
and scattered throughout the files of many State and Federal agencies.
EPA Region 6 has ongoing groundwater protection efforts under several
programs, as summarized below. Details of these programs are contained in
other sections of this report.
1. The UIC program regulates subsurface injection of fluids, a practice
which poses a major potential threat to groundwater if not properly
conducted.
2. The hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates hazardous waste storage,-treatment,
and disposal activities in order to mitigate the threat such activities
pose to groundwater quality.
3. The Superfund program provides response and remedial action to clean
up uncontrolled hazardous waste site's which threaten groundwater.
153
-------
MAJOR AQUIFERS
REGION 6
-------
4. The planning, permitting, and spill response aspects of the Water
Quality program serve to lessen the potential for groundwater contami-
nation from surface activities.
5. The Drinking Water program regulates the quality of "tap" water and
serves as a 'partial guage of our success in protecting groundwater.
6. The Pesticides program regulates the distribution and use of pesticides,
thus reducing the potential for groundwater contamination from improper
application of pesticides.
In addition to the above ongoing programs, EPA can take action under several
statutes to halt activities which are causing an imminent health hazard
through contamination of groundwater.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
(A) Types of Pollution in Region 6
The following are types of pollution known to have occurred in the Region.
Where EPA has a directly applicable regulatory program, the EPA program
which deals with the problem is referenced following each problem discus-
sion. The Drinking Water and Superfund sections of this report also in-
clude discussions on groundwater as it relates to those programs. The
New Mexico portion of the Water Quality section discusses groundwater
quality in that State.
1. Injection well disposal
Approximately 87,000 injection wells are in operation in Region 6.
They are primarially for disposal of:
(1) Brine produced in association with hydrocarbons
(2) Municipal and industrial wastes
EPA has authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to control
underground injection (see section on UIC Program).
2. Oil and gas exploration wells improperly completed or plugged
Exploration for and production of hydrocarbons occurs in every
State of Region 6. These operations have caused brine pollution
in many freshwater aquifers and wells throughout the Region.
States have primary authority over this activity in Region 6.
155
-------
3. Water wells which are uncased>__up_pjugged, or water we! 1 s with leaky
casing that penetrate strata "with poor quality water
Some of the States require registration and licensing of all water
well drillers in order to help control this problem. Some of the
States also regulate the plugging of water wells which encounter
poor quality water.
4. Recharge wells (high plains - unfiltered recharge wells)
There are a number of recharge wells or multi-purpose wells located
on the high plains of Texas which put water into the Ogallala for-
mation. Surface water is collected in playa lakes and the only fil-
tering of water before recharging is to remove some of the silt load
to prevent clogging of the wells. The movement of the recharge water
and its effect on the groundwater quality has not been documented.
EPA has regulatory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (see
section on UIC Program).
5. Unlined brine pits; municipal and industrial waste surface disposal
Brines produced with oil and gas were histori'cally disposed of through
unlined saltwater pits. This practice has been reduced or stopped in
most States, but contamination plumes continue to pollute freshwater
aquifers and wells. Figure _2_ shows numbers of surface impoundments,
by category, in Region 6 compaTed with the national total. EPA has
authority over some of these impoundments through the RCRA program.
6. Solid wastes
Municipal solid waste disposal sites, open dumps, and sanitary land-
fills often cause groundwater pollution. Historically, open dumps
were situated in excavations (such as sand and gravel pits), flood
plains, or other land of low economic value, allowing contamination
of both surface and groundwater. Each State has the primary respon-
sibility for this program.
7. Land application of wastes
Land application of feedlot wastes or municipal wastewater sludge has
caused pollution of groundwater in areas where this practice has been
extensive. The Region regulates some of these activities under the
Clean Water Act.
8. Nitrate problems
>
(1) Cesspools or improperly designed septic systems. Few States
regulate this problem, but some do make recommendations for
proper design, and some local control districts do regulate
construction. In some areas, soil type is not suited to septic
treatment, but the practice is not prohibited.
156
-------
(2) Fertilizers used in farming - We have no documented case of this
happening; however there is widespread concern with the large
amounts of fertilizer being used that groundwater pollution
may be going on undetected.
(3) Feedlots (high plains) - Texas Tech through an EPA research
grant completed a study on the infiltration rates and ground-
water quality beneath cattle feedlots in the Texas high plains.
They recommended that water-quality monitoring of wells in the
vicinity of the feedlots be continued.
(4) Combination of the various sources - In many areas the nitrates
are a result of more than just one of the above-cited causes.
Several years ago in Runnels County, Texas, there were several
cattle kill incidents and the investigation showed they died
from nitrate poisoning, with nitrates running in the thousands
of parts per million in the water. Nitrates were also found in
large quantities in the animals' food.
9. Irrigation return flows
In some areas, groundwater salinity is increasing due to heavy irri-
gation with marginal quality water. Excessive application of water
is practiced in order to prevent soil salinization.
10. Saltwater intrusion due to groundwater development
Enroachment of saline water has occurred in localized areas along the
gulf coast and some inland areas. This;type pollution occurs due to
overdraft of fresh groundwater and its replacement by water of a more
mineralized quality. Poor quality water can come from the fresh-salt-
water interface or another stratum. :
11. Deicing salt
Spreading of salt on roads, airport runways, and parking lots can
cause pollution of groundwater in the northern part of the region.
12. Accidental spills of hazardous materials
Groundwater pollution may be caused by production and storage facil-
ities, as well as transportation accidents. Region 6 has many refin-
eries, chemical plants, etc., capable of causing these problems. EPA
has authority under RCRA and Superfund for this type of activity.
13. Mining and mill tailings
The quality of water pumped (or flowing naturally) from mines has
contaminated groundwater in many of the Region's mining areas.
This is also true for mill tailings water which is a problem in
mining areas.
157
-------
14. Leaking storage tanks or pipelines
Storage tanks for petroleum or other materials can pollute ground-
water if they leak. Some tanks and pipelines have been buried, making
detection more difficult. The Region regulates some of these activ-
ities authority under the RCRA program and the Clean Water Act.
(B) Implications for Agency Management
(1) Implementation on EPA's Regulatory Programs
As is evident from the above listing, the types of activities which threaten
groundwater vary considerably. Authorities to address such activities are
fragmented at both the State and federal levels. However, Region 6 States
have been quite active ia managing their groundwater resources to ensure
future availability. As examples, New: Mexico has adopted groundwater
quality standards and Arkansas is currently developing a groundwater strat-
egy for the State. , '• ' %
Si.nce the current quality of groundwater' in Region 6 is good, the Region
will concentrate on planning and prevention to avoid future problems. Such
preventive measures will include effective coordinated implementation of
EPA's regulatory programs which protect gfoundwater and assistance to States
in their groundwater assessment and management activities.
(2) Assistance to States in Their Groundwater Efforts
The Region can assist States to do the following at their request:
(a) Assess groundwater resources
(b) Establish aquifer monitoring programs
*i
(c) .Locate and identify groundwater contamination
(d) Develop a groundwater strategy for the State
If it is desired that contamination data be collected and presented in
future Environmental Management Reports, a great deal of additional time
and resources are going to be needed since it would take a comprehensive
and coordinated effort at both the Regional and State levels as well as
cooperation among Federal agencies to assemble and portray groundwater
data. If this becomes a future priority, then it would be essential for
necessary resources to be made available to identify and document priority
groundwater problems.
Elimination of groundwater pollution is dependent on prevention, not restor-
ation after the contamination has been found. Problem identification will
be used to correct the cause so as to prevent further contamination and to
gain insights to preventing similar situations in other areas. Unlike
most media, the list of specific groundwater contamination problems will
grow over time instead of shrinking as the program identifies and documents
more aquifer contamination. The measure of the program's success should
not be the restoration of contaminated aquifers (in most cases, not cost
effective), but problem identification and control of the pollution sources.
158
-------
SURFACE IfPOWENTS
# OF IMPOUNDMENTS
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
CM
r
NATIONAL
REGION 6
LO
AGRICULTURAL MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL MINING
p?
m
¥*;a
if.--!
i
OIL & GAS CATEGORY
BRINE PITS
FIGURE 2
159
-------
:J,NDERaP.OUND INJECTION CONTROL
Table of Contends
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STAFUS ANC TRENDS
Figure 1 Ideally Completed Injection Well
Figure 2 Delegation of DIG Prcgrems to States and Number
of Injection Wells in Region 6
PART Ij - SIGNIFICANT ENVJR3NMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
(A) Nature of Contamination Incidents
(B) DIG Ifnolemeitation Concerns
160
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that underground sources of drinking
water be protected from endangerment by well injections. Figure 1 shows
an ideally completed injection well. The Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program regulations and guidance describe minimum requirements for
achieving this protection. If a State's program meets these minimum re-
quirements, the primacy of the UIC program is delegated to the State.
EPA, Region 6, has delegated primacy of UIC programs to Texas, Louisiana,
and Oklahoma, and partial primacy to Arkansas and New Mexico. Figure 2
shows the status of program delegations to the States and the number of
Class I, II, and III injection wells in each of;the Region's States. The
figure also shows the percent of the national total, of !each well class,
that is in Region 6. Class I wells are those which inject hazardous,
industrial, or municipal wastes; Class II wells are those used to inject
fluids brought to the surface with oil or gas production (both disposal
and enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas); and;Class III wells are
those which inject for extraction of minerals. : :
As can be seen from Figure 2, Region 6 contains the majority of the
permitted injection wells in the nation. Thus, the Region has a greater
potential•for groundwater contamination from subsurface injection; than
any other part of the country, and the proper construction, operation, and
abandonment of injection wells is of critical importance. Since 1983 will
be the first full year of UIC program implementation for most Region 6
States, no comprehensive compliance or trend .data is yet available.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
(A) Nature of Contamination Incidents
While there have been isolated groundwater contamination incidents of
which injection wells were the suspected cause, there have been no wide-
spread, large-scale cases of groundwater contamination from injection
well operation. This is primarily due to State regulation of underground
injection prior to the federal UIC program.
(B) UIC Implementation Concerns
Although significant contamination problems are not known to exist, the Region
is faced with several problems in implementaing the UIC implementation on
Indian lands and in non-primacy States (if any exist in the Region). Indian
lands contain over 4,000 Class II wells, approximately 75 Class III wells,
and one Class I well. The Region must continue to hirg and maintain quality
staff persons, provide them with specialized training for UIC permitting,
compliance, and enforcement work, and develop the data processing systems
to efficiently run the program.
