\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: FY 1978 Agency Operating Guidance
FROM: Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Office Directors
Attached is the FY 1978 Agency Operating Guidance.
Since I am just beginning my tenure with the Agency, I want
to emphasize the importance I place on the sound management
of EPA programs. I also want to make clear my intention to
rely on the system for monitoring the performance of both
Headquarters and Regional Offices.
In the formulation of each year's Guidance, EPA seeks
to balance the national consistency required to insure
equity and coherence with the flexibility required to
accomodate the diversity in environmental problems. Thus,
the end product of the process represents national policy
guidance. However, the process provides the Regions and
States the opportunity to participate in the definition of
program objectives, and allows the flexibility to tailor
Regional activities to specific local circumstances. The
State and Regional "real world" insights were very helpful
in developing the final Guidance. I intend to seek addi-
tional steps in the future to enhance the opportunities of
States and Regions for meaningful participation in the
process.
This year's Guidance has been expanded to make it more
truly Agency-wide in scope. All Headquarters offices
have committed to specific activities and products in
support of Agency operations in FY 1978. The Office of
Planning and Management is included for the first time.
Commitments from the Office of Research and Developmeihti^have
-------
been integrated into the relevant media sections. Finally,
the Intermedia Priority List incorporates major Headquar-
ters operational programs. I believe that these changes
constitute positive steps in the continuing effort to
improve the system.
In another effort to improve this year's Guidance, I
convened a special task force on April 12 and 13, 1977, to
review the need for,and to achieve a balanced reduction in,
the reporting load involved in the draft Guidance. The
final report of the task force is attached. After resolu-
tion of the. three issues identified by the task force and •
other marginal adjustments (e.g. / the addition of one output
for toxics), the work of the task force has resulted in a
reduction of 36% in the reporting units compared to FY 1977.
The relative reporting requirements for the FY 78 Guidance
as compared to the FY 77 are:
FY 77 FY 78
Output Units & Activity Indicators 208 162
Reporting Units* 13,618 8,736
*Reporting units = sum of each output/activity indicator
X reporting frequency (e.g., quarterly = 4") X number of
reporting organizations (e.g., Regional total = 10)
Some of the reporting burden on States results from
requirements established by EPA Regions. I request each
Regional Administrator to be mindful of this problem and
to assure that State requirements established by his office
are,.in turn, kept to the minimum consistent with legitimate
management needs.
The Task Force also suggested that the Agency explore
some broader issues related to the MBO process. I would
appreciate your comments on these recommendations (Attach-
ment 1) or any other suggestions you may have on how to
improve the overall MBO process.
This package also includes the Section 106 and the
tentative Water Supply State grants for FY 1978 (Attachment
2). Allocations for the Air, Solid Waste, Toxic Substances,
and Underground Injection Control State grants will be sent
to you as soon as the necessary decisions have been made.
In addition, the final FY 78 resource targets will be
available within a week of your receipt of this package.
-11 -
-------
The issuance of the Guidance is two weeks behind
schedule. I realize that this places a burden on the
Regions and States in preparing FY 78 program plans. I
have asked the Office of Planning and Management to review
the present FPRS schedule to determine whether there is any
room to provide you with more time. However, for the
present, I will have to ask you to work against the schedule
as it now stands.
Enclosures
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Final Report of the Task Force on Reducing
Reporting Burdens in FPRS
Section 106 and Tentative Water Supply
State Grants
Intermedia Priority List
FY 1978 Agency Operating Guidance
111-
-------
Attachment 1
1
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
1 5 APR ;377
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Final Report
FROM: Task Force on Reducing Reporting Burdens
in FERS
TO: Barbara Blum
Deputy Administrator
We were pleased to serve on your task force to
reduce reporting requirements generated by the Agency's
Formal Planning and Reporting System. Many States have
complained that FPRS reporting requirements are excessively
burdensome, unnecessary, and unrelated to cleaning up the
environment. There is merit to these claims.
Within the constraints of a short, intensive effort,
we sought not merely to reduce the number of reporting
units, but to strike a balance that is more useful to
State, Regional and Headquarters participants in the
guidance process. We sought to balance the legitimate
need for information, the reporting burden, and Agency
priorities among media.
The set of outputs and activity indicators we
recommend totals 8368 reporting units, a reduction of 39
percent from the FY 1977 reporting levels. We have
discussed our recommendations with responsible Headquarters
officials and, with a few exceptions, have secured
their tentative concurrence. In order to implement these
reductions successfully, the narrative portion of the
guidance, particularly Appendix B of the air section,
must be changed substantially. Three policy issues
remain for your decision:
1. Should Regions and States be required to commit
in advance to a specific number of enforcement
actions and OFA referrals as opposed to reporting
on them after the fact? The task force consensus
is that they should not be required to commit.
-------
2. Should the Regions be required to commit to
identifying a certain number of industries as
candidates for debarment? The task force
consensus is that they should not be required to
commit.
3. Should Regions and States be required to commit
to a maximum span of time in which they respond
to water permit violations? The task force
consensus is that this should not be required,
since it is a Regional responsibility.
We will forward issue papers for your decision on these
points.
In addition to our primary charge, you gave us two
further objectives. The first of these was to assure
that reductions made in the Formal Planning and Reporting
System (FPRS) do not reappear in other data systems.
Since this is a problem that will not fully reveal inself
until later, we have tried to eliminate from FPRS duplica-
tive reporting on information already required in other
systems (e.g., CDS, NEDS, GIGS, 208 Profiles, and the
proposed EMS.) FPRS may not, in fact, be the major
contributor to excessive workload burdens. We strongly
recommend that 0PM undertake an immediate review of these
other reporting systems to eliminate reporting of data
that is unnecessary or unused.
The second objective was to consider the reporting
requirements established for States by EPA Regions. We
recommend that you direct the Regional Administrators to
minimize the reporting requirements established at the
Regional level.
The task force believes that one significant reason
for the excessive reporting requirement is a lack of
trust and confidence on the part of Headquarters in the
ability or willingness of States and Regions to address
environmental problems in an orderly and effective
manner. It is this "big brother" image which leads to
complaints about the system; charges that FPRS fosters
attention to irrelevant numbers to the detriment of
environmental improvement; and claims that Regions are
denied the flexibility to develop sound plans reflecting
specific State conditions. Another significant reason
for excessive reporting requirements is the misuse of the
MBO system for the justification of additional resources.
To remedy this situation, the task force recommends that
the Agency explore the following changes in the development
of the Guidance for FY 1979:
-v-
-------
• The Agency Guidance should be developed through a
"bottom up" process. This should include significant
State and Regional participation in the preparation
of the guidance.
• Agency guidance should be such that it permits
Regions and States to develop operating plans
tailored to specific State conditions.
• All outputs and activity indicators should be
subjected to an annual zero-based analysis.
Headquarters offices should be asked to justify
all proposed outputs and activity indicators in
terms of previously agreed-upon, explicitly
stated criteria (e.g., program priority, usefulness
of information, etc.)
• The Agency should undertake a phased effort to
replace current outputs with measures of program
performance that are more directly linked to
environmental quality (e.g., stream miles achieving
standards, reduction in pollution loads).
• The Agency should explore the potential for
supplementing a reduced system of periodic
reporting with intensive annual audits of Regional
and State programs as a useful mechanism for
assessing program performance. Headquarters
program offices should make annual visits to the
Regions to review program performance and to
adjust commitment levels.
Finally, in the time available to us, we dealt only
with the tip of the iceberg. We are aware that in many
instances the reduction we achieved in FPRS may not
translate into reduced reporting burdens on the States
because the information is also required for another
reporting system. The real effect of our work may have
been to reduce the number of formal commitments States
must make against EPA support grants. Nonetheless, we
believe that our recommendations do have the potential
for improving the Agency guidance system both for FY 1978
and the future.
-VI-
-------
Attachment 2
FY78 Allocation of 106 Funding
REGIONS:
Region I:
Connecticut $ 802,700
Maine 577,500
Massachusetts 1,246,400
New Hampshire 355,900
Rhode Island 546,900
Vermont 260,400
NEIWPCC 235,000
REGIONAL TOTAL $4,024,800
Region II:
New Jersey $1,434,800
New York 2,886,400
Puerto Rice 852,700
Virgin Islands ' 384,000
ISC 285.800
REGIONAL TOTAL $5,843,700
Region III:
Delaware ' $ 442,700
District of Columbia 436,600
Maryland 883,900
Pennsylvania 2,345,100
Virginia 1,317,900
West'Virginia , 665,300
DRBC ...; - 232,400
INCOPOT .... ' 149,200
SRBC 85.400
REGIONAL TOTAL $6,558,500
Region IV:
Alabama $1,395,000
Florida 1,350,100
Georgia 1,632,900
Kentucky 770,500
Mississippi 779,700
North Carolina 1,924,000
South Carolina 1,042,700
Tennessee 947,200
ORSANCO 351.200
REGIONAL TOTAL $10,193,300
. -vii-
-------
FY 78 Allocation of 106 Funding (cont.)