161
-------
)PRESSURE GAUGE
SALT WATER
*
'
FRESH WATER
AQUIFER
*
«
SALT WATER
AQUIFER
.
*.
SALT WftTER
AQUIFER
.
•. *
•
SALT WATER —
INJECTION ZONE —
I..
*
'/\\ '•.
$!'
f | f
> i "i
i t
i /
1 /
t
j /
'i /
1 4
i f
', \\ 'f
f, ii ',
;H
/ 1 >
^ ! ?
! i /
1 /
tY f
' !, ^
/ i ' /
f^s^n
/ Mi ^
i^i»?
-------
en
CJ
DELEGATION OF UIC PRGGIWIS TO STATES
AND
NUMBER OF INJECTION l£LLS, IN EGIOfl 6
r"s
J)E|-F.GAT10H STATUS
|HU CLASS I, ||, in, |v,
-------
In developing programs for Indian lands the Region will work with the tribes
and States to arrive at UIC programs which satisfy the tribal governments'
desires for environmental protection, promote consistent regulation of
injection well operators on and off Indian land, and provide for effi-
cient use of federal resources in running the program.
Another issue in UIC implementation is consistency in well testing through-
out the Region. Region 6 will work with the States to adapt Agency quality
assurance requirements and procedures to the as-yet "unexplored territory"
of injection well testing.
A third issue is the degree of State program reporting to be required.
Faced with decreased program.resources and increased EPA reporting re-
quirements, Region 6 States will be forced to decide whether to cut
back ongoing permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities in order
to fill out the lengthy EPA "report card." Region 6 will continue to
work with the States and EPA Headquarters to arrive at a solution which
is acceptable to all parties and most effectively serves the interest of
environmental protection.
164
-------
TOXICS
T
-------
PART I: OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was signed into law on October 11,
1976. This law is designed to fill the gaps between the other environmental
and occupational laws and to enable the Federal Government to control unreason-
able risks to human health and the environment caused by chemical substances.
Laws other than TSCA should be used when they will provide adequate protection
to public health and the environment. EPA is also required to coordinate with
other Federal Agencies if laws administered by these other agencies can pro-
vide the desired control (Sections 9 and 26 of TSCA). Thus, coordination is
essential in order to ensure consistency of regulatory actions, efficient
use of public and private resources and attention to the most significant
hazards.
Therefore, the Region 6 staff prepared a strategy in an attempt to effectively
use the various laws of EPA to prevent any unreasonable risk to public health
or the environment.
ASBESTOS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the May 27,
1982, Federal Register a final regulation under the authority of Section 6
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469) concerning asbestos-
containing materials in school buildings. This regulation requires all
public and private elementary and secondary schools in the country to
identify friable asbestos containing building materials, maintain records,
and notify employees of the location of the friable asbestos-containing
materials, provide custodial employees with instruction on reducing ex-
posures to asbestos, and notify the school's parent-teacher association of
the inspection results. The regulations do not require removal of the
asbestos-containing material or the implementation of any other control
measures.
Schools which have already conducted an asbestos inspection program and
can document that they have no friable asbestos-containing material may be
exempt from portions of the regulations.
The regulation requires schools to be "in compliance" by June 28, 1983.
On June 10, the EPA mailed the final regulation and "Asbestos Containing
Material in School Buildings: A Guidance Document, Parts I and II" to all
public and private schools in the nation. The Guidance Documents contain
close up photographs of asbestos-containing materials and tips on where to
find such materials in school buildings. Also, the guidance books provide
details on how to inspect for and obtain samples of asbestos-containing
materials.
166
-------
ASBESTOS (Cont'd)
The Region is hampered irf this effort by the fact that schools are not
required to report to EPA the results of their inspections or whether
corrective action has been taken. In most cases the states have some of
this information or'are in the process of developing it. Region 6 has
contacted the states to request this information.
STATE INVOLVEMENT AND PROGRESS
•
Arkansas: The Arkansas State Plan for the Detection of Asbestos was
adopted by the Arkansas State Board of Education on December 8,
1980. The asbestos program is being coordinated by the Department
of Education with assistance from the State Health Department.
The State has reported a total of 37 school districts. Approx-
imately 98 percent of the schools have been surveyed in Arkansas.
Presently, 151 districts have shown no asbestos; whereas asbestos
has been detected in 73 districts. Also, 59 districts have taken
corrective action. The Department of Education updates the region
on changes as they occur.
Louisiana: The Legislature of Louisiana passed an Act on July 6,
1981, to create a mechanism for the detection of friable asbestos
materials. The Department of Education is coordinating all aspects
of the program.
The State has reported that over 73 percent of their schools have
been surveyed for asbestos. All of the public and catholic schools
should be in compliance by June 28, 1983. The number of schools
surveyed has increased over 30 percent since the State has managed
the asbestos program.
New Mexico: The State of New Mexico submitted its Asbestos Detection-
and Control Plan to the Department of Education on December 15,
1980. The program is being managed by the Department of Education
with assistance from the Environmental Improvement Division of the
Occupational Safety and Health Bureau.
The Environmental Improvement Division has conducted workshops
throughout the State for school officials. Regional records show
that at this time 73 percent of the schools have been surveyed for
asbestos.
Oklahoma: The State Department of Health is the lead Agency in the
asbestos program. Senate Bill 67 was adopted by the State Legis-
lature to provide funds for asbestos abatement actions within the
state. The funds provided by this bill have been fully expended
as of June 30, 1982.
167
-------
STATE INVOLVEMENT AND PROGRESS (Cont'd)
There is an average of 625 public school districts in Oklahoma and
the State has reported that they have all been assessed and that
removal action has been completed from all but 6 districts. The
State has reported that their program is more than 97% complete in
the public sector. Oklahoma expects to complete corrective action
in all public schools by June 28, 1983. The State is making progress
on the private and parochial schools.
Texas: EPA is working with the Texas Department of Health and Texas
Education Agency (State Lead Agency) to ensure that all school dis-
tricts are in compliance with the regulation. The State Department
of Health is performing analyses of bulk asbestos samples for school
districts on request. However, many of the larger school districts
are using commercial laboratories.
Our records show 62 percent of the schools have been surveyed for
asbestos. This is a 15 percent increase since October of last
year.
ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY REGION 6
Region 6 sent follow-up letters to all of the large school districts in our
5 states to reenforce the requirements of the Asbestos rule and to offer
assistance in training their personnel. Asbestos Workshops have been con-
ducted for state/local school officials throughout the five state Region.
On-site training for school inspections, sampling and exposure assessments
have also been provided for local schools.
In Texas, Region 6 sent letters to all school districts in the State
advising them of the requirements and offering assistance in complying
with the rule. We also contacted Texas Education Service Centers and
arranged to conduct workshops for school officials served by each Center.
We have conducted 17 such workshops as of this date.
PCB ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
TSCA, specifically required the Administrator of EPA to promulgate rules for
the regulation of PCBs. A disposal and marking rule became effective April 17,
1978, and a broader rule became effective July 2, 1979. Our enforcement
strategy is designed to enforce these rules in an effective and efficient
manner.
168
-------
PCB ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY (Cont'd)
The Region 6 PCB enforcement strategy was developed in accordance with the
national enforcement strategy. The objective is to reduce the risk of spills
while PCBs are in service and ensure that PCBs are properly disposed of when
they are removed from service. This will be accomplished by inspections of
facilities in industry groups that have been identified as having the largest
quantities of PCBs and obtaining corrective action when violations of the
regulations are found.
Unfortunately, there are no available lists of facilities that actually have
PCBS. The potential universe of facilities to be inspected includes all
commercial facilities that distribute and/or use electrical power and users
of hydraulic and heat exchange systems. Headquarters has developed an inspec-
tion strategy .based on a contract study of the distribution of transformers
and capacitors in various industry categories.
The National Inspection Strategy allocates a certain percentage of the inspec-
tion resource to 12 different industry categories. Region |6 used these 12
categories,! but modified the Complaints, Crisis, and Special Situations
category to specifically include follow-up inspections. In addition, we added
a Federal Facilities category and targeted inspections'for'Several PCB approved
disposal facil'ities. i
>! : ' '
II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROBLEMS ' , : .
Generally, toxic substances problems that are specific to one media will
be discussed under the particular media; i.e., air, water quality, drinking
water, etc. This section focuses on those problems that are of a multimedia
nature for which the Integrated strategy was developed.
After completing the Regional Integrated Strategy, the Toxics staff reviewed
data on all chemicals produced or processed in Region 6 in significant quanti-
ties and selected six categories of chemicals as regional priority chemicals.
The staff based the selection of these chemicals on the magnitude of production,
the known multimedia environmental problems (based on available monitoring data),
toxicity and existing controls. The chemicals selected in priority order are as
follows:
lead
cadmium
brominated compounds
benzene and derivaties
phenols
butadiene and derivatiess
169
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROBLEMS (Cont'd)
Lead and cadmium were selected as the two top priority regional chemicals
because of the vast amount of data which showed widespread environmental
contamination and exposure of children residing in contaminated areas.
Further, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), during fiscal
year 1979 more than 32,500 children in the United States showed symptoms
of lead toxicity, compared to 25,800 during fiscal 1978. The CDC stated
that an improved screening program accounted for some of the increase
but also estimated that 1 percent of America's children between the ages
of one and five suffer from excess lead absorption.
We focused our attention on soil and dust as sources of the lead. A recent
exposure model had identified soil as a major contributor to urban childhood
exposures. Also, none of the existing media programs addressed soil as a
major source of exposure for sensitive subgroups of the population (children
and pregnant women).
A chemical work plan was prepared for more clearly identifying the magnitude
and extent of lead and cadmium contamination in soil and dust in areas sur-
rounding smelter activities.
Studies were conducted in Baton Rouge and Shreveport, Louisiana; Bartlesville
and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Dallas, Houston, and Frisco, Texas. The
studies in Baton Rouge, Shreveport, Oklahoma City, Houston and Frisco were
completed but did not show any significant elevation in lead/cadmium levels.
However, the Dallas and Bartlesville studies did identify significant soil
lead contamination.
Lead/Cadmium Soil Contamination in Dallas, Texas: The cadmium levels
found throughout Dallas were not high enough to be of major concern. How-
ever, high levels of lead were detected in the Dallas Study. In response
to these results the city of Dallas and a Task Force established by EPA
conducted follow-up studies.
Presently, EPA is working with the city of Dallas and the Texas Air Control
Board in an effort to remedy the lead contamination problem in Dallas.