Region V: :
. Illinois $1,959,200
Indiana 1,097,800
Michigan 1,875,000
Minnesota 981,900
Ohio 1,998,500
Wisconsin 1,482,300
REGIONAL TOTAL $9,394,700
Region VI:
Arkansas $ 774,600
Louisiana 883,400
Mew Mexico 302,800
Oklahoma 580,100
Texas 1,935,700
REGIONAL TOTAL $4,476,600
Region VII:'
Iowa i $ 761,800
Kansas 552,500
Missouri 923,700
Nebraska 602,500
REGIONAL TOTAL $2,840,500
Region VIII:
Colorado : : $ 491,700
Montana 359,500
North Dakota . ' 226,700
South Dakota 235,400
Utah 322,200
Wyoming 171,600
REGIONAL TOTAL $1,807,100
Region 1X2
Arizona $ 426,900
California 3,086,000
Hawaii " 371,200
Nevada 183,300
American Samoa , 81,700
Guam.. , 388,100
Trust-Territory - Pacific Island 176,700
• REGIONAL TOTAL $4,713,900
Region X:
Alaska $ 158,800
. Idaho 408,000
Oregon . 358,300
Washington 1,121,800
REGIONAL TOTAL 32,546,900
GRAND TOTAL $52,-00,000
-viii-
-------
Water Supply Tentative State Allocation
Region I
Conneticut 296,900
Maine , 205,000
Massachusetts ' 277,600
New Hampshire • 205,000
Rhode Island 205,000
Vermont 205,000
Region II
New Jersey 398,000
New York 1,047,000
Puerto Rico 205,000
Virgin Islands 68,300
Region III
Delaware 205,000
District of Columbia 205,000
Maryland 244,300
Pennsylvania 855,800
Virginia 546,500
West Virginia 221,200
Region IV
Alabama 294,500
Florida 692,800
Georgia 510,20.0
Kentucky 262,800
Mississippi 332,000
North Carolina 708,800
South Carolina 342,300
Tennessee 301,200
-IX-
-------
Water Supply Tentative State. Allocation (cont.)
Region V
Illinois 649,500
Indiana 358,100
Michigan 604,700
Ohio 683,600
Minnesota 363,100
Wisconsin 367,400
Region VI
Arkansas 210,500
Lousiana . 338,500
New Mexico 253,400
Oklahoma 313,600
Texas 1,140,700
Region VII
Iowa . 344,600
Kansas . 286,700
Missouri 404,300
Nebraska 220,400
Region VIII
Colorado 281,800
Montana 205,000
North Dakota 205,000
South Dakota 205,000
Utah . 205,000
Wyoming 205,000
Region IX
Arizona 311,900
California 1,372,200
Hawaii 205,000
Nevada 205,000
American Samoa 68,300
Guam 68,300
Trust Territory 205,000
Region JC
Alaska 396,700
Idaho 220,200
Oregon 267,800
Washington 498,300
TOTAL 20,500,000
-x-
-------
Intermedia Priorities
The intermedia priorities list is a statement of the
relative prioritiy of major EPA programs included in various
sections of the FY 78 Agency Guidance. As such, the list
reflects the Agency's concern for integrating its various
responsibilities into a comprehensive environmental program.
Its function is to focus the attention of both EPA manage-
ment and the general public on the most important tasks the
Agency has to accomplish during the coming fiscal year. The
ranking is not intended to be an inflexible ordering of
activities. Priorities naturally vary from Region to Region
as well as from Regions to Headquarters. The list should be
viewed as an outline of the programs that are to receive
primary emphasis. No strict formula for resource alloca- •
tions is implied.
This year's list has been revised to incorporate
major Headquarters functions, including the Office of
Research and Development where appropriate. However, the
objectives on the list are still fundamentally operational.
They are the primary programmatic goals of the Agency for FY
1978 that will ultimately contribute to the attainment of
the Agency's fundamental objectives: to preserve, protect,
and enhance the quality of the nation's environment, and to
adequately protect the public from adverse health effects
associated with environmental pollution. Naturally, the
-xi-
-------
Agency's efforts must be tempered with consideration for
their economic impact and energy consequences among other
things.
In addition to these operational objectives, there
are a number of important cross-cutting objectives that do
not appear on this list. The goal of achieving full
partnership with State and local governments remains a top
priority. Public education efforts are a vital component
of all our programs. The effort to emphasize preventive
measures that can alleviate or eliminate potential environ-
mental hazards is another prime responsibility. Assuring
adequate quality control in the collection of environmental
and compliance data is critical/ as are the maintenance of
an adequate data base and the upgrading of air and water
monitoring programs.
There are also a number of management priorities.
Attention must be given to equal employment opportunity,
Civil Rights activities, and manpower training and develop-
ment. Effective program evaluation is vital if the Agency's
operations are to be efficient and successful. A renewed
commitment must also be made to reduce the reporting
and associated paperwork that we request of ourselves and
the public.
There have been some major changes to the first
priority category from last year's list. Two new major
-Xll-
-------
pieces of legislation, the Toxic Substances Control Act
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/ will
require first priority attention in FY 1978, especially
at Headquarters. The pesticides registration process
(and related activities) and promulgation of revised BAT
effluent guidelines are also mainly Headquarters functions
that are in the first priority band. Therefore, the list
does not represent a significant expansion of Regional
workload.
Finally, EPA will make satisfactory progress toward
these objectives only if all parts of the Agency work
together. Headquarters offices must support the Regions
with consistent guidance, with technical assistance, and
by meeting critical deadlines on which Regional and State
operations depend. Likewise, Regions have the obligation
to work closely with States and to provide Headquarters
with the information and feedback it needs to make intel-
ligent policy decisions.
-Xlll-
-------
FY 78 INTERMEDIA PRIORITIES LIST
I. First Priority National Objectives
• Attain and maintain the primary NAAQS through establishment,
implementation, and enforcement of appropriate Federal and
State regulations.
- develop and enforce adequate SIPs for all criteria
pollutants to ensure .attainment in non-attainment
AQCRs
- develop' and enforce Federal and State requirements
to assure that new source construction does not inter-
fere with attainment of NAAQS
- implement appropriate mobile source control programs
• Ensure sound, effective management of the Construction Grants
Program.
- achieve obligation and outlay of funds in accordance with
targets
- institute long range project planning through priority list
management and use of MIS
- ensure cost-effective, environmentally sound projects through
efficient "front end" management
- provide post-award management to ensure fiscal, technical
and operational integrity of projects under construction
- develop a coordinated strategy among various construction
grants related activities
• Assure compliance by major dischargers with NPDES permits.
- issue major new source and reissue expiring major
municipal and industrial permits
- review all major permits and initiate appropriate enforce-
ment action
- resolve outstanding major adjudicatory hearings
- evaluate new and overview approved State NPDES programs
- continue the equivalency measurement program
to support NPDES compliance monitoring
-xiv-
-------
Regulate potentially high risk pesticides.
- continue the RPAR process
- process new registrations without backlog
Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act.
- take action to obtain needed information on specific
chemicals or chemical classes
- start action to regulate specific chemicals or chemical
classes under TSCA or other Federal statutes
- take steps to stimulate non-governmental efforts to control
chemicals or chemical classes
Continue to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- exercise primary enforcement responsibility in those
States that do not assume primacy for the public water
systems supervision program
- provide technical assistance to States
- continue to revise the primary drinking water standards
- develop and implement laboratory certification criteria
Assist the State and area-wide 208 agencies in completing their
initial plans, and review completed plans for approval.
- provide NFS modelling methodology and control technology
to State and area-wide agencies
Assure proper residuals management by implementing the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act:
- propose/promulgate regulations covering hazardous waste
management and develop guidelines for State programs
- assist States to assume primary responsibility for hazardous
waste management
- develop comprehensive plans for management of sludge from
waste water treatment plants
- provide technical information on alternatives for sludge
management
Continue the development and promulgation of revised BAT
effluent guidelines, new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards for the. 21 industries (and 65 pollutants)
enumerated in the toxic effluent consent decree.
-xv-
-------
II. Second Priority National Objectives
• Ensure that new sources of air pollution meet all applicable
requirements so that the quality of the environment is not
degraded, and assure that the release of toxic and hazardous
pollutants is controlled by enforcing NESHAPS regulations.
• Implement the national pretreatment strategy to be promulgated
during 1977.
• Ensure environmental considerations are included in all major
Federal energy policy decisions.
- review all major source conversions from oil or natural
gas to coal and ensure that necessary control equipment
is installed
- assess energy penalties due to environmental regulations
- ensure environmental safeguards in the development of
energy sources
• Utilize EPA's tools to prevent environmental degradation from new
projects by reviewing environmental impact statements prepared by
Federal Agencies and emphasizing pre-EIS liaison for major projects.
Coordinate EIS reviews with new source air and water reviews. Use
contractor debarment where appropriate.
• Maintain capability to respond to major environmental emergencies
such as air pollution alerts, oil and hazardous materials spills, cases
of imminent hazard to drinking water and radiation exposure. ..wh^n
such an emergency occurs, response becomes^ first priority-.
— """•• '' /
• Provide technical and legal assistance to those States designated as
needing an underground injection control program, to enable them
to assume primary enforcement responsibility within the statutory
deadline, and exercise primary enforcement responsibility in those
designated States that do not assume primacy.
El. Third Priority National Objectives
• Ensure compliance with pesticide registration and labelling requirements.
- reregister pesticides
- emphasize State enforcement of FIFRA through cooperative
enforcement programs
- /conduct use and re-entry observations
-xvi-
-------
- continue to assist States in applicator certification and
training
- take appropriate action against applicator certification
violations identified
•
• Establish an evaluation and review program to assure that States
with primary.enforcement responsibility for the public water
systems supervision program are satisfying the requirements of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Review the Section 404 permits being issued by the Corps of
Engineers, focusing on the most environmentally significant
permits.
• Implement the results of the Air Monitoring Strategy and Basic
Water Monitoring Program and continue implementation of the
quality assurance program. Pay particular attention to the
monitoring of toxic pollutants in support of the development of
effluent guidelines and standards under the consent decree.
Where air or water monitoring efforts are essential to higher
priority objectives, they naturally assume the higher priority.