Lead/Cadmium Soil Contamination in Bartlesyille, Oklahoma: In
epidemiological studies reported by Baker in 1977 and RTI in 1981, children
in Bartlesville, Oklahoma were identified as having the highest mean blood
cadmium and lead levels encountered in any of the other smelter towns
included in the studies.
Because of the concern about the blood cadmium and lead levels identified
in these epidemiological studies, Region 6 initiated efforts to identify
the sources of exposure.
170
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES PROBLEMS (Cont'd)
In March 1979, the Regional Office collected soil samples from 14
elementary schools in Bartlesville for analysis of heavy metals. Lead
levels at Lincoln Elementary were elevated (Surface 1,705 ppm and Sub-
surface 797ppm). Cadmium levels at Jane Phillips and Lincoln Elementary
Schools were also elevated (Surface 68.7 ppm and Sub-surface 15,95 ppm
at Jane Phillips; Surface 58.6 ppm and Sub-surface 27.4 ppm at Lincoln).
In a 1980-81 study funded by Region 6 and conducted by the Oklahoma Health
Department, soil lead/cadmium contamination in the same order of magnitude
as found in schools were found in residential yards near the smelter.
As a result of the findings in these previous studies, Region 6 has briefed
the Oklahoma State Health Department on the results and final decision in
the Dallas Lead Study which addressed a similar environmental problem. The
State Health Department, which has expressed a desirs to take the lead in
any follow-up activities in Bartlesville, will make a decision on,how to
address this situation.
171
-------
SUPERFUND
Tab!a of Contents
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Subject
REGIONAL SETTING ?OR SUPERFUND
SUPERFUND STRATEGY'
Background
Screening of ERRIS Site Inventory
Development of National Priority List
Types of Action Under CERCLA
Immediate Removals
Planned Removals
Remedial Actions
Level of State Participation
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
LACK OF STATE RESOURCES TO MATCH FEDERAL FUNDS
PROGRAM MECHANISMS DEVELOPED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES FOR TRAINING/CONTINUING MEED FOR
REGIONAL CONTINGENCY PuAN
ATTACHMENT A
FIGURE 1 - Development of National Priority List (NFl)
FIGURE 2 - Lead Resocnsibility at NFL Sites
CHART 1 - Status at "und-Financed Remedial Action
CHART 2 - Status of Plannned Removals
CHART 3 - Status of Immediate Removal Actions
CHART 4 - EPA Enforcement Actions at Listed and Non-Listed Sites
CHART 5 - Immediate Reinc/als at Listed and Nan-Listed Sites
CHART 6 - Conditions at NPL Sites
CHART 7 - ERRIS Sites in, Region 6 vs Resolved Sites in Region 6
172
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
REGIONAL SETTING FOR SUPERFUND
An environmental trend that is present in Region 6, as well as many
other areas in the Nation, is the discovery of abandoned hazardous
waste sites that have the potential to impact not only the environment
but the human population as well. Much of the hazardous waste that
was produced in the past was disposed of improperly by today's standards.
These improper disposal practices of the past were due to various
factors: lack of knowledge of the hazards of the wastes, lack of regula-
tion governing disposal, and l.arge rural areas for ''ou't of sight"
dumping. •;•
The improper disposal practices problem is compounded in Region 6 by
hydrogeological, climatological, and industrial factors. These include the
high groundwater table in Louisiana and southeast Texas, large interstate
aquifers, semi-arid to nearly tropical climates, mining areas in Oklahoma
and New Mexico, and the nation's largest petrochemical area in Louisiana
and southeast Texas. All of these factors resulted in the problem of
abandoned hazardous waste sites which are now being discovered due to
increased Sun Belt urbanization and hazardous waste control technology.
Region 6 sites are quite diverse. A large portion of the sites
are located in Southeast Texas (Houston/Harris County/ Galveston County).
(See FIGURE 1.) Many of these sites have large quantities of
petrochemical wastes, styrene tars, and heavy metal sludges in floodplains,
near coastal estuaries, or in the immediate vicinity of groundwater
and/or surface water with a variety of uses. This is contrasted with
sites in the arid Oklahoma and New Mexico areas which are usually
characterized by a smaller number of pollutants affecting a more limited
water supply.
SUPERFUND STRATEGY
Background: The authority to establish the Superfund program was
given to EPA through the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). This act is commonly
referred to as Superfund. This Act created a fund of $1.6 billion
over 5 years to address at least 400 of the nation's worst sites which
are listed on the National Priority List (NPL).
173
-------
Screening of ERRIS Site Inventory: EPA, through the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), has developed a strategy
for providing a Federal program to clean up inactive, uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. The OSWER program strategy for Superfund begins
with completing initial site screening of potential problem sites.
This process started with discovery of some 15,000 inactive hazardous
waste sites nationwide, of which over 2,000 are in Region 6. These
sites were identified to the States and EPA by mechanisms such as:
notification required under CERCLA Section 103, investigation conducted
in accordance with CERCLA Section 104(e) or other statutory authority,
notification of a release as required by a permit, and incidental
observation -or preliminary screening of site inventory lists that were-
already in existence.
Of the 2,000 sites identified in Region 6 which are listed in the Emergency
Remedial Response Information System (ERRIS), approximately
50 percent have been screened or have complete final disposition strategies
(See FIGURE 8.) In keeping with the OSWER objective, Region 6
intends to assist the States in completing the preliminary screening
of the remaining known abandoned hazardous waste sites in the Region
by September 30,. 1984. The process of addressing the remaining
sites will be accelerated with, grant money from the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 3012. This will provide money to the
States primarily to conduct preliminary assessments on ERRIS sites.
If in the process of screening the remaining sites' the States identify
candidates for fundrfinancing, Region 6 will work with the States to
nominate the sites for inclusion on the NPL at an update point. Region
6 expects to add a significant number of sites to the National Priority
List as a result of Quarterly Updates and the RCRA 3012 grant program.
Development of National Priority List: The next element of the
OSWER strategy deals with prioritizing major si'te problems and publishing
the Superfund National Priority List (NPL). The primary responsibility
for the nomination of sites and the scoring of the sites using the
Hazard Ranking System rests with the States. In Region 6, sites are
considered under the Superfund Program when the State has identified
that the site requires some action but the State cannot address the
site strictly with its own resources. The States in Region 6 have
identified and ranked sites to be included on the NPL and thereby
addressed under Superfund. The evolution of the NPL started in Region
6 in May, 1981 when regional staff began working with the States to
identify and score potential sites.
In October, 1981, the Interim Priority List of 115 sites was released;
13 of those sites were in Region 6. In July, 1982, EPA released
the Expanded Eligibility List which included 6 new sites in the Region.
174
-------
With the cooperation of the States, Region 6 was the first in the
Nation to successfully resolve all sites on the Interim and Expanded
Eligibility Lists where fund-financed response was necessary.
Responsible party involvement or enforcement action evolved at the
remaining seven sites on the lists. For these sites, the Region has
worked with Headquarters and the parties to finalize one Administrative
Order, one Consent Decree, and one civil suit. We have also prepared
two unilateral Orders and continue to negotiate for action at three
sites in New Mexico. Region 6 has also achieved voluntary private
party clean-up at two nonlisted sites (Mission, Texas and GT Metals in
Oklahoma ).
Again in cooperation with the States, Region 6 placed 7 additional.
sites on the proposed National Priority List in December, 1982,
resulting in 25 of the 418 sites being in Region 6. (One of the sites
placed on the Interim List was rescored for the NPL, and due to new
information, did not rank high enough for inclusion). The Regional
NPL sites are mainly located near the heavily populated areas of the
Region and have the potential to impact a significant portion of that
population. (See FIGURE 1.)
Types of Action Under CERCLA: The Superfund Program has three
main types of action that can be taken at a site: immediate removal,
planned removal, and remedial action. Immediate and planned removals
are taken at sites where some action must be taken immediately or very
soon to reduce threat of a hazard to people or the environment. Both
of these removals have a 6-month, $1 million dollar maximum on them
and can be taken at listed or non-listed sites. The immediate removal
site is usually thought of as needing emergency action, while a planned
removal site may allow more time for assessing the problem, considering
various options to provide the best remedy possible within the constraints
of time and money. Neither action is expected to provide a final
solution to the problem; however, they may result in final solutions.
Immediate Removals: The immediate removal program in Region
6 has successfully completed eight removal actions. (See FIGURE 5.)
While each action presented its own unique problems, the most unique,
as well as most demanding, has been presented by the removal action at
the Crystal Chemical Site in Houston, Texas. Most of these problems
resulted from the actions of third party contractors working for the
bankruptcy trustee; i.e., purchase and dismantling of process equipment,
etc. There is a need for clarification of the OSC's authority relative
to third party actions at a Superfund site.
175
-------
Coordination of the response program with the States, Coast Guard, and
other Federal Agencies has proven to be most successful. This was
evidenced by the response to the Livingston, Louisiana, train derailment
which has been recognized nationally as a classic example of a coordinated
state, federal, and local response action. This highly successful
response action was due in large part to an active Regional Response
Team (RRT), mock spill exercises presented by the Coast Guard, and the
utilization of the RCRA grant mechanism to train and equip the Louisiana
State Police for hazardous spill response.
Planned Removals: The Region has also requested, conducted,
and completed a highly successful planned removal (the first one in the
Nation using Superfund money) to remove 95.0 barrels of hazardous waste
at Triangle Chemical in Beaumont, Texas, for approximately $74,000. (See
FIGURE 4.) The Region is currently processing two additional planned
removals in the State of Texas (Geneva Industries and Barker Chemical).
Beginning ,in FY 84, the Region in conjunction, with OSWER will take
specific actions to prepare States to assume the major portion of
responsibility for handling releases of hazardous substances.
Remedial Actions: The type of action which is intended to provide
a more final resolution for a site (which does not require immediate removal
of some hazard) is the remedial action. This action can only be taken
at an NPL site, from Region 6 viewpoint;this would preferably be taken with
a State lead, and is commonly referred to as a Superfund cleanup.
The remedial action has four phases: remedial investigation, feasibility
study, design, and construction. (See FIGURE 3.) The remedial action
has no prescribed time or money limits but provides a framework for
assessing the most cost-effective method of resolution at the site :
which takes into account the need for balancing the dollars spent at
a given site against the nationwide need for the.money.
Of the remedial actions taking place in Region 6, only two sites have
an EPA lead. Region 6 has been a leader in implementing the OSWER
strategy by having negotiated and awarded 11 Cooperative Agreements
with States providing $3.1 million for State lead projects. Texas
leads the nation in number of State lead projects at this writing.
Despite the general lack of resources at the State level, the States
are highly involved in the program.
Level of State Participation: Another objective of the OSWER
strategy is to encourage the States to participate effectively in the
cleanup program and continue the program beyond Federal involvement.
Region 6 has 91 percent, about 11 State lead remedial projects. The Region
has worked closely with the State of Texas to overcome early problems
in their Cooperative Agreement sites, and the State is expected to be a
leader in construction of site remedies. The Region has established
176
-------
the first formal EPA overview system for State Cooperative Agreements.
Two States (Texas and Louisiana) in Region 6 have legislatively established
funds to provide match money in the Superfund program. Louisiana's
fund can also be used to initiate and carry out cleanup without Federal
involvement. Additionally, Louisiana has recently enacted legislation
which exempts State hazardous waste projects from normal State procurement
regulations. This is a procedure that may expedite Superfund projects
in that State and may be a nationwide model for other States' Superfund
activity.
The result is that Region-6 is moving aggressively into the Superfund
program in conjunction with the OSWER Superfund strategy and expects
to be a leader in meeting the goals of that strategy, including site
cleanup and proper expenditure of Superfund dollars.
A final aspect of the Superfund program that is addressed as an objective
of the OSWER strategy is cost recovery. Region 6 is preparing cost
recovery cases for each site that will require expenditure of fund
money. Three cases have already been referred to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for filing.
PART II SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
LACK OF STATE RESOURCES TO MATCH FEDERAL FUNDS:
The lack of State resources is due in part to the fact that two Region
6 States (Arkansas and New Mexico) have not had legislation in place to
give them authority or funds to respond to the Federal Superfund program.
(Arkansas currently has a proposal before its Legislature that, if
passed, will address the Superfund Program. New Mexico has passed
similar legislation that goes into effect July, 1983.). In all five
States, there is no provision for State funds for administrative overhead.
Therefore, the startup of the Superfund program at the State level was
done by a limited number of people on a limited to non-existent budget.
This initial lack of resources resulted in a delayed startup of work
after the award of some grants and a hesitancy to fully enter into the
program (See FIGURE 1.) Additionally, only two of the States (Louisiana
and Oklahoma) have specific funds allocated for initiating action,
enforcement or State funded cleanup at the sites. We are assisting
the States in compensating for the lack of resources. The reso-lution
of the problem is State specific, but in general, some barriers may be
the political atmosphere of the State, the overall wealth of the
State, or the State's perception of the need for involvement. The
lack of State resources impacts the Regional management by requiring
an investment of EPA staff time in assisting the State with program
initiation tasks (site submission process, grant application preparation,
Community Relations Plan preparation, etc.)
177
-------
PROGRAM MECHANISMS DEVELOPED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The mechanism for reaching the actual cleanup phase for sites requiring
remedial action is very involved and has resulted in the perceived lag
time between the enactment of CERCLA and the "cleanups" or resolution
of sites. While it is paramount to the program to allocate the fund
monies in a reasonable and defensible manner (which has often meant
delays in addressing the sites), the Region has developed ways to
streamline the process. Some methods for streamlining the program
involve: (1) providing money during the feasibility phase to allow the
State to start its procurement procedures for design and construction
and to allow the States to negotiate the Cooperative Agreement for
design and construction in the feasibility phase as soon as a cost
estimate or ceiling is determined; (2) amending existing Cooperative
Agreements to allow for overtime to shorten contract times for on-site work;
(3) developing, at the Regional level, an overview program to assist in
keeping the Cooperative Agreement process on track; and (4) offering the
States the opportunity to select zone contractors (who may subcontract)
to save on procurement and contract negotiation time.
Approval of much of the streamlining will require EPA neadquarters
action. The Region is currently working with the States to implement
streamlining at the State and/or Regional level..
LIMITED FEDERAL RESOURCES FOR TRAINING/CONTINUING NEED FOR REGIONAL
CONTINGENCY PLAN
Especially in regard to immediate removal, there continues to be a
demand for training, particularly in the area of personnel safety:and
protection. As a result of a high level of interest exhibited by
Oklahoma and New Mexico, there was a 1-week safety training courses,
presented to Oklahoma agency personnel in February 1983. A course will'be
presented to the New Mexico agency personnel in May 1983'.
A major void in the Regional emergency response program is the lack of :
a Regional Contingency Plan. Lack of resources both in staff and
funds has prevented the development and distribution of a Regional
Contingency Plan. A core contingency plan was scheduled to be completed
by April 1983. However, the development of the core contingency plan
was delayed again this year due to the utilization of all staff as on-scene
coordinators for immediate removals. Only after a Regional Contingency
Plan is completed and distributed will there be an attempt to develop
State and Local Contingency Plans. This is a vital effort if there is
to be a coordinated federal, state, local response to emergency incidents.
178
-------
ATTACHMENT A
179
-------
Photo depicting a hazardous waste site in Texas
180
-------
Before and After Photos of a Planned Removal at the Triangle Chemical
Site in Bridge City, Texas. (See CHART 2)
-------
00
ro
IHW Ml > I CO
United Nuclear C.'.i pur jt ion, Cfurcnr.ic'
HOOKSlat.c. Milan
South Valley, Alli'ii.juniiiv.-
Atcnison, Topul-a, S.int.i l"i: kl!, Clovi*
(A1SF)
!. Uiu-EcolO'jy . Grund li .Hi./
•j Crystal Chcmicil . !lim'.t.:r,
? Harris (I'jrlty SI.). Humt.m
li lli'jlildmls Ac ill Pit, In <;M dnds
9 MUCO. La M.irq.i,:
ID freiicn LlnU.'J. f.ru;.hy
II ilkes Pill. Cru'.hy
12 Iri|i.-
20 Crittcndeu r..->.jnty l^nlill, Mai ion
21 Gurley PifJp 1'itaonrf.cn
l.nui.SIAHA
22 Cdyou BunroiiL.1. Midull
i'3 C)<;»!.- ftelier, Virreiit.i
24 Old in^r. Dirro..
25 ilovou lorrcl, B.tyuu Smr
^ Site on the Interim Priority List
| ) Site on the Expanded Eligibility List
/\ Site on the National Priority List
FIGURE 1 - Development of National Priority List
-------
o>
co
j I V-Cv—/1' —I •' >\ !-••'•••• is'"*" ' i' '"xS >\V" i!".".'"'J"j. •' '•' , fj
NEW HtXICQ
1 United Nuclear Corporalion, Churchrock
2 Homest.ike. Milan
3 South Valley, Albuquerque
4 Atchison, Topeka, 'Jant.i fu HI), Clnvis
(ATSF)
TEXAS
I
5 Bio-Ecology, Grand Prairie
6 Crystal Chemical, Houston
7 Harris (Farley St.)> Houston
8 Iliijlildiids Acid Pit, Highlands
'J H)ICO, La Murque
10 French Limited, Croihy
11 Sikes Pits. Croshy
12 Triangle, Dridyo City
OKLAHOMA
13 Crifier. Criner
14 Tar Creek, Richer
o
ARKANSAS
15 Hid-South, Mcna
16 Industrial Waste Control, Furt Smith
17 Vertac, Jacksonville
18 Cecil Lindsey, Diaz
19 Frit Industries, Walnut Hidgc
20 Crittenden County Lanfill, Marion
21 Cur ley Pits, Cdmoridson
LOUISIAHA
22 Bayou Bonluuca. SlideII
23 Cleve Reher, Sorrento
24 Old liKjer, Oarrow
25 Bayou Sorrel, Rayou Sorrel
( ) Voluntary Clean-up/Enforcement
I J State lead - Cooperative Aijrecment
<> EPA lead - Contract
/\ Action to be determined
FIGURE 2 - Lead Responsibility at National Priority List Sites
(Current to 5/1/83)
-------
CHART 1 - Fund-Financed Remedial Action at Listed Sites (Current to 5/1/83)
SITE
ARKANSAS
Cecil Lindsey, Diaz
Crittenden Co. Landfill, Marion
Industrial Waste Control,
Fort Smith
LOUISIANA
Bayou Bonfouca, SIidell
Bayou Sorrel, Bayou Sorrel
Cleve Reber, Sorrento
Old Inger Oil Refinery, Darrow
NEW MEXICO • ;;
South Valley; Albuquerque
OKLAHOMA ':
*Tar Creek, Richer
Hardage/Criner, Criner
TEXAS :
Bio-Ecology, Grand Prairie
*Crystal Chemical,; Houston
*French Limited, Crosby
*Harris (Farley St.), Houston
*Highlands Acid Pit, Highlands
MOTCO, LaMarque
Sikes Pits, Crosby
**Triangle, Bridge City
ACTIVITY
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigtaion
WORK PLAN
Start Date
Anticipated
Anticipated
Anticipated
Anticipated
Anticipated
Anticipated
05/83
End Date
Remedial Investigation Anticipated
Feasibility
Feasibility
Study
Study
Feasibil
Remedial
Remedi al
Remedial
Remedial
Feasibil
Remedial
Remedial
ity Study
Investigation
Investigation
Investigation
Investigation
ity Study
Investigation
Investigation
04/83
Anticipated
02/83
11/82
05/82
11/82
10/82
03/83
07/82
Anticipated
08/83
12/83
08/83
07/83
06/83
07/83
06/83
08/83
09/83
* Feasibility Study Funds Awarded ** Funds allocated for RI/FS 4/83
25 "
20 '
CO
OJ
U
3 IS'
u-t
0
jj iQ-
s
3
Z
5 "
co
cu --.
•U U
•H e
v> cu
e
i-J 0)
Pu O
Z M
O f
U-l
C
U
r— — — — — — - D CMC H T A! APTTftM
KhntUIAL ALI1UIN 1
PHASES
—
c
0 C
i-l X O
>• 4J U -H
h t!J i-t U
ca i-i oo T-I a
U CO -H -H 3
C -H 4J -C C U
3 -o en 1-1 so u
-i cu a) en -H en
O 6 > CO W C
> (U C 1) 0) O
oa M fa a c_j
184
-------
CHART 2 - Planned Removals at Listed and Non-Listed Sites (Current to 5/1/83)
COMPLETED REMOVALS DATE STARTED ON-SITE DATE COMPLETED ON-SITE
Triangle,
Bridge City, TX
UNDERWAY
None
4/82
DATE STARTED ON-SITE
8/82
DATE COMPLETED ON-SITE
CHART 3 - Immediate Removal Actions at 'Hazardous Waste Sites Since December, 1980
(Current to 5/1/83)
Site .