• Reduce avoidable risk due to radiation, without offsetting benefits
to individuals, the population at large, and the environment through:
- development of environmental criteria and standards for
high-level radioactive disposal
- implementation of the radiological portion of the EPA
drinking water standards
- technical review and review management of.EIS's for
conventional nuclear power plants generic issues, and
advanced nuclear technolgy
• Provide for appropriate noise control at the national and local level:
- continue the development of product emission regulations
and related enforcement;
- carry out programs designed to increase the number and
effectiveness of State and local noise control agencies (Each
Community Helps Others [ECHO] and the Quiet Communities
Program [QCP]
-xvii-
-------
FV7U GUIDANCE OUTPUTS SUMMARY
B. WATER
NtV TO ABBREVIATIONS!
FREQUENCY--
0
SA
A
REPOR
T
t
ST
BY 3
BY A3
HEDIA
A
a
c
D
E
f
G
L
M
QUARTERLY
SEM1-ANNUALLV
ANNUALLY
ING UNITS--
TOTAL mo REGION INCLUDING
TUMI Fijjj REGION EXCLUSIVE
ODE TUTAL FOR ALL SlATf.S'
S1ATE-BY»STATE REPORTING
BV APPROVED (NPDES) STATE
CODES"
AH
WATiR
MATER SUPPLY
SUL1D HASTE
PESTICIDES
RAOIAHQN
NUlSfc
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
FEDERAL FACILITIES
STATE LEAD ACTIVITY
OF STATE LEAD ACTIVITY
ACTIVITIES
REPORTING
I
X
EACH UUTPUT TITLE IS NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY HTHIN EACH HEDIA,
OUTPUT UNITS ARE LETTERED CONSECUTIVELY *ITHIN EACH OUTPUT TITLE.
ACTIVITY INDICATES AHE NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY «UHIN EACH OUTPUT
1ITLE,
HEOIAl
OUTPUT TiiLEi IB
OUTPUT UNITSI IBA
IBB
a.
WATER 0UALIlY MANAGEMENf
NUMBER OF PHASE II 208 PLANS RECEIVED WITH
STATE CERTIFICATION
NUMBER OF STATE AND AH£A*IDE PLANNING
AGENCIES
ACTIVITY
iNDICAtURl
IBI
OF AREAhlOE AGENCIES AMARDEO
TION ANO/OH EXTENSION GRANTS
Irt rUTER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
IBA NUMBER OF PHASE ii 2os PLANS RECEIVED WITH STATE
ctHiincATiiJN AND GIVEN FINAL OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
BV THE HEUMN4L ADMINISTRATOR (Q BY T)
IBS Ni), OF PROSPECTIVE 208 OUTPUTS FOR MHICH IMPLEMENTATION
HILL dt INITIATEO I') BY S)
IB! NUMbEH i)F A»EA*IDE AGENCIES AMARDED CONTINUATION AND/OR
EXTENSION GftANTS (» BY I)
1B2 NU»BF.R UF DESIGNATED FEDERAL, STATE, AREAHlOE, AND LOCAL
MANAGEMENT AGfNCIE.I APPRflvFO BV EPA (SA AY 1)
IB] NjMot* ilF AppNllyED REGULATORY PROGRAMS (SA By T)
2B MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
2IU NJMrtFR OF ttlu STEP 1 AHARDS (Q BY S)
2Bb NUMofrt OF f-t« STfP 2 »«*»OS (U B» S)
2HC NUhbER IlF »-Err SUP ) AWARDS (0 BY S)
IbO TOTAL ESTIMATED UrtLIGATIONS (U BY S)
2bE NuMpfH ilF STE? I PROJECTS COMPLETED (0 HY 8)
2ilF KU^Hfli Of STEP 2 PHOJEC'S COMPLETED (0 B* S)
2HG NondtB OF STEP J PhOJtCIS COMPLETED (0 BY S)
2BH f,)TAL PL 92-500 PHirjECT OUTLAYS (0 BY T)
i
JB HATER ENFUHCEMENT
JBA Mi*rifR OF HAJIlR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES WHICH HAVE COMPLETED
CUNSTHHCUOM bUT AUE VIOLATING FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(u UY T)
JHB t-ufniH m HAJOH NON-HU»UCIPAL FACILITIES KHICH HAVE COMPLETED
Ctif-STWUt UlHi BUI ARE VlULATING FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
(U by T)
OF MAJOR MUNICIPAL FACILMIFS IN VIOLATION OF PEHHIT
t SCHEUHLES (0 BY T)
JHO NOMtifH OF HAJQH NON-MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN VIOLATION OF
PE««M c'^PLiANcE SCHEDULES (u B» T)
1BE AVER*Gt «tSP(lNSE TIME TO MAJOR MUNICIPAL VIOLATIONS BY £PA
. 50S MAJOR MUlilCIPAL REFERRALS (Q BY E)
i^u 3o<> MAJOR noil-MUNICIPAL REFERRALS (o BY E)
lot w,inrtKH i if M&Jllrt MUNICIPAL NPDES VIOLATIONS REFERRED BY
SIATF T.) STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL (Q BY S)
JB2 NtiHrtM OF MAJOR HiiN.MUNICIPAL NPOEs VlOLAftONg REFERRED BY
SlAlE TO STATE AITOHNEYS GENERAL (0 BY S)
-------
I
X
H-
X
I
OB
ua»
a SB
Nu-irtEf* OF MINOR MUNICIPAL PERMITS ISSUED OR REISSUED
NUMBER OF SAMPLING INSPECTIONS BY EPA FOR HAJOR MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES OA bv E>
NUMBER UF SAMPLING INSPECTIONS &v STATES ton HAJOR MUNICIPAL
FACILITIES (SA BY ST)
7U
78A
ea
eat
612
a ai
9BA
1C
ICA
2C
2CA
1C A
IE
IEA
IE1
2E
2EA
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS AND MOHKFORCE PLANNING AND TRAINING
NUiKER OF POIiC'S BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ttlTH INTERIM OR
FINAL EFFLUfcNI L|H|TAI|OM3 THROUGH TECHNICAL OR
TRAINING ASSISTANCE (0 bV T)
OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
NUMBER OF SPILLS REQUIRING REMOVAL ACTION BV EPA (SA BY T)
OF SPILL REMOVAL ACTIONS MONITORED BV EPA (SA BV T)
OF SPILLS REQUIRING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
STUDIES (SA, I)
DREDGED OH FILL MATERIAL DISCHARGE PERMITS
NUMBER OF PERMITS REVIEWED (0 BY E)
C. MATER SUPPLY
PRIMARY DRINKING MATER REGULATIONS
* OF STATES OBTAINING PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY (0,T)
(PRIMACY) (0,1)
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL GRANTS
• OF STATES APPLYING FOR UIC GRANTS (0,T)
OH I UK IMG NATEH LABORATORIES CERTIFICATION
• at SIAUS SATISFYING INIEHIM LAB CERTIFICATION
-------
I
X
X
I
IE
IE A
IE I
JE2
IE I
JEU
JE5
JE6
«E
<|EA
uEI
«E2
«EJ
«E1
«E5
SE
SEA
5EB
SEC
SE1
SEZ
5f.l
SEfl
5E5
5E6
SET
5E8
IF
in
LABEL DIRECTIONS COMPLIANCE
OF USE INSPECTIONS (Q,T)
OF EXPERIMENTAL USE PERMITS MUNITORED ($A,I)
OF MISUSE INSPECTIONS (SA,T>
OF APPLICATOR INSPECTIONS (8A,T)
OF 9(C) t IU(A)(2) uSE NAHNING3 ISSUED (3A,f)
OF CIVIL CdhPttlMTS FROM USE ACTIVITY (SA,T)
OF MfFEHRALS FRO** USE ACTIVITY (A,T)
STATE FIFHA ENFORCEMENT
* OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS (S»,3T)
• OF STATES AWARDED GRANTS»IN»A1D (SA,T)
* OF USE INSPECCION3 (SA HV S)
» (IF PRDDUCFR ESTABLISHMENTS INSPECTED (SA,BYS)
» OF PRODUCER E3l4BLlSH"iENT SAMPLES COLLECTED (SA BY S)
• OK HAHKETPLACt SAMPLES COLLECTED (SA,BYS)
REOIS'HATION COMPLIANCE—hPA ACTIVITY
OF PRODUCER ESTABLISHMENTS INSPECTED (Q,T)
OF MAKKETPLACE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED (3A,T)
OF IHPHMT INVESTISATION3 CONDUCTED (SA,T»
OK 9(C) WARNING.) (S*.l)
OF CIVIL COMPLAINTS (3A,T)
OF NOTICES UF ANRIVAt (IMPORTS) (3A,T)
OF THPIIRT DETENTIONS (SA.T)
OF STOP SUE, USE* OR REMOVAL OHDER3 (3A,T)
OF CRIMINAL HEFEM^AUS ST)
-------
ENERGY-HELMED ACTIVITIES
20 •
20A
JO
SO*
I*
2AB-
2AC-
2*0
2AF'
1A
•.e/L.^
-JAC
-1*3
<- JAE
1AG
1AI
J*J
1*1
5*2
}>* "I * IAS
)A6
OPEN DUMPS "*•
* OF STATE INVENTORIES COMPLETED (0,ST)
HAZARDOUS MASTES
• OF STATES WITH AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS MASH PROGRAMS (O.BYS) SA
(SUSPENDED UNTIL 10/11/77)
A. AIR 6A
OAA
SIP DEVELOPMENT t REASSESSMENT (INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON FORM A)
6AB
CON1RUL OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS t PARTICIPATES
PERCENTAGE OF ORGANIC'EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS THROUGH «>*c
RACI (SA,I)
4 OF CLASS A SOURCES OF HYDROCARBONS IN NON.ATTAINMENT 7A
AQC-«S IN VIOLATION OR OF UNKNOWN STATUS (0.1)
* UF REVU*S OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS 7»i
AND PROGRAM CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS (3A,T) TAJ,
« OF NON-ATTAINMENT AQCH'S nlfH PROGRAMS OR REGULATIONS TO 7A|
ADDRESS PAMICULATES (SA,T)
* OF STAGE I VAPOR RECOVERY INSPECTIONS (Q,T) 7A2
« UF STAGE II V*PliH RECOVERY REPORTS REVIEWED (0,T) (SUSPENDED)
• OF CLASS H HC COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES (SA.T)
t OF EPA/STAtt-lNSPECIUlN S1AGE I FACILITIES IN VIOLATION (Q,T«»
• OF H) NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS ISSUED FOR STAGE I
REGULATIONS (Q«T) «**
* OF 111 NOTICES OF VIOLATIONS ISSUED FUR STAGE II
REGULATIONS ts».T) (SUSPENDED)
9A
NE* SOURCE CONTROL
• UF STATE PROGRAMS EVALUATED FOR NEM SOURCE REVIEW <8A,T)
* OF STATE PROGRAMS EVALUATED FUR NSPS (SA,T)
» OF STtU PROGRAMS EVALUATED FOR PSD (SA,T)
• [iF STATE pHfiGRAKS EVALUATED FOR NESMApS (SA,T)
* OF STATES DELEGATED NtN SOURCE PtRfCRMANCE STANDARDS (3A,T)
t tip STATES DELEGATED PREVENTION UF SIGNIFICANT
[Jt fERli'iU Illl" ($A,T)
* OF SUBJECT SOURCES IN VIOLATION, OR ANTICIPATED TO BE IN
viuLAiin>w ;)R AMY pRoCEUUHAL ANO/UR EMISSION REQUIREMENTS
FOR K'E* SOURCE PfRFOR^'ANCt STANDARDS (O.T)
• OF si'BJtci SOURCES IN VIOLATION, OR ANTICIPATED TO BE IN
VIOLATION, OR AMY PROCEDURAL AND/OR EMISSION HlGuIRt*ENJS
fOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETER10HATIUN (O.T)
* OF SUU-ISSUtD KSK AMD PSD PERMITS AUDITED BY EPA (SA bV S)
• OF E"tu*rE"ENi ACTIONS TAKEN FOR VIOLATION OF NSR, KSPS
OR PSD
* OF tPA t ACUITY INSPECTIONS (U, T)
STATE t EPA PLANS DEVELOPED 1N° IMPLEMENTED TO CORRECT SPECIFIC
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM PROBLEMS (3A.T)
• OF FACILITIES FUR «>UCH FIELD COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS .
»E*E IN VARIANCE HUM STATE DETERMINATIONS (0,T)
MUSI TOR ING
* OF STATE PLANS DEVELOPED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAMHG
RECOMMENDATIONS TO HE REPORTED ON FORMS (S*,T)
MANAGE TME SIP PROCESS
« lif ROUTINE sip REVISIONS RECEIVED (3A,T)
• OF ROUTINE SIP REVISIONS APPROVED (SA,T)
SIP REVISIONS DISAPPROVED OA,T)
MITH 111(0) •
* OF STATE PLANS DfVELOPFO IN CONJUNCTION HlTH Itt(O) REGS
FUR SULFUHtC »CIH, PhiiSPMATE FERTILIZER, PRIMARY ALUMINUM
REDUCU>)N AND KRAFT PULP MILLS (SA.T)
Futt ADOiilvts ENFORCEMENT
* OF UNtEAOfD FUEL INSPECTIONS (U,T)
a OF uMf»r,fO FUEL CONTAMINATIONS DETECTED
-------
WATER QUALITY OPERATING GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-3-
•FY '1978 WATER QKAXITY AGENCY GUIDANCE
Contents:
Overview of Program
I. Program Narrative--
1. Water Quality Management
2. Municipal Construction
3. Delegations to States for Construction Grants
Certification Requirements
4. Water Enforcement
5. Permit Issuance
6. Water Monitoring
7. Effluent Guidelines Support
8. Pretreatment
9. Municipal Operations and Workforce Planning
and Training
10. Disaster Assistance
11. Oil and Hazardous Spills Control
12. Ocean Dumping
13. Dredged of Fill Materials Discharge Permits
14. Technical Studies and Support
15. SBA Loan Review
-------
-4-
II. Outline of Headquarters Activities Supporting the
Regional Offices
III. Program Priorities
17. R & D Technical Support for Regions
V. Regional Commitments
VI. Discussion of Definitions Pertaining to Regional Canniiments
-------
-5-
I. PROGRfiM
This section of the Guidance briefly discusses 15 functional
ft areas:
1. Water Quality Management
2. Municipal Construction
3. Delegations to States for Construction Grants Certifi
cation requirements
4. Water Enforcement
5. Permits Issuance
6. Water Monitoring
7. Effluent Guidelines Support
8 . Pretreatment
9. Municipal Operations and Workforce Planning and
Training
10. Disaster Assistance
11. Oil and Hazardous Spills Control
12. Ocean Dumping
13. Dredged or Fill Matrials Discharge Permits
14. Technical Studies and Support
15. SBA Loan Review
_ _ Cross-cutting issues, such as decentralizatioiL^_
are discussedTwhere appropriate under "the "above program
areas.
-------
-6-
Overview of Program
This section of the Agency's 1978 Regional Guidance highlights
the outputs and activities that States and Regional Offices must
carry out to effectively implement in FY 1978 those parts of the
Agency's national Strategy relating to Water Quality.
As with previous years' guidance, an overriding theme in
FY 1978 is the shifting of program functions from EPA to State
agencies. In earlier years this effort consisted mainly in-the
delegation to States of discrete functions or subfunctions,
primarily in the NPDES and municipal facilities areas. In FY 1977
and continuing into FY 1978, the emphasis will expand to include
both formal delegations and the elimination of other redundancies
between EPA and State programs. In light of relatively static
levels of State and Federal resources for program funding over the
past three years, it is essential that duplication be minimized and
that a more cost effective division of program functions be attained.
The Regions must be aware that a new form of State and local
participation in the conduct and management of water quality
programs, and related aspects of other programs, such as Solid
Waste Management, will emerge in FY 1978. Significant numbers
of 208 plans and parts of plans will be approved, and Federal,
State, or local agencies will be designated as management agencies
to implement those plans. As discussed with the Regions, a task
force will be established to work out the specifics of how EPA
will relate to management agency functions and roles. Meanwhile,
operating plans at Regional and State levels must address the
ways in which all effected programs will work with and through
the approved 208 plans and designated management agencies.
This year's water quality guidance is divided into six
sections. Section I is a narrative statement of the basic policy
directions for FY 1978. Section II is an outline of Headquarters
activities which will support the Regions. Section III is a
priority list of the various water quality programs. Section IV
is a summary of R & D technical support being provided to the
Regions. Section V is a list of definitions of terms used in
the outputs section. Section VI is a discussion of definitions
pertaining to Regional commitments in the previous section.
-------
-7-
1. Water Quality Management
The Water Quality Management program under the 40 CFR 35,
130, and 131 regulations encompasses numerous aspects of the Act,
particularly dealing with State and areawide planning, water quality
standards and anti-degradation, and S106 State water pollution
control agency support. The regulations created a continuing
interactive structure of planning and management in a Continuing
Planning Process (CSV) involving essentially all elements of the
water pollution control program and also provided for integration
of related components of solid waste, water supply and air quality
management. The GPP continually identifies and addresses new
problems, the need for additional work on existing problems,
and provides the integrating mechanism for State/EPA program imp-
lementation and management strategy, guidance, and work planning.
In fiscal year 1978 the most important objective for the
water quality management program (WQM) will be to ensure implemen-
tation of the maximum number of early outputs, approved pursuant
to 40 CFR 131.20(j), prior to final plan submission, and the
inplementability of all environmental, regulatory, institutional,
and legal recontnendations of the final plan. The Regions, and
the States, in their areawide oversight and management roles,
must plan and allocate adequate resources for:
o close and effective monitoring of Section 208 grantee
programs for technical adequacy, and fulfillment of
citizen participation and administrative requirements
of 40 CFR 35, 105, 130, 131, and other related reg-
ulations and policy;
o ensuring that planning milestones are consistently
reached as scheduled in approved work plans, or
earlier, so as to assure that all plans and portions
of the plans will be submitted to EPA in timely and
approvable fashion;
o and, overall, ensuring successful, ontime completion
of Phase II State and areawide (Section 208) planning
according to law, regulations, and each grantee's
approved work plan.
-------
-8-
The Regions must ensure that the States are coordinating
and reviewing the work of the areawide agencies in fulfillment
of their Phase II areawide management roles. The Regions must
also ensure that State and areawide agencies are conducting
planning consistent with national guidance and priorities,
and the State continuing planning process and Section 106 program.
The Regions and States must ensure that final plans (incor-
porating all parts approved as early outputs) meet all the
requirements of 40 CFR 131.11, particularly with regard to "(n)
regulatory programs" and "(o) management agencies." They should
also ensure that funds are being expended at a rate which will
sustain the Section 208 planning project through the plan sub-
mittal and EPA review period. EPA is required to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove plans submitted by the State,
by element, within 120 days (40 CFR 131.21). The States, however,
have only to submit plans by November 1, 1978. It should be the
objective of all concerned to achieve submission of plans at the
earliest feasible date consistent with sound planning whenever
this can be done earlier than the 40 CFR deadlines require. This
will be advisable .to help better distribute the certification and
approval workloads, as well as to speed the beneficial impacts of
Phase II planning.
The Regions must determine how best to ensure that plan re-
visions consistent with National priorities required under
conditional approval or disapproval actions can be obtained.