Argent, Rio Rancho, NM
Midwest City, Midwest City, OK
French, Crosby, TX
MOTCO, LaMarque, TX
Triangle, Orange, TX
Crystal , Houston, TX' ;
Petro Processors, Baton Rouge, LA
Old Inger, Darrow, LA
Pesses, Fort Worth, TX
*CWA - Clean Water Act, Section 311
Date Completed
March 1982
October 1982 ;
July,:1982
September 1981 ,' '•
April 1982
February 1983
March 1983
April 1983 (Phasel)
May 1983
CO
0)
w
u
-------
CHART 4 - EPA Enforcement Actions at Listed and Non-Listed Sites
(Current to 4/20/83)
Civil Enforcement
Total Cases Referred to Department of Justice 7
Cost Recovery Cases 3
Signed Consent Decree 1
Other Actions 3
Administrative Enforcement
Signed Administrative Order on Consent 1
Administrative Orders Prepared for Issuance 4
186
-------
CHART 5 - Immediate Removals at Listed and Non-Listed Sites (Current to 5/1/83)
SITE
EMERGENCY SITUATION
RESPONSE ACTION
SUE
EMERGENCY SITUATION
RESPONSE ACTION
Argent
Rio Kancho.NM
Midwest City
Hid»ust City. OK
French
Crosby. TX
Morco
LaMarque. [X
Trtanjle
Orange, TX
-Soil contamination resulting
fron discharge of highly
concentrated sodium cyanide
solution onto roadside and
adjacent area
-Direct public access In light
industrial area
-Fire Involving chlorinated
pesticides
-Immediate threat: public
access/direct contact and
potential groundwater contamination
-Waste contaminated with
extremely high concentrations
of PCB's
-Surface water contamination
and potential groundwater
contamination
-Direct public access to facility
was a threat
-Potential overtopping of dikes with
potential release of acidic water
contaminated with volatile organlcs
-Threat to nearby marshy areas in
Gal veston Bay area
-Security/public access
-Deteriorating and leaking drums
of organic* and corrosives
-Contamination of soil, debris
and structures
-Immediate removal and
disposal of contaminated
soil
-Removal of contaminated
soil and debris to
approved hazardous
waste disposal site
-Secured facility from
public access; repaired
containment dike; removed
contaminated sludge from
areas outside the lagoon
and transferred sludge
into lagoon.
-Treatment of contaminated
lagoon water(to within
State limits) and discharge
of treated water
-Build fence
-Minor Improvements to site
drainage
Crystal
Houston, TX
Petro Processors
Baton Rouge, LA
P.rises
Fort Worth, TX
Old Inger
Uarrow, LA
-Arsenic-contaminated liquid
-Soil contamination and potential
surface runoff
-Threat to public health
-Dike overtopping and potential
dike failure with subsequent
discharge of lagoon contents
contaminated with organics
(oily sludge)
-Soil contamination resulting
from extremely nigh concentrations
of heavy metals Including cadmium,
nickel, and copper
-Potential airborne problem
-Unsecured dumping site south of tne
main facility
-Lagoons contaminated with waste
oil and hazardous substances;
overflowing due to heavy rains
and flood conditions
-Uncontrolled access
-Oewaterlng and clay-
capping of the entire site
-Removal of all product
equipment and buildings
from site
-Demand made of responsible
parties and monitoring
of their clean-up actions:
drawdown and treatment
of water
(not a Federal clean-up)
-Removal of soil and
deteriorating drums and
disposal to approved
hazardous waste disposal
site.
-Build fence
-Improved dike to present
overflow
-Constructed berm to
seperate site from
adjacent swamp
-(Anticipated: assessing
alternatives for handling
lagoon contents)
c»
-------
CHART 6 - Conditions at National Priority List Sites
00
CO
lii£
ARKANSAS
(Jacksonville)
Hlil-South
(Mena )
Frit
(Walnut Ridge)
Cur Ivy
(Edmonsun)
Industrial Waste
Cecil Llndsey
(Newport)
Critlenden
(Marlon)
LOUISIANA
OTdTngeT
(Harrow)
Cleve He toe r
(Sorrento)
Bayou Sorrel
(Iberville Parish)
B.tyou Uonfoiica
(Slldell)
UKLAHItU
Crfher/Hardage
(Criner)
(Ottawa County)
REASON FUR CONCERN
Ulunln contamlnat ton of surface niter, sediments, and
d.jojl ic life.
Pesticide and herbicide manufacturing facility.
Organic* and arsenic contamination of Mills. Threat
of Surface water contamination.
Former wood preserving facility.
Sulfate wastes anil metal oxide contamination of soil
and surface water.
fertiliser manufacturing activities.
Heavy metal and low-level PCU sludges overflow from
disposal pits.
Heavy metal contaminants released with Impoundment overflow.
Industrial and solid waste landfill and surface impoundment.
Heavy metals and hydrocarbon contamination of soil and
threat of ground and surface water contamination.
Industrial waste disposal site.
Heavy metals.threaten contamination of urftundwaters.
Industrial and municipal waste I ui.lt ill.
Heavy metals 41 close proximity tu MisiUs ippi River.
Abandoned oil refinery waste reclamation facility.
Tars . organic*, and oily wastes stored in leaking
arid corroded barrels.
Hazardous waste dump.
Heavy metals contamination of soil. Site subject to flooding.
Hazardous waste dump.
Creosote contamination of surface waters and sediments.
Mood creosoling operation.
Asbestos, cyanide, and flamiiablc
ground and sdVlace waters.
Waste Disposal facil Ity.
cont jminat ion of
Ac Id mine drainage— tontaminat ion of ground and surface
waters. Major aquifer threatened.
Iron and jiric mining operations.
SITE
HIASON FOR CONCERN
HEX MEXICO
hciu; state
(Milan)
South Valley
Uranium tailings caritaminat Ion of groundwater.
Uranium willing operation.
Onjariics contamination of «ells.
Hu.i»;rous Industries In area may contribute to problem.
AfSI/ClovIs - Trichloroethylene and diesel fuel contamination of groundwater.
(Clovis) - Railway car uasliing facility.
United Nuclear - Uranium mining processing wastes contamination of surface
(Church HocL) wati.-r and sediments.
- Uranium mill operation.
TFMS
Frencli - Industrial waste sludges contamination of surface water.
(Crosby) - Disposal site located in fltinuplain.
HOICO . - Styrene tars and heavy metal sludges contamination of groundwater.
(LaMarque) - Ujslc recycling facility.
SikeS - Petrochemical waste cont.ninnal inn, ground and surface water.
(Crosoy) - Haste disposal facility.
Crystal - llernlc ide contamination ot soil.
(llmoton) - Herbicide manufacturing o;ierat ions.
Highlands - Sulfuric acid sludges tro.ii -;ite threaten surface water
(ilignlands) and pucl ic «ator supply.
- Cnemica I . xj^t es duiiip.
lin>-lcolo>j) - Acids, caustics, solvents contamination ot shallow gruundwjter.
(Grand Prairie) - Waste treatment facility.
Harris (larley) - [ars and sludges threaten >.untaminat Ion of grnundujtur.
(Houston) - Abandoned landfill.
friangli;
(iir i'hj'j City)
Organic wastes cont.ir
-------
CHART 7 - ERRIS Sites in Region 6 vs Resolved Sites in Region 6 (Current to 4/20/83)
Total ERRIS Sites 2158
Resolved Sites 1105
(Final Strategy
Complete)
51%
TO BE ADDRESSED
49%
RESOLVED
(Final Strategy
Complete)
X
Resolved Sites
(Final Strategy
Complete)
1105
91%
NO ACTION NEEDED
*POSSIBLE REASONS FOR
NO ACTION NEEDED
-No hazardous waste on site
-Site closed out under State
\ or RCRA
\ -Waste properly disposed of
\ on site
\ -Site listed does not exist
Enforcement/EPA 1.0%
Enforcement/State 4.0%
Enforcement/Joint 0.3%
Remedial/EPA 0.8"
Remedial/State 2.0%
Reraedial/3rd Partv 2.07,
189
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Table of Contents
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL. STATUS AND TRENDS
Subject
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
Overview
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS
Data Needs
Predicting Resource Needs ;
Developing Program Knowledge .
State Oversight
RCRA State Author'nation
RCRA Permitting
BARRIERS
IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1 - Region 6 Total TSDs
Chart 2 - Region 6 TSDs by State
Chart 3 - Region 6 Hazardous Waste Transporters
Chart 4 - Region 5 Hazardous Waste Generators
Chart 5 - Number of Authorization Applications Processed
by Region 6 Per Year
Chart 6 - RCRA Permitting Backlog
190
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL OF STATUS AND TRENDS
The Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was passed by
Congress in 1976. In May 1980, EPA published regulations which began the
long process of implementing the.Act. The basic philosophy of RCRA is to
provide a "cradle-to-grave" management system for hazardous wastes. This
system includes regulations requiring those persons generating, transporting,
or treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste to notify EPA of such
activity and those treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste to
obtain permits issued by EPA (or delegated States) based on sound technical
standards designed to protect the public health and the environment from
dangers associated with hazardous waste.
Facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and were in existence
in November 1980, were allowed to continue to operate without a permit under
a temporary interim status until such time as EPA (or an authorized State)
could evaluate whether to issue a final RCRA permit. Such facilities had
to submit a permit application by.November 1980, and must remain in compliance
with interim status standards published by the agency. By November 1980, 5,243
facilities had qualified for interim status in Region 6 (See Chart 1). Addi-
tionally, 8,888 persons had notified EPA that they generate hazardous waste "•
(See Chart 4), and 1,536 had notified EPA that they transport hazardous waste
(See Chart 3).
By November 1982, the number of facilities with interim status had fallen
to 1,038, a 71 percent decrease (See Chart 2). There are two basic reasons
for this decline: (1) many facilities notified in error. They either
thought they were handlers of hazardous waste and weren't or weren't sure
and filed for protection in case they were; and (2) when EPA (or an authorized
State) requests a permit application from a facility, some facilities are
preferring to cease handling hazardous waste and are closing and thus
dropping out of the system.
By November 1982, the number of companies generating hazardous waste in
Region 6 had declined to 7,152, a 20 percent decrease (See Chart 4). This
decline can be attributed to a clarification of each facility's status of
management of hazardous waste. The number of transporters had risen to
1,582, a.4 percent increase, attributable to new companies entering the
hazardous waste transporting business—an activity not requiring a permit
from EPA (See Chart 3).
The first two years of the program have required a significant amount of
adjustments in the data base. Most of these adjustments reflect clarifi-
cation of status rather than the results of enforcement actions"or permit-
ting actions by the agencies administering the program. It is difficult
to identify definite trends with the limited amount of hard information
available. The permitting program for hazardous waste handlers has been
effective for a year and a half, and because of the phased nature of the
program, agencies are still in the process of gearing up to issue permits.
19.1
-------
Chart 1 - Region VI Total TSDs
6000 -
5000 -
4000 -
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
5243
1038
1980
1982
Chart 2 - Region VI TSDs By State
NEW MEXICO
ARKANSAS
OKLAHOMA
LOUISIANA
TEXAS
5%
7%
18%
68%
192
-------
Chart 3 - Region VI Hazardous Waste Transporters
1600 -
1400 -
1200 -
1000 -
800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
1582
1536
1980
1982
Chart 4 - Region VI Hazardous Waste Generators
9000 -
8000 -
7000 -
6000 -
5000 -
4000 -
3000 -
2000 -
1000 -
8888
7152
1980
1982
193
-------
One hazardous waste management permit has been issued by Region 6, and 64
other RCRA permit applications have been requested by the Region. Since
January 1982, Region 6 has processed 48 permit applications (or facilities
have chosen to drop out of the system). An additional three applications
were voluntary submittals.
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
AGENCY MANAGEMENT
Problems involving the implementation of the Hazardous Waste program are
common to all new programs: lack of sufficient data to accurately define
and predict existing and future universes of regulated facilities of concern
to the program; lack of adequate information to accurately forecast resource
needs; confusion within both the regulated community and the regulators
concerning applicability of the program; and, as the program is delegated
to the States, the need to maintain reasonable oversight to assure adequate
and consistent implementation without encroaching on the States' independence
or usurping their authority.
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS
Data Needs: The data needs of the hazardous waste management program are
being realized as the program is developed and implemented. The lag time
between the realization of the need and the development of the process to
meet the need has caused problems in being able to maintain both historical
and current data. As the program develops there will be corresponding
development of the data management capabilities; but in the interim, the
program suffers from a lack of accurate and adequate data. Compounding
the problem are mechanical problems, such as a lack of sufficient computer
time, a lack of sufficient hardware, and lack of an implementable information
transfer system between the states and EPA because of differences in
equipment and/or systems.
Immediate data needs include the ability to quickly retrieve information
on both individual facilities and compiled data concerning all facilities.
Lack of consistent ability to quickly enter and retrieve data hampers the
ability of the program staff to efficiently plan work and respond to expressed
and implied needs.
Long range data needs center around the ability to maintain an historical data
base. This ability provides information to accurately identify noncompliance
trends of a single facility. Noncompliance trends can trigger enforcement
actions, point to training needs for regulatory personnel as well as facility
personnel, identify needed regulatory amendments, and assist in the allocation
of resources.
An historical data base will also provide the information needed to describe
194
-------
the successes (and failures) of the program. This information is vitally
important to the ability to explain the program to governmental and industrial
leaders and to the general public. It places in context the activities under-
taken by agencies involved with the implementation of the program and assists
leaders in developing appropriate budgets and appropriations.
Predicting Resource Needs: Resources needed to adequately implement
the Hazardous Waste Mangement Program on the State and Federal levels remain
a matter of conjecture from one year to another. Lacking is an agreement
on the specific resources necessary to carry out not only the entire pro-
gram but also on the costs of individual activities. Without experience
to demonstrate unit costs, managers have to proceed on estimates based on
experience gleaned from other (sometimes dissimilar) programs, managerial
intuition based on specific insight, best-guess estimates, or pure
speculation.
Resulting from the haphazardness of the forecasting is a wide variety of
resource needs among the various state agencies and EPA. Each agency
makes estimates of resource needs based on its specific idea of the costs
of the individual activities. The resulting array of costs covers an
extremely wide area from only a few dollars per activity to thousands of
dollars for the same activity. The underlying reason for this great dis-
parity lies in the lack of experience of the agencies in the budgeted
activities.
Experience in the program will teach how to plan resource needs. The amount
of experience it will take to learn the lesson depends on the availability
of data and its accuracy. Quickly available, accurate data will hasten
the ability to adequately forecast resource needs into a foreseeable future.
Lack of accurate data or lags in obtaining this data will impede the basic
planning processes to a possibly serious degree.
Developing Program Knowledge: The Hazardous Waste Management Program,
though long in planning and development, has been implemented over a relatively
short time span as required by RCRA. Additionally, since the first set
of major regulations were published on May 19, 1980, these regulations
have been amended more than 150 times. The rapid implementation and extensive
revisions have resulted in differing degrees of understanding of current
program status among the regulated community and the federal and state
agencies implementing the program. The main points of confusion revolve
around two central issues: applicability of the regulations to a specific
facility or group of facilities; and the methods by which a facility can
achieve compliance.
Problems associated with the applicability of regulations to facilities
include determining if the waste handled is hazardous, whether or not the
facility is eligible for a small generator exemption (a facility which
generates less than 1000 kilograms of waste a month), and the applicability
of non-technical interim status standards (e.g., financial responsibility
requirements, closure/post closure care standards, compliance with emergency
195
-------
response requirements) to facilities.
Facility personnel often misunderstand, not only how to comply with certain
standards, but generally what constitutes compliance. The first few inspec-
tions of a facility are a learning experience for both the inspector and
the facility. Compounding this with the many changes in the regulations,
it is difficult for both the government and the facility to maintain consis-
tency and each inspection of a facility turns into a training course because
of changes in regulations since the previous inspection.
Reducing confusion can be effected by aggressive education and training
aimed at both facility and agency personnel. By and large, industry,
through their associations, trade groups, etc., have undertaken the task
of educating and training their personnel. The federal role is, first of
all, to train federal personnel, and, most importantly, to educate and
train state agency personnel, especially in states that have been authorized
to operate their programs in lieu of the federal program.
Training of state personnel should take two forms: first, through regular
visits to the states to review the state program and conduct joint inspec-
tions, EPA personnel can impart certain information through "hands on"
experience; second, regularly scheduled workshops on the implementation
of the hazardous waste management program will provide federal and state
personnel the opportunity to exchange ideas, receive information updates,
and share experiences. These workshops should be scheduled often enough so
that there is as little time lag as possible between regulation changes
and training.
State Oversight: Section 3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act requires the EPA Administrator to authorize states to operate their
program in lieu of the federal program unless the state program is not
equivalent to the federal program (or substantially equivalent, for an
interim authorization period allowing states to develop equivalent pro-
grams). EPA policy, on both the national and regional levels is to
provide the authorization of state programs a high priority. Region 6
and the States in the region are aggressively pursuing authorization of
state programs. It is expected that all of the Region's States will be
authorized by the January 1985 deadline. However, as the states are
authorized, EPA's direct involvement in the program becomes less and less.
It becomes imperative that, as EPA withdraws from active involvement,
there be oversight mechanisms that assure adequate and consistent
implementation of the program within the states.
Evaluations for program effectiveness and consistency generally occur in
two forms: through formal, periodic on-site reviews; and through less
formal, continuous interactions between federal and state staffs. The
formal, periodic on-site reviews are generally accomplished once or twice
a year and are considered exhaustive examinations of all aspects of the
state program and which result in formal problems identification and com-
munication between the agencies' upper level management. The less formal
evaluations usally occur on a staff to staff basis and involve frequent
communications by telephone and personal visits. Federal personnel become
intimately knowledgeable of the operation of the state program and are
able to monitor minute shifts in programmatic output and direction and
196
-------
effect corrections rapidly and, usually, successfully so long as the cor-
rections do not involve policy matters. Each of these approaches contain
strengths and weaknesses. The optimal approach, though, is a combination -
of the two that can be fitted into existing resource constraints, achieve
an acceptable success rate in accurately evaluating the state's progress,
provide essential training for state personnel, and which is not burdensome
for the state in terms of utilization of staff time or which appears to be
second-guessing or an attempt to force the state into the federal mold.
The challenge is to design an evaluation system that works. The benefits
must be immediately apparent and substantial; the drawbacks minimal and
insignificant. Whatever system is adopted must have several important
characteristics: (1) it must not detract significant time and resources
from the implementation of the program at the state level; (2) it must be
easily understood by both federal and state personnel; (3) it must result
in significant improvements in the implementation of the program, or, at
least, document significant results; and (4) it must provide the federal
agency the information it needs to document successes in program implemen-
tation to higher agency management, to the President, to Congress and to
the general public.
RCRA State Authorizations: Since November 19, 1980, portions of the
federal hazardous waste program have been available for delegation to the
States. Four of the five Region 6 States were degelated within 60 days of
the availability of Phase I. Arkansas received Phase I Authorization on the
day it became available and was the first State in the Nation to receive
such Authorization. :
Region 6 has maintained a high commitment to authorizing State programs
as soon as the different phases or components are available and the States
are capable. Texas was the first state in the country to receive Interim
Authorization for Phase II, Components A & B. It is expected that a Region
6 State will be among the first one or two in the country to receive Interim
Authorization for Phase II, Component C.
Being on the cutting edge of delegations has distinct advantages for both
the States and the Region. The primary advantage is an avoidance of dupli-
cative programs. Thus, the regulated community only has to deal with one
level of government. Also, by delegating the program as soon as it is
available, the Region does not have to administer the program before turning
it over to the State.
Any disadvantages lie in the phased nature of the program. The federal
hazardous waste management program is being implemented in two phases: the
Phase I program which includes Generator and Transporter standards and
standards for facilities with Interim Status; and Phase II which is standards
for permitting facilities which treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Phase II is further divided into Components corresponding with the different
types of facilities: A for facilities which treat or store hazardous
waste in tanks and containers; B for incinerators; and C for land disposal
facilities.
197
-------
State programs may be authorized for each Phase or Component as it is
available. If each state applies for each phase, or component, it would
mean eight applictions from each State for Interim Authorization and two for
Final Authorization (presuming one draft application per phase or component;
some States have submitted more than one draft.) This would be a total of 50
applications the Region would have to process.
Region 6 processed four applications in FY80; seven applications in FY81, and
five applications in FY82. The reason for the drop from 81 to 82 is that
there was a year and a half between the promulgation of Components A and B
and the promulgation of Component C.
It is projected that the Region will process 11 applications in FY83 and
12 applications in FY84. The processing of applications is resource intensive.
Agency guidance requires the review of and comment on a draft application
within 30 days. The statute requires the publication of a decision in the
Federal Register within 90 days of notice of receipt of an official application.
An application must be reviewed for technical and procedural adequacy.
Such review usually requires a team of six to seven regional personnel.