Withholding of funds, as well as award of extension or continuation
grants, must be considered. Part H of this guidance on WQM in
part outlines current Hq expectations as to issuance of guidance
on extension and continuation grants and availability of funding.
Ensuring that each State revises its Continuing Planning
Process (CPP) and the description thereof consistent with 40
CFR 130.43(c) is of a priority second only to ensuring success-
ful, on-time completion of Phase II State and areawide planning.
Revision of the CPP must include revision of the State/EPA
Agreement (40 CFR 130.11) as necessitated by past deficiencies
and progress in Phase II planning.
As Phase II plan implementation progresses through approvals
of both partial and final plans, the Regions must be prepared to
monitor the establishment of identified management agencies and/
or any implementation authorities which they need to operate.
Also of high priority, where not completed in FY 1977, will
be Regional actions to ensure completion of all necessary re-
visions to Water Quality Standards and anti-degradation policies,
either by the State, or by EPA promulgation. This is further dis-
cussed under the Program Narrative section on "Technical Studies and
Support." Revisions shown to be needed fay approved Phase II plans
should be expeditiously carried out.
-------
-9-
The Regions must also ensure that other Federal agencies are
carrying out any management agency tasks agreed to in Phase II
planning and/or under national agreements. Where other agencies
fail to meet their agreements, and the issues cannot be resolved at
the Regional or District Office level, Headquarters should be
informed. A part of Hq support to the Regions during FY1978, will
be seeking resolution of grievances with the Hq offices of other
agencies, as required.
State Programs
The Regions must provide copies of all approved State water
pollution control program plans to Hq within 10 working days of
Regional Administrators' approval action. Where conditional ap-
provals are made, a copy of the-approval memorandum containing the
specific conditions will be forwarded, with the program plan. All
program plans will incorporate or include as attachments:
1) a completed "State Water Pollution Control Program
Resources" chart (Attachment 1).
2) a complete State Strategy, as required by 40 CFR 130.20.
3) a description of the State Continuing Planning Process
(CPP), as required by 40 CFR 130.40, including all
approved documentation not previously provided to Hq
as well as any approved FY 1978 revision documentation
submitted by the State.
The State Continuing Planning Process documentation will include
the State/EPA Agreement required by 40 CFR 130.11, and made part of
the CPP description by 40 CFR 130.10(c)(4).
2. Municipal Construction
The municipal construction grants program, is fast becoming the
largest public works program in the nation. Since the enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-
500) the program has experienced unprecedented growth, with the
attendant startup problems of administering a new and complex piece
of legislation. In FY 1978, however, the program should move into a
new phase of activity, with anticipated long term level funding,
where the primary emphasis will expand from-processing applications
to more general areas of effective program management, fiscal,
technical and operational integrity, and long range program planning.
Resource constraints for full implementation of the program continue
to be a problem, although the addition of 100 new positions in March
is expected to address the most critical deficits in the short term.
-------
-10-
The Administrator has submitted to Congress a ten year funding
proposal of $4.5 billion per year that would, in conjunction with
enactment of proposed amendments to limit or eliminate selected
eligibilities,. provide the Federal share to cover all secondary or
more stringent needs identified in the 1976 Needs Survey. The
proposed funding strategy and change in eligibilities is now being
considered by Congress. For purposes of State and Regional planning
for FY 1978, no change in legislation regarding project eligibilities
is to be assumed.
EPA currently anticipates additional funding in FY 1977 and
FY 1978 to total $5.5 billion: a supplemental FY 1977 appropriation
of $1 billion and a FY 1978 appropriation of $4.5 billion. The
allotment by State is expected to follow the Senate formula contained
in Rep. No 95-38. At the current time it appears that the $1 billion
allotment will be available to the States for 36 months. The allot-
ment period for the FY 1978 allocation is uncertain at this time.
The major thrust of the FY 1978 construction grants program
will be effective program management. As a first step it is essential
that the Regions establish a full-time construction grants management
systems coordinator. This individual would coordinate the various
program management activities, such as (1) the state project priority
lists, (2) the Regional Construction Grants Management Information
System (RCQQS), (3) regional management reporting needs, (4) program
analysis, (5) the program management system, and (6) construction
grants output ccmmitments.
It is also essential that the Regional Offices implement sound
management practices in application processing and project monitor-
ing. The Regions should establish a firm processing timeframe for
applications at each step of the grant process. The Regions should
monitor project schedules, particularly for large projects, to
assure that milestones are met. Regions should coordinate closely
with the NPDES program to assure that projects stay on schedule.
Where apporpriate, enforcement of municipal compliance schedules
should be undertaken.
The basic building block in the area of program management is
the State project priority list. The Regions should work closely
with the States in the development of these lists to assure that
high quality and environmentally sound projects are funded and
completed in the most timely and environmentally sound manner
possible. As in FY 1977, the States are required to submit both
fundafale and extended priority lists for FY 1978. Detailed priority
list guidance has been prepared and will be issued shortly in the
•form of a Program Requirements Msnoradum. No basic changes in
existing guidance will be made. The objective will rather be
clarification and consolidation of EPA policy.
-------
-11-
Because the State planning process and priority list development
will occur before funds are appropriated and allotted, the States
and Regions are to assume current funds willje supplemented by
(1) a $1 billionjjupplemental appreciation "jbr F^ 1S37 and. (2) a
$4.!Tb~rm:on appropriation in FY 1978. The State~allotments from
this formula will be assumed to be that contained in Attachment 3.
For planning purposes State and Regional Offices should develop a
State priority list which fully obligates these funds within two
years of the date of allotment, even though the allotment may actually
be available for a longer period. Accordingly, States and Regions
should plan on using the $1 billion FY 77 appropriation by September
30, 1978, and the $4.5 billion appropriation by September 30, 1979.
For development of the extended portion of the list, the Regions
should assume that $4.5 billion will be appropriated in EY 1979
through FY 1987.
In developing and maintaining the fundable and extended portions
of the State project priority lists, it is essential that the
Regions:
o Analyze project schedules for timeliness and assure that a
reasonable amount of time has been allotted prior to the
initiation of subsequent project steps.
o Assure that all subsequent steps for step 1 and step 2
projects appear on either the fundable or extended portions
of the list and that the entire list be consistent with
EPA approved Section 208 plans, or relevant parts of any
EPA approved 208 plans.
o Maintain in GIGS the official, updated State priority
lists so that project schedules and amounts may be an-
alyzed and monitored on a continuous basis through the use
of computerized analytical programs and management status
and exception reports.
o Insure the project target certification dates and requested
amounts are reviewed and updated on a quarterly basis.
The Regions must assure that the Regional Construction Grants
Management Information System is being used to its fullest capabil-
ities, both in the areas of program analysis and project monitoring
and tracking. This comprehensive system encompasses data collection
procedures, computer coding forms, procedural and training manuals,
feedback and correction procedures, and comprehensive analytical and
management status and exception reports for all levels of management.
Headquarters staff will assist in implementation of this new system
and will provide technical support as required.
-------
-12-
A coordinated strategy must be developed and implemented among
the various construction grants related activities, including the
1976 Needs Survey and facility inventory, State priority list plan-
ning, Step 1 facility planning, Section 208 areawide planning, State
water quality management planning, the NPDES permit program, NEPA
compliance, and adequate provisions for operation and maintenance
requirements. Explicit coordination should be made between (1) the
1976 Needs Survey file and the fundable and extended priority list,
(2) large project management and the NPDES permit program, and
(3) Section 208 planning and Section 201 facility plan development.
Basic initiatives in fiscal, technical and operational integrity
commenced in FY 1977. In FY 1978 a more comprehensive program must
be implemented to:
o Reevaluate organizational functions for processing con-
struction grant applications; specifically environmental
assessment reviews, environmental impact statement deci-
sions, cost/price analyses, need for Regional Counsel
review, grant payment processing, State/EPA coordination,
engineering review, and EEO-processing.
o Conduct pre-award, interim, and final audits and inspec-
tions. For interim inspections supplement regional staff
with interagency agreements with the Corps of Engineers and
GSA.
o Conduct more detailed cost analysis/cost review on A & E
sub-agreements and construction contract change orders.
o Conduct value engineering reviews for cost control in the
design of wastewater treatment projects.
o Stress early environmental review of projects and avoid
delay in initiating environmental impact statements (where
necessary) to ensure the environmental integrity of the
program. The use of "piggybacking" and "layering" tech-
niques to streamline the NEPA process should continue to be
pursued as appropriate.
o Expand preapplication, predesign, and preconstruction
conferences to cover all projects.
o Conduct seminars to explain UC/ICR and pretreatment re-
quirements.
o Maintain contact with Larger projects on a direct basis.
-------
-13-
o Monitor projects in the post award phase to assure that they
are completed expeditiously. For Step 1 and 2 projects assure
that intermediate milestones and schedules are met. For
Step 3 projects assure that they go under construction in a
timely manner; monitor progress against completion schedules
(completion schedules for projects over $10 million in size
are required in the Regional Construction Management Information
System (RCGMIS)); encourage monthly payments, particularly for
large projects; assure that construction delays are identified
early and resolved expeditiously, and assure that projects are
constructed according to design.
o Ensure that 0 & M related requirements (i.e., plan of operation
including 0 &- M manual) are satisfactorily completed before
projects move into the operational phase.
o Ensure that UC/ICR systems are adequately coordinated with the
Plan of Operation and O&M Manual for each project.
It is understood that the program is under tight resource con-
straints. Where resource constraints prevent full implementation of
these activities, the Regions should specifically identify in their
program plan which activities cannot be performed and the impact that '
such tradeoffs have on the fiscal and technical integrity of the program.