Often policy level managers must become involved in the review. This is
most often occasioned by the raising of issues not encountered before.
This happens often in Region 6 because of the consistent leadership roles
the Region's states have undertaken.
Additionally, a significant amount of developmental work must take place
between the States' applications, especially for Final Authorization.
This is because Final Authorization is much more difficult since the states
have to demonstrate equivalence to the Federal standards.
The bulk of authorization resources should be devoted to the development
of the state programs. This reduces the need for severe resource expendi-
tures during the application consideration process and frees them for
assistance in program implementation.
RCRA Permitting; During the past 3 years, EPA published regulations
and amendments to these regulations for a variety of hazardous waste
management activities. In July 1982, EPA finally issued regulations for
land disposal facilities. These regulations, along with those published
earlier, are very complex, voluminous, and require a significant amount of
review time to be fully understood. In addition to these regulations, EPA
developed numerous technical, support, and guidance documents to assist in
writing RCRA permits. Although not a responsibility, it is our duty to
provide assistance to the regulated community on understanding these
regulations. Also, while EPA has essentially completed development of the
RCRA regulations, policies are yet to be developed which provide guidance
on the implementation of these regulations, i.e., termination of interim
status, permit requirements for closure prior to January 26, 1983, guidance
documents for development of called-in Part B's for land disposal facilities.
198
-------
Chart 5 - NUMBER OF AUTHORIZATION APPLICATIONS PROCESSED BY REGION SIX PER YEAR
10
to
FY 79
FY 80
FY:;81
FY 82
FY 83
FY 84
-------
The phased approach to State authorization has temporarily created a permit-
ting program whereby existing or proposed hazardous waste facilities may be
subject to dual permitting. In Region 6, this situation exists in all five
States and will remain so until the States are authorized for all components.
Presently there are 492 land disposal facilities in Region 6. Under current
EPA Guidance that these facilities should submit Part B applictions within
four (4) years, Region 6 and its State agencies would need to call-in 123
applications per year (see Table 5). In addition to land disposal facilities,
there are 850 facilities that treat or store waste in tanks, containers or
piles (TCP), and TCP/Incinerator facilities in Region 6. Implementing EPA
guidance for these facilities, i.e., call-ins within six (6) years, would
require the Region and the State agencies to request 142 applications per
year.
Region 6 has called in Part B applications for land disposal facilities in
all five States. If permits are not issued by the time a State is authorized
for Component C, there will be some delay during the transfer of the applica-
tion to the State. This delay is being minimized in Region 6 by closely working
with the State agency during our permit review and permit development while
they work toward authoriztion.
With the predicted increase.in RCRA permitting activities, many delegated
States, as well as EPA, will find it difficult to staff programs with
qualified and experienced personnel. It is anticipated that competitiion
with industry/consulting firms will generally preclude the maintenance of a
full complement of permit writers. Most often staffing is accomplished by
hiring recent technical graduates who require additional and substantial
training by the agency. The training involves familiarity with the pertinent
RCRA/State regulations and understanding of the agency's structure and
functions as well as a need for field training.
RCRA is quite explicit as to the requirements of public participation for
permit actions. In general, the EPA public participation process includes
publication of intent to act on an application, opportunity for a public
hearing, and a public hearing is held. EPA hearings on permits are usually
less than 2 days after which the record is opened for 1 to 2 weeks to
provide the public an opportunity to submit additional comments. In some
States, however, the public participation process is adjudicatory in
nature and has been known to extend from months to years. This is where
siting is the main objection. For existing facilities seeking a RCRA
permit, past operation problems (surface runoff, air emissions, spills)
can also result in a protracted comment period. Region 6 is very experienced
with public hearings on controversial permits. During the past 4 years,
Region 6 has included the RCRA public participation procedures-for the
TSCA program. Public hearings have been held for all PCB incineration
applications. While this approach lengthens the review process, it does
provide the public and their elected officials an opporturnity for involve-
ment in EPA's decision process. Without question, the strongest objection
to approvals by EPA is siting, i.e., not in our backyard.
200
-------
Chart 6 - RCRA Permitting Backlog
800 -
700 -
600 -
500 -
C-
UJ
i—
c/1
. 400 -
O
O
LU
CL.
300 -
200 -
100 -
(850)
X (492)
X - LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES (123/YEAR)
0 - TCP/INCINERATORS (142/YEAR)
(708) :
.(566;)
(424)
X (369)
X (246)
(282)
X (123)
(140)
1983 1984
i
1985
I
1986
201
1987
1988
1989
-------
BARRIERS
The barriers to the proper implementation of the Hazardous Waste program
are essentially impediments to free flow of accurate information among
the States, the regulated community and EPA.
There is a lack of sufficient data to accurately define and predict
the existing and future universe of regulated facilities of concern to
the program;
There is a lack of adequate information to accurately forecast
resource needs;
There is confusion within both the regulated community and the
regulators concerning applicability of the program; and'
There is the need to maintain reasonable oversight of authorized
states to assure adequate and consistent inplementation without
encroaching on the states' independence or usurping their authority.
IMPLICATIONS FOR AGENCY MANAGEMENT
Overcoming the barriers to the proper implementation of the Hazardous
Waste program will result in a more effective program. Easing the
exchange of information is the main focus of overcoming the barriers.
- Provide sufficient computer software, hardware and access to the
equipment which rovides the ability to quickly enter and retrieve
information and which provides an historical data base;
- Maintain and provide accurate, easily available, data on the resources
necessary to implement the program for both the overall aspect and an
item by item cost basis;
- Provide training for federal and state personnel as often as is
necessary to remain current with program changes;
- Provide an evaluation system for state programs which can be fitted
into existing resource constraints, achieve an acceptable success
rate in accurately evaluating the state's progress, provide essential
training for state personnel, and which is not burdensome for the
state in terms of utilization of staff time or which appears to be
second-guessing or an attempt to force the state into the federal
mold; and
- Devote the bulk of authorization resources to the development of
state programs rather than to the application consideration process.
202
-------
PESTICIDES
Table of Contents
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Subject
PESTICIDES
State Priority Problems and Approaches
for Addressing These Problems
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND'IMPLICATIONS FOR
: AGENCY MANAGEMENT
IMPORTED FIRE ANT
Table I - Imported Fire Ant Infested Counties
PREDATOR ANIMAL CONTROL
2C3
-------
PART I - OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
PESTICIDES
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas have been delegated
primary enforcement authority through cooperative agreements authorized
by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide.Act (FIFRA) as
amended. These cooperative agreements include the regulation of the
distribution and use of pesticides within the state. The states usually
prosecute violators under state law, but may refer state investigations
to EPA for enforcement action under FIFRA.
EPA provides up to 35% of the funding to the states to conduct this grant
program. EPA also provides training to state personnel in investigative
techniques, case preparation and analytical techniques. • :
The cooperative agreements include a state priority setting process
which identifies the most important problem areas in each state and
allocates resources to deal with them. The priorities were idsntified
by analyzing prior year complaints and assigning a harm value (weight)
to each complaint based on the:determination of;the site and type of
application, the verification of human exposure''and/or environmental
contamination. All five states in Region 6 have completed this priority;
setting process and have identified pesticide use as the most important
problem in each state. This is in large part due to the population
increase in Region 6 which has resulted in movement of families into
agricultural areas. ;
The progress a state is making in resolvi,ng priority problems is iden-
tified during mid-year and end-of-year evaluations. This progress is
measured by the accomplishment of projected outputs and special efforts
on priority problems. Pesticide use is a long range problem.which is
complicated by the population increase in Region 6.
The outputs under the cooperative agreements were shifted in FY-83 to
emphasize pesticide use/misuse. Each State met or exceeded their
projected grant outputs which is used as a measure of success in
evaluating the cooperative agreement. The number of use complaints
received by the five states have decreased over the past few years
from 1,970 complaints in 1980 to 1,554 complaints in 1982. Although
this decrease injcomplaints is due to many factors and cannot be
fully attributed to the state enforcement programs, it is very
encouraging.
State Priority Problems and Approaches for Addressing These
Problems:
204
-------
Arkansas Priority Problems Percent Harm
Agricultural Crop Damage 70
Garden Damage 21
Home Aard/L awn Damage 7
These problems are primarily caused by the drift of herbicides from
the target site to adjacent areas.
A very successful technique being utilized by the Arkansas State
Plant Board to address these problems is pre-season inspections of
commercial applicators to caution them on pesticide applications
and discuss penalties for label violations and excessive damage
complaints.
The Arkansas State Plant Board has also increased its educational
activities by participating in user association meetings and the
use of news letters.
Louisiana Priority Problems
Human and Animal Alleged Injury
Agricultural Crop Damage
Garden Damage
Home/Yard/Lawn Damage
These problems are primarily caused by the drift of herbicides from
the target site to adjacent areas.
The Louisiana Department of Agriculture has primarily addressed
these priority areas through support for passage of a new pesticide
law which will allow assessment of civil penalties and the suspension
or revocation of applicators licenses. This will provide the state
with additional enforcement options which should increase the effec-
tiveness of their program. The Louisiana Department of Agriculture
has also increased its participation in user association meetings.
New Mexico Priority Problems Percent Harm
Non-Agricultural Incidents
Involving non-agricultural 42
licensed applicators
Involving homeowner use 27
Agricultural Incidents
Involving aerial application 16
Involving ground application 5
Not involving application
(storage, disposal, etc.) 10
205
-------
These problems are primarily caused by the use of pesticides by
pest control operators in homes and the use of pesticides by
homeowners.
The New Mexico Department of Agriculture has utilized several
innovative enforcement techniques to address these problems.
Performance evaluations for commercial applicators are conducted
when necessary. The applicators practices and procedures are
evaluated and training and assistance ara given in deficient areas.
Also a toll-free phone service is provided for use by pesticide
dealers with questions about an applicator's certification and by
persons with pesticide related problems.
Oklahoma Priority Problems Percent Harm
Structural Pest Control 45
Agricultural Plant 31
General Pest Control 9
Right-of-Way 8
These problems are primarily caused by the use of pesticides by
pest control operators in homes and the drift of aerially applied
agricultural pesticides from the target site to adjacent areas.
The Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture is furnishing the
State Board of Realtors and FHA with information on pest control
operators who file false termite reports. The Oklahoma State De-
partment of Agriculture has also begun making press releases on
applicator license suspensions and revocations to local newspapers
in the area where the offense occurred.
Texas Priority Problems Percent Harm
Herbicide Applications 67
All other agricultural
pesticides 10
These problems are primarily caused by the drift of herbicides
from the target site to adjacent areas.