Step 1 performance to date under P.L. 92-500 is lagging far behind
the level needed to support a $4.5 billion per year program. Of the
more than 5,000 step 1 projects that have been awarded under P.L. 92-
500, less than 700 have actually been completed. Therefore it is essential
that the Region:
o Furnish Quality Reviews to states and consultants for im-
proving future step 1 submissions.
o Ensure that realistic cost effectiveness determinations are
being made and that land treatment options are being fairly
considered and used where appropriate.
o Streamline step 1 reviews and otherwise improve step 1 management.
o Implement training programs for consultants in the area of
step 1 facility planning requirements.
Four options for pretreatment were proposed by the Agency on
February 2, 1977. The Regions should be prepared to implement a program
of pretreatment incentives for one of the following options:
-------
-14-
(1) providing funds for development of local programs, (2) requiring
user charges to cover the cost of local pretreatment programs, (3)
requiring as a grant condition for areas with significant industry
that a pretreatrnent program be developed, and (4) an increase in the
discretionary share of ICR payments retained by the municipality if
the grantee has an approved pretreatment program.
Finally, consideration must be given to less costly treatment
systems for small communities. Regions should require evaluation of
on-site or other small treatment plants as an option wherever new
collection systems are proposed for small comnunities or areas with
homes on lots of 1/2 acre or larger.
In all of the above, consistency with approved Section 208 plans
and relevant approved 208 early outputs must be assured.
3. Delegation to the States for Construction Grants
Certification Requirements
The "Cleveland-Wright" amendment currently under consideration
by Congress would provide for the delegation of certification require-
ments of the construction grants program to States capable of con-
ducting segments of the program, along with the needed funding (up to
2% of a state's allotment) to carry out such delegation. Existing
regulations already provide for delegation as follows:
o 40 CFR 35.912 - allows Regional Administrators
to enter into delegation agreements with States.
o 40 CFR 35.913 - makes cost to State for con
ducting review and approval activities under
a delegation agreement an eligible project
cost, providing the State can legally charge
municipalities a processing fee (ceiling
amount: 1/2 of 1% of State's allotment).
It is EPA policy to encourage State delegation of-as many activ-
ities as possible within these existing regulations, commensurate with
good program management. Where feasible, the Regions should work with
the States in establishing a fee proposal, to allow reimbursement to
States of costs incurred under delegated agreements. (Note: The fee
proposal currently used by the State of California is an example avail-
able as a model for other States.)
-------
-15-
The Region should propose a delegation plan for each State within
the existing regulations that maximizes delegation under the following
guidelines:
o Tailor the delegation agreements to the individual •
States' inclination and capability.
o Encourage a less formal system for sharing EPA/State
review responsibilities where formal delegation is not
possible.
o Work closely with the States in the early phases of
delegation. Initial duplication is inevitable if the
.program is to succeed.
o Conduct continual program audits and systematic fiscal
audits.
o Develop with the State a plan to increase staffing and
offer training to encourage increased delegation over time.
The Region should develop concurrent reviews to minimize delays
for those activities that both the State and EPA are required to
review (e.g., application receipt, I/I). Where possible, avoid
duplicating State reviews that have been shewn from past performance
to be complete, accurate, and consistent.
The Region should assess the-impact of the proposed "Cleveland-
Wright" legislation on both Regional and State activities to:
o Determine for each State the extent of delegation possible
the time period involved, and the State organization,
staffing, and training required to implement the delegation.
o Define the Regional role under a delegated program, in-
cluding new tasks required to ensure requirements delegated
to States are fulfilled efficiently, and without overlap
with Regional activity.
o Assess Regional/State resource needs and possible resource
tradeoffs on delegation agreements.
-------
-16-
4. WATER EEM3RCEMENT
FY 1978 Program
Because we have not received the increase in positions requested in.
our Budget Submittal to CMB, Regional water enforcement activities .for
FY. 1978 will have to be limited to fulfilling our major responsibilities
under the Act. These include (1) taking vigorous enforcement action
against major permittees who have failed to complete and put in operation •
facilities by July 1, 1977, and against PCTWs with permit schedule
violations; (2) resolving pending major adjudicatory hearing requests in
those Regions where a.backlog of requests remains a problem; (3) taking
vigorous enforcement action against major permittees who have completed
facilities but fail to achieve final permit effluent limitations; (4)
working towards the approval of State NPDES programs and increasing
Stafee-participation in the NPDES program; and (5) enforcing non-NPDES
violations.
Our major goal in FY 1978 is to take vigorous enforcement action
against major permittees who have failed to conplete and put in operation
facilities .by July 1, 1977, and against POTWs with permit schedule
violations. We do not intend to specify one activity as thaving a higher
priority than another within the conpliance monitoring and legal NPDES-
support programs. All of these activities are essential for the achievement
of our major goal. However, the Regions will have to ensure that the
initial focus of these activities is on those major permittees who have
not corrpleted construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Compliance
evaluation inspections should be used to verify the noncompliance
status and develop the basis for follow-up enforcement action. Enforcement
actions should be taken first against those dischargers whose violations
are the most serious and which have had or will have the most serious
impact on water quality, rather than against those dischargers whose
violations are easy to resolve but are less significant. Enforcement
actions should be commenced when warranted, not just to meet output
caimitments. Since the number of permittees in violation of permit
conditions vastly exceeds the'ability of the Agency to address within
existing resource limitations, however, this possibility should rarely
exist. Variation among Regions in the level of outputs for enforcement
actions may exist because of exceptionally high levels of conpliance or
because large amounts of resources must be devoted to resolving significant
cases. Where these factors result in lower- cortmitments than expected,
they should be justified by a narrative description of those factors.
•-I
Federal facility major permits carry the same priority as other
facilities of the same type. Compliance monitoring and evaluation will
be conducted in the same manner as all major permittees. However,
enforcement actions will differ for Federal facility permitees. Noncomplying
Federal facilities permittees will be dealt with by EPA.through the
escalation approach instead of following, formal legal channels.
-------
-17-
Our third major- goal in FY 1978 is to take vigorous enforcement
action against major permittees who have completed facilities but
fail to achieve final permit effluent limitations. Sampling
inspections will, for the most part, replace compliance evaluation
inspections as the principal means for obtaining data for enforcement
actions against these types of violations. Compliance monitoring
and legal support activities will here again be expected to proceed
in a coordinated manner to fulfill the heeds for implementing this
goal.
State delegations remain an important priority in the water
enforcement program. We anticipate the approval of twelve (12)
State programs in FY 1978. We also encourage the Regions to continue
to-develop" working" "agreements with those States which have not re-
ceived program approval in order to ensure State cooperation with and
participation in our program. Resources constraints make it impera-
tive that the States participate in the NPDES program to the fullest
extent possible.
A base level of non-NPDES enforcement must also be maintained.
However, it is important to note that this is our last priority.
Regions that, because of their location, are likely to be involved
in non-NPDES enforcement actions to a substantial degree must be able
to justify any reduction in the output supporting the first three
program priorities should such a reduction occur.
Water enforcement resource constraints are such that in FY 1978
we will conduct no compliance monitoring and enforcement on minor
permittees, no pretreatment enforcement, no 404 enforcement, no
enforcement of agricultural, silviculture, storm sewer permits, no
enforcement of hazardous materials spills, and no Safe Drinking Water
enforcement (except for Region III and for emergency situations).
Should an environmental crisis or emergency occur in one of the above
•mentioned areas, we of course expect the Regions to temporarily
reallocate positions to control the emergency. Furthermore, if you
have met all your top priority responsibilities you can devote extra
resources to these programs. However, under most circumstances,
water enforcement resources should be confined to supporting the
programs top priorities.
-------
-18-
5. Permit Issuance
There will be several new requirements affecting permit issuance
during FY 1978. These include the 1983 Best Available Technology Econ-'
cmically Achievable (BAT) requirements, section 208 areawide planning
requirements, section 302 water quality related effluent limitations, and
toxic pollutant standards and limitations. The absence of many BAT
guidelines will pose a problem for second round permits in the affected
industries, and policy addressing this problem is under development.
Headquarter guidance will have to be developed for implementing the
NRDC toxics BAT agreement on the 21 industries, to enable Regional
offices and NPDES States to reissue affected permits.
'__Many_ permit conditions based on these new requirements will be
challenged by permittees in adjudicatory hearings. Permits issued ^in
FY 78 requiring BAT will be the subject of section 301(c) variance requests
to consider whether BAT standards may be relaxed for economic reasons.
Resolution of these requests is, therefore, a high priority program for
FY 1978.
New programs will require considerable development and implementation
effort. These include the application and enforcement of pretreatment
standards pursuant to section 307(b)(c) and (d), application of section
403 ocean .discharge criteria,- and -implementation of section 404 dredge
and fill wetlands program. Also, there will be increased emphasis on
EPA's role as overseer of approved NPDES State programs.
The permit issuance program places first priority on the reissuance
of all major permits due to expire in FY 1978 so that all major dischargers
will be under abatement scheudles. No major permit should be allowed
to lapse. Seme permits should be revoked before they are due to expire
in FY 1979, and some permits should be issued for less than five years
in an effort to level out extreme work load variations. All work on
majors should be completed before work is commenced on either initial
(first round) minor permits or expiring minor permits due to the absence
of resources for the latter. Pending legal conclusions on the applicability
of the Administrative Procedures Act to the extension of a permit beyond
its expiration date without formal reissuance, a higher priority may be
given to first round minor permits than to expiring minors.
An increase in the quantity, quality' and timeliness of guidance
from Headquarters is planned to enable the Regions and NPDES States to'
effectively proceed-with the new requirements in FY 78, i.e., issuance/
reissuance of permits to include BAT/Toxic requirments, potential adjud-
icatory hearings regarding variance requests to relax BAT standards for
economic reasons, the industrial pretreatment program, coordination of
permits/208 plans, application of section 403 ocean discharge criteria,
implementation of expanded section 404 permit program.
-------
-19-
In order to reduce duplication of effort in reporting, a procedure
is being developed where reports generated by the Water Enforcement
National Data Base will be used to satisfy appropriate FPRS requirements.
This will be possible when a high level of confidence is established in'
the quality, completeness and currentness of the information on State
and EPA issued NPDES permits.
Headquarters will support the Regions through the issuance of
policy and technical guidance on the use of BAT limitations in the
absence of guidelines addressing toxic substances under both section
307(a) and other court-ordered priority pollutants or industries.
Procedures and regulations will be issued to assure the processing of
variance requests in a uniform manner. NPDES reviews of Regional and
State programs will be performed to assure quality control, render
technical and policy support, and assure uniform application of policy.
6. Water Monitoring
For FY 78, the water monitoring program guidance has been expanded
and redesigned to include support to the Offices of Enforcement, Water
Programs Operations, and Water Planning and Standards. To assist States
and Regions in the monitoring effort, the Basic Water Monitoring Program
has been published which describes how an efficient monitoring program
should meet the most pressing needs of EPA and the States. The Basic
Water -Monitoring Program calls for effluent monitoring, intensive surveys,
fixed station monitoring, and a quality assurance program. It is important
for States and Regions to begin implementing this program in FY 78 since
full operation of the basic program is expected by FY 80.
Implementation of the Basic Monitoring Program is a high agency and
State priority and implementation of its major provisions will be tracked
through the STORET system. Regions and States should have agreed on
implementation strategies and monitoring schedules in place at the start
of the fiscal year.
Regional monitoring support'to the Office of Enforcement and the
Office of Water Program Operations consists of compliance inspections
and the development of arrangements with States to assume a larger role
in this effect utilizing State program grants. Regional support to the
Office of Water Planning and Standards consists of collecting and anlayzing
various types of samples in support of the,. Toxics Strategy, guiding
States in developing programs, for performing intensive surveys, and
guding States in implementing fixed station monitoring activity as set
forth in the Basic Water iytonitoring Program.
State activities are also included in this section, and in many
instances except for support to the Toxic Strategy, they are the same
as the Regional Outputs. States will not be required to 'collect and
analyze samples in support of the Toxics Strategy during FY 78 but will
need to assume a larger share of the compliance inspections effort, carry
out most of the work on intensive surveys for wasteload allocations and
begin or continue, where appropriate, monitoring at selected fixed
stations in accordance with the basic program.
-------
-20-
Quality Assurance
Just as water monitoring is the basis for many water pollution
control and abatement programs, quality assurance is the cornerstone
of an effective water monitoring program. For FY 78, continued emphasis
will be placed on acquiring technically sound and legally defensible
data through strict adherence to quality assurance requirements.
In implementing the water monitoring program priorities, the
Regions should work closely with the State and Areawide Water Quality
Management Agencies to assure that each agency, and its laboratory, is
carrying out its data collection, sample analysis, and data reporting
activities in accordance with the ORD quality assurance program. Where
a State agency is collecting and analyzing data, the Regions should
assure that, -the Stats- laboratory has been evaluated and is meeting the
minimal quality assurance requirements.
Support to the Offices of Enforcement and Water Programs Operations
The basic thrust of EPA's compliance monitoring activities are to
ensure the completion and effective operation of treatment facilities by
major industrial and municipal permittees to meet the requirements of
the NPDES program. The compliance monitoring program detects violations,
verifies reported violations and provides evidentiary support for enforcement
actions. These activities are accomplished through two basic compliance
monitoring procedures: Compliance Review and Compliance Inspection.
Compliance Review is the review of all written material relating to the
status of compliance of an NPDES permit, including compliance schedule
reports, discharge monitoring reports, compliance inspection reports,
etc. Compliance Inspection refers to all field related activities,
including sampling inspections and compliance evaluation (nonsampling)
inspections, conducted to determine the status of compliance with requirements.
In FY 78 the highest priority for the water enforcement resources
in the S&A Divisions continues to be compliance monitoring. Higher
emphasis will be placed on compliance evaluation (nonsampling) inspections
in FY 78 than-in FY 77 in order to support water enforcement's first
priority. The compliance evaluation inspection activity has as its
objectives the assessment of the permittee's self-monitoring and reporting
procedures, observation of construction progress and compliance records
review. In addition, as a result of the combining of O&M inspection
activity with nonsainpling compliance inspection activity which has begun
in FY 77, compliance evaluation inspections have a second important
objective, to assure an adequate flow of up-to-date information on the
level of operation"and maintenance activities at POTWs. This data is •
essential for the Agency to meet the section 210 (P.L. 92-500) requirement
for an annual O&M report to Congress, to provide monitoring of the
integrity of the Construction Grant Program and to enable the Regions
and States to make meaningful decisions on appropriate responses to
municipal permittee noncompliance. Compliance evaluation inspections
should be conducted by EPA at each major permittee facility a minimum of
once during the life of the permit.
-------
-21-
Sampling inspections of major municipal and nonmunicipal facilities
will be continued at a high level consistent with water enforcement
priorities. Priority will be given to sampling permittees with facilities
on line to meet statutory limits and for verification of self-monitoring
and State monitoring data indicating compliance with statutory effluent
limits once achieved. Every major permittee meeting statutory effluent
limitations should be sampled annually be either the Region or the -
State.
The relative priority between compli ance evaluations inspections
and sampling inspections is not meant to indicate more emphasis on one
type of inspection rather than another. Compliance evaluation inspections
primarily support water enforcement's first priority, but are not resource
intensive. Sampling inspections primarily support water enforcement's
third priority, but are very resource intensive and must receive adequate
Regional support. Both types of inspections are essential to the adequate
evaluation of compliance of major permittees, and are to be used at
different stages of permittee compliance as required.
Implementation of the Basic Water Monitoring Program
While full implementation of the Basic Water Monitoring Program is
not expected until FY 80, the Regions and the States in FY 78 should
begin implementation of several elements in the program. These elements
and a brief discussion of each follows:
Intensive Survey Monitoring
The States are responsible for providing to the Regions
a two-three page abstract for each intensive survey conducted
as part of the program. This abstract should briefly
describe the intensive survey area and survey results. Its
primary use is to notify the Regions or the results of each
intensive survey conducted and to improve the coordination of
Regional/State water monitoring activities. These abstracts
are to be maintained in basin files by the Region to serve
as a reference on water quality and discharger conditions
in each basin.
Ambient Monitoring
The Regions and the States should re-examine the existing
State ambient water quality monitoring networks and select
the most critical stations (based on the station number guide
below) . These stations should then be incorporated into .the
national ambient water quality network described in the
Basic Water Monitoring Program and many of the stations not
selected for inclusion in this network should be discontinued.
It is imperative that the Regions work closely with the States
in selecting these stations and in stressing data transfers
in STORET compatible formats. No reporting mechanism other
than STORET will be used.
/
-------
-22-
The redesigned aitbient water monitoring network should
consist of approximately 1000 stations nationwide by 1980.
The following, which is based on the Section 106 State Program
Grant allocation formula, can be used as a rough guideline in
allocating the nunbers of stations:
Region I approximately 75 stations
Region H approximately 110 stations
Region HI approximately 120 stations
Region IV approximately 190 stations
Region V approximately 185 stations
Region VI approximately 85 stations
Region VII approximately 55 stations
Region VIII approximately 35 stations
Region IX approximately 95 stations
Region X approximately 50 stations ,
Station siting criteria, parametric coverage, and
sampling frequency for these stations are outlined in
the Basic Water Monitoring Program document. Strict
adherence to the parameter list and the monitoring
frequency is required and full documentation is
expected for each station operated. Stations should
be located by joint State and Regional agreements and
their locations described in basin files maintained by
the Region.
Support to Water Planning and Standards (Toxics Strategy)
Regions will play the critical role in implementing the Toxics
Strategy to meet the requirements of a court ordered settlement agreement.
This agreement identified 65 classes of substances and 21 industrial
categories and established: (1) timetables for developing water quality
criteria for toxic substances; and (2) pretreatment and effluent standards
for substances associated with the industrial categories. Monitoring
information gathered in support of this strategy will be shared with
other offices within and outside of EPA which are investigating toxic
substances in regard to distribution, amounts, and trends in the water
environment. Therefore, the data should be stored in STORET. Support
to the Toxics Strategy is made up of three elements:
Raw Drinking Water Supply Sampling
This is an essential program for determining
distributions and amounts of toxic substances in
stream segments at or near raw drinking water supplies
which may affect human populations. The Regions in
FY78 should collect water samples at water supply
intakes, influenced by actual or potential dischargers
of toxic substances. Data should be placed in STORET.
-------
-23-
Regional offices should work closely with the Office
of Water supply and the Monitoring and Data Support
Division in selecting the water supply intakes to be
assessed and informing the local authorities of the
sampling. Water supplies selected should generally be
those potentially impacted by major industrial or
municipal dischargers of the OWPS list of toxic
substances.
Effluent Monitoring
The Regions should take the lead in providing data to
support the effluent data requirements of the Agency's
Toxic Strategy». Support to this strategy requires
effluent scans be conducted for the priority
substances included in the settlement agreement for a
subset of industries which will then be used to
support the development of effluent guidelines.
Regions or States will be responsible for collecting
samples, conducting these effluent scans, and
reporting these data into STORET while insuring that
quality assurance specifications are met throughout
the entire process.