Because of the problems with drift from the aerial application
of herbicides, the Texas Department of Agriculture has begun
recertification of aerial applicators. Thus far, 643 applicators
have been recertified. The Texas Department of Agriculture has
also proposed new regulations to classify nine herbicides as
state-limited-use pesticides. This will require an applicator to
be certified before using the products. The state feels that this
will eliminate the use of these products by untrained applicators.
206
-------
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Pesticides problems that are specific to the water quality media are
discussed under that media. This section discusses those problems
that are of a multimedia nature.
IMPORTED FIRE ANT
The imported fire ant is a major pest in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.
In Region 6, 91,757,760 acres are infested with 5,000,000 acres in
Arkansas, 28,757,760 acres in Louisiana and 58,000,000 acres in Texas.
Pesticide products are registered to control this pest in residental,
recreational areas, institutional areas and pastureland. No pesticide
product has been registered for aerial application to agricultural
cropland for fire ant control since the cancellation of Mirex by EPA
in 1977.
The imported fire ant is very aggressive, inflicting a painful sting to
which some people are allergic. Agricultural economic losses occur
through damage to farm harvest equipment from the mounds, reduction in
crop yield and reduction in grade and price for commodities containing
fire ant materials.
In 1982, the Arkansas State Plant Board and the Texas Department of
Agriculture requested specific exemptions under Section 18 of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended
to use Ferriamicide to control the imported fire ant on agricultural
cropland and other sites. These requests were granted by EPA and were
subsequently challenged in court by environmental groups. Both Arkansas
and Texas withdrew their requests and the emergency exemptions were
rescinded by EPA on December 7, 1982.
At the present time, one registration application is pending for the
pesticide product "Amdro" which includes aerial application to cropland.
Also, it is anticipated that future requests will be forwarded by affected
states to use Ferriamicide under Section 18 of FIFRA.
A decision by the Office of Pesticide Programs is needed on the pending
registration application for "Amdro" for aerial application to cropland
or Section 18 requests from the states should be granted for aerial
application to cropland.
207
-------
Table 1
Imported Fire Ant Infested Counties
o
oo
. ._
;"''r''
-------
PREDATOR ANIMAL CONTROL
Wild animals, particularly coyotes, that prey on livestock have always
been a problem for farmers and ranchers in New Mexico and Texas. On
March 9, 1972, EPA suspended and cancelled the registrations of predacide
products containing Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate), strychnine,
sodium cyanide and thallium sulfate.
At the current time, only one predacide product, the M-44 spring loaded
ejector device, is registered with EPA. Also, both New Mexico and Texas
have been granted Experimental Use Permits under Section 5 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as amended to conduct limited
field testing with Compound 1080 toxic collars.
Because of registration applications from several states for Compound
1080 toxic collars, large bait stations and single lethal dose (SLD)
baits, EPA held informal hearings to review the use of Compound 1080.
It was concluded from these informal hearings and other information
available to EPA such as existing Experimental Use Permits and regis-
tration applications, that there is substantial new evidence which may
affect the 1972 suspension and cancellation. As required by 40 CFR
164.130, a formal hearing to review the suspension and cancel!a.tion
of Compound 1080 was held by EPA in 1982. On October 22, 1982, Admin-
istrative Law Judge Spencer T. Nissen issued his recommendation on
the use of Compound 1080. This recommendation was that new evidence
justifies modifying the 1972 cancellation order to allow the restricted
use of Compound 1080 in toxic collars and the SLD baits.
This recommendation is currently in the Administrator's Office for
review. The recommendation can be accepted or amended by the Admin-
istrator. If Compound 1080 does become available as a predacide in New
Mexico and Texas, it will be an additional control method to control
coyote depredation of livestock.
209
-------
PADIATI0V
TaMa of Cor;tent;
PART I - OYEPVIE,< OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
Subject
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
PART II - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
URANIUM MINING AND MILLING IMPACTS
NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY
HASTINGS RAOIOCHB1ICAL
LIST OF TABLES
Table i - Status of Radio'io^cel Emergency Response Planning
at Fixed Hue 1 ear rsciTitles in Region 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Radiological Dnarqency Response Planning Zones
in Region 5 (Mucleer Power Stations)
210
-------
PART I: OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS AND TRENDS
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES
Radiological emergencies may result from a release of radioactivity from
major nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, other nuclear
fuel cycle facilities, major research facilities, or military instal-
lations. They may also result from smaller nuclear facilities such as
hospitals or facilities using radioisotopes in industrial or research
applications or from transportation accidents.
State and local government officials have the primary responsibility for
protecting the public during a radiological emergency. State and local
jurisdictions, as well as operators of major nuclear facilities, should
have compatible radiological emergency response plans that have been
coordinated and tested.
It is not practical for State and local governments to maintain massive
response capability, but they must be prepared to respond during the
first few hours of a radiological emergency. Federal assistance will
probably be needed for emergencies that have the potential for significant
off-site consequences or for those that extend over several hours.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the overall
offsite Federal effort to assist States with nuclear emergencies. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission monitors actions taken by its licensees
during emergencies and provides advice and assistance to the State or
licensee as may be required or, in extreme circumstances, directs the
licensee to take particular actions. The Department of Energy coordinates
Federal radiation monitoring response under the Interagency Radiological
Assistance Plan (IRAP).
Either under its independent authority or under the auspices of IRAP,
the EPA may take a number of actions. It assures the safety of public
drinking water supplies in States which have not accepted primacy under
the Safe Drinking Water Act or when it concludes that States have not
taken the necessary actions. Also, EPA may assist State and local
governments .in environmental monitoring, consequence assessment, and
protective action decisions. These services may be provided at the
request of a State (provisions for such consultation or assistance are
usually included in State or local emergency plans) or EPA may respond
to an accident without being requested.
RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS
Following the accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in 1979,
Federal Agencies have greatly increased the emphasis to planning, and
211
-------
annual exercising of plans, for responding to radiological emergencies
at nuclear power facilities. Figure 1 shows the locations of all such
facilities in Region 6. Also shown are the emergency planning zones
out to 10 miles which are subject to evacuation, and the zones out to
50 miles which may require lesser controls to prevent longer-term prob-
lems such as from ingestion of contaminated food or water. Note that a
facility at the Miss./La. border has emergency planning zones that extend
into La., so requires planning by La. and affected local governments,
as well as annual exercises of the plans.
Table 1 lists the status and key dates of State and local plan develop-
ment, and plan exercises.
PART II: SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS:
URANIUM MINING AND MILLING IMPACTS
Extensive uranium mining activities have been carried out in Region 6,
mainly in New Mexico and Texas. This activity was hardly regulated at
all, compared to the milling industry, and its impacts have recently
been questioned. EPA is currently nearing Completion of a study to
Congress assessing these impacts. EPA has 'Studied and located off-site
contamination from these activities, and further activities await the
results of more detailed follow-up analysts;. Some remedial activities
will probably be indicated. .
Some dozen or so uranium mills have operated in Region 6, about half
of which have been shut down. The remaining mills are in various stages
of operation because of the current depressed state of the industry.
EPA has promulgated standards for cleanup and disposal of tailings from
the inactive mills, and the DOE is actively planning and.performing
remediation activities. Standards for active mills will be promulgated
by the end of FY-83.
NATURAL RADIOACTIVITY
Man's activities are introducing large quantities of natural radioactivity
into the accessible environment. In most instances, natural dispersion
processes quickly dilute the concentration so that the levels of radiation
become indistinquishable from natural background levels. There are a
few activities, however, that result in a buildup and concentration of
radioactivity and a potential health impact. Examples include; 1.
concentration of radioactivity in process waste streams, as in foss~il
fuel ashes, phosphate wastes, etc., 2. the use of certain waste byproducts
containing radium for domiciliary construction materials, 3. disposal of
waste produced brines containing radium, 4. radon releases by household
uses of certain groundwaters , and 5. radon from unvented space heaters.1
212
-------
Of all such activities, by far the most significant are thought to be
those that increase radon and radon daughter concentrations in living
areas. This problem is highly sensitive to energy conservation activities
which reduce the air change rate. The full extent of the indoor radon
impacts is not known very well because of the very difficult and time
consuming measurements needed to evaluate individual residences. A
pilot program is underway in New Mexico, with EPA assistance, and State
Radiation Control Program directors are in general agreement that this
problem deserves additional study. The extent of corrective measures
needed is highly dependent on the results of such a study, and cannot be
meaningfully assessed at this time.
HASTINGS RADIOCHEMICAL
Several contaminated areas were left behind in Brazoria and JSalveston
Counties, Texas when the company moved away in the early 1970's. Since :
that time the Texas Department of Health has studied the contaminated
areas and potential impacts, and has initiated legal action to force the
company to remediate the problem. These efforts have been hampered by
the lack of legally enforceable or Federally approved criteria for the
major contaminant involved, cesium-137. ! .
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs^ (ORP) has recently agreed to provide
technical assistance to the State of Texas in their-j efforts to determine
suitable limits for release of cesium-contaminated'soil. These assistance
activities .are being performed by staff of ORP's Las Vegas Facility, in
coordination with Region 6, and have only recently (December 1982) begun.
In addition to cesium-137, radium has been detected at one of the con-
taminated sites. Since radium is not excluded under CERCLA, the
possibility of listing under Superfund is being investigated by the
TDOH.
213
-------
Table 1-^Status of Radiological Emergency Response
Planning at Fixed Nuclear Facilities in Region 6
State
AR
LA
TX
Facility
Arkansas Nuclear One
River Bend
Waterford 3
Grand Gulf
Comanche Peak
South Texas
Status
Operational
Under Construction
Near Operational Status
Under Construction
Under Construction
Under Construction
Plan
Arkansas
AR Nuclear One
local plans
Review
8-80, 1-81
1-81
1-81
Test
10-80, 3-81
5-82, 3-83
3-81, 5-82
3-83
Status
Federally approved
Federally approved
Federally approved
Louisiana
River Bend
local plans
Waterford 3
local plans
Grand Gulf
(local plans
only)
5-81
Federal approval
imminent
7-83 (projected)
7-83 (projected)
11-81, 1-83
Texas
Comanche Peak
local plans
South Texas
local plans
7-82
11-83 (projected)
11-83 (projected)
Not yet submitted for
Federal approval
214
-------
Arkansas
Nuclear
One
Grand Gulf
Nuclear
Station
ro
ui
FIGURE 1
Radiological Emergency Response
Planning Zones in Region 6
(Nuclear Power Stations)
Waterford
Three
------- |