Regional offices should work closely with the Effluent
Guidelines Division in selecting the facilities to be
sampled and the protocols to be used in preserving and
analyzing the samples whenever feasible so that one
facilities' effluent scan may satisfy both programs'
data needs. It may also be necessary for these two
program offices to physically work together during the
actual sampling process. It is imperative that
Regions participate in the rule making process and
review proposed effluent guidelines as appropriate.
Fish and Shellfish Tissue Sampling
This is an essential program for developing
distribution and trend information on toxic substances
in the water environment. The Regions, based on
Headquarters supplied information, should collect
fish/shellfish tissue samples for analysis of toxic
substances. Areas selected will be those downstream
of actual or potential dischargers of toxic substances
and the data will be used to determine the impact on
aquatic life. Data should be reported in STORET
compatible format.
-------
-24-
Regions should be altered to the possibility that 2-3 manyears of
Regional monitoring and analysis work may be required in support
to the Consent Decree. When required this work will be of the
highest priority and will be so noted. The prospects of judicial
review of the toxics controls are great and our ability to produce
supporting evidence may be critical.
7. Effluent Guidelines Support
Background Information
The Effluent Guidelines Division is primarily responsible for the
development and implementation of guidelines relating to the
abatement and control of effluent discharges. This rulemaking
activity is pursuant to requirements set forth in Sections 301,
304, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
(PL 92-500).
The first major phase of the effluent guidelines rulemaking is
nearly conpleted. BPT (Best Practical Technology), BAT (Best
Available Technology), and NSPS (New Source Performance Standards)
regulations have been promulgated for industrial point source
categories wiifc the exception of final pretreatment standards for
existing industrial sources. The remaining potential work relates
' primarily to promulgating proposed or interim final standards;
defending existing standards; reassessing and repronulgating
remanded regulations or regulations under reconsideration; and
completing rulemaking for the regulations which are in their final
stages of development.
BAT Strategy
The second major phase of the effluent guidelines development has
already begun. The EPA/NRDC Settlement Agreement requirements
include a detailed and firm schedule for developing, proposing,
and issuing guidelines, and also for revising BAT guidelines for
twenty-one specific industrial categories. The revised BAT
guidelines and standards must consider a specific list of priority
pollutants (65 chemicals/chemical groups and more clearly reflect
possible health and environmental effects of the pollutants.
Decisions for determining the BAT effluent limitations must
currently consider not only relating the technical, economic,
and health effects to each other, but in addition, evaluate
which regulatory authority may be the most appropriate for the
control of the pollutants listed within the Settlement Agreement.
In addition, the Settlement Agreement requires standards for NSPS
and Pretreatment regulations to be included with the BAT review
for existing and new sources.
-------
-25-
The overall efforts of the Office of Water Planning and Standards
involved in meeting the court ordered requirements of the Settlement
Agreement is critical to the control of potentially toxic industrial
discharges, and is therefore receiving the highest priority of
attention by the Effluent Guidelines Division.
At this point no definite plans have been made to review BPT,
BAT, or NSPS regulations for those industries not listed in the
Settlement Agreement.
Even though these remaining industries are generally less environ-
mentally threatening, they still contribute to the over-all
degradation of our waterways, and if they are responsible
for discharging wastewater, must be permitted. The appropriate
action for these industries must take into consideration the permit
cycles, the cost effectiveness, and the Agency resources.
Regional Responsibilities
The Effluent Guidelines Division wants the Regional Offices aware
in advance of the tasks to be performed, and the scheduled
completion dates. Regional support must be timely and responsive
to these needs. Particular emphasis is to be given to supporting
the BAT strategy, as required by the EPA/NRDC Settlement Agreement,
and to assist with establishing national effluent limitations,
standards, and guidelines.
In implementing the BAT strategy, the regions should work closely
with the Effluent Guidelines Division and the appropriate
contractors in data collection, sampling, analysis, and data
reporting activities, ffcich of the analysis needed for effluent
sampling is both complex and time consuming, with limited special
technical resources available. In order to assess any reasonable
industry profile, the Agency must utilize all possible data sources
ing")lining industry, other Federal and State agencies, municipalities,
literature, and recognized experts in the field.
The Regional Surveillance and Analysis Divisions should work
closely with the Effluent Guidelines Division in selecting the
facilities to be sampled and the protocols to be used in preserving
and analyzing the samples, whenever feasible, so that one facilities'
effluent scan may satisfy both programs' data needs. It may also
be necessary for these two program offices to physically work
together during the actual sampling process. Assistance will be
necessary in surveying and profiling the industry and in taking
raw and treated effluent samples to determine the ability of the
various technologies needed to remove the specified pollutants
indicated in the Settlement Agreement. This information is
also needed to help the Agency assemble the data required to
characterize an industry by its production methods, processes,
products, equipment, resource and raw materials' requirements,
and wastewater discharges.
-------
-26-
It is imperative that Regions participate in the rule making
process including participation in Working Group meetings
and in the review of technical documents and the proposed
effluent guidelines, as appropriate. All standards should
receive technical and economic review prior to their use in the
issuance of permits. This is to ensure that technical and
economical information are valid. Unless regional personnel
are involved with these particular tasks, permits might be
rewritten and enforced under existing regulations and would
not be consistent with new BAT revisions which are to be
environmentally practicable, cost effective, and appropriate.
The Regions and suggested individuals, as shown on Attachment
#2, are expected to have the lead on support for certain
industrial categories on the 21 identified in the Settlement
Agreement. Also noted on the attachment are the very tight
schedules that have to be met under the Agreement. The
Effluent Guidelines Division wants to have these specific
individual/a which have been identified or others if appropriate,
to be actively involved in, for example, the Working Groups,
and also to be available to assist in the review of the technical
documents. Such review may require occasional travel for which
appropriate Regional funds should be planned. In addition,
further identification of specific individuals who may have
expertise in arty of the industrial categories for which regulations
are being established would be appreciated to assist our efforts
in the Effluent Guidelines Division.
The minimum number of plants necessary to provide a useable data
base will be sampled. There is a strong possibility that, as
unforeseen problems arise, studies for particular industries
may result in conclusions having to be drawn from only marginally
adequate data bases. The Office of Water Planning and Standards
and EGD are aware of this potential problem and are examing
alternatives such as the heavy use of "308" letters which will
assist in iiiproving the data base.
A separate proposal is in the process of being formulated to
establish close coordination between the Effluent Guidelines
Division and Regional Offices, particularly the Enforcement
Division, as EGD begins conducting this industrial data collection
survey.
Responsibility for determining if any plant or company scheduled
to be contacted is involved in an enforcement action on the
regional or state level will be left to the Regional offices.
This effort will preclude redundant requests of industries for
information, and may prevent the Agency from compromising its
position in the event of litigation.
-------
-27-
8. Pretreatment
Background
Sate effluents from industrial and ooimtercial sources adversely
affect publicly-owned treatment works (POIW's) through damage to
equipment, upsetting of treatment processes, and interference with
normal disposal of residual wastes while others pass, untreated,
through PGTW's and into the environment. Pretreatment is the
treatment of these indirect discharges, from industrial sources,
before they enter a PQTW.
Since there are about 50,000 industrial plants in the U.S. which
discharge their wastes into municipal sewer systems, an Agency
pretreatment program will have major impact on both industry and
local sewage treatment authorities.
Activities dealing with the specific standards, guidelines and
policies that will put EPA's pretreatment program into effect are:
o Revision of general regulations establishing
overall pretreatment policy (to be proposed
as 40 CFR 403).
o Development of industry specific standards
under Section 307(b) and (c).
o Publication of pretreatment guidelines
under Section 304(f). '
Since the general regulations incorporate the Agency's overall
policy on pretreatment, their revision has been the focal point for
development of a national pretreatment strategy. Concern was
expressed that the first draft strategy did not provide enough local
flexibility to encourage local assumption of the program. Since
local assumption of pretreatment program is critical for its success,
four different strategy options were developed and included in the
preamble to a revised general pretreatment regulation that was
proposed in the Federal Register on February 2, 1977.
The strategy options deal with the Agency's overall approach to
the control of industrial wastes discharged to sewer systems and
reflect various means to establish and enforce pretreatment
requirements. The options differ, primarily, in the number of
industrial pretreatment standards that the Agency would promulgate
and whether the primary responsibility for enforcing pretreatment
requirements would rest with Federal and State or with local
governments. The Agency is seeking a broad range of views from
the public on the proposed options and is especially interested in
-------
-28-
obtaining the views of industry, and local sewage treatment
authorities. In addition to encouraging written contents on the
options, the Agency has scheduled four public hearings on its
proposals in April of this year.
In compliance with a NBDC/EDF court settlement agreement
(June 7, 1976) the Agency is currently developing technology-based
pretreatment standards for eight industrial categories and plans to
develop standards for 21 industries (covering 65 toxic pollutants)
in the next three years. The eight standards packages currently
under development must be considered interim, prior to selection
of a national strategy.
Pretreatment guidelines, published under Section 304 (f) in
October of 1973 are necessarily tied to the selection of a
national strategy and revision of the general regulations. These
guidelines will be made available to States and municipal authorities
and will provide technical and policy information on how to develop
local pretreatment programs.
Regional Responsibilities
Regional offices should allocate resources to local program
development. Areawide Water Quality Management Planning Agencies
are expected to play a major role in coordinating and developing
successful pretreatment programs as part of their water quality
management activities. Regional offices should initiate actions to
require Section 208*grantees to properly address pretreatment in
plans.
Depending on which of the four proposed pretreatment strategy
options is adopted by the Agency, the Regions should be prepared
to implement a program of pretreatment incentives for one of the
following options: (1) providing funds for development of local
programs, (2) requiring user charges to cover the cost of local
pretreatment programs, (3) requiring as a grant condition for
areas with significant industry that a pretreatment program be
developed, and (4) an increase in the discretionary share of ICR
payments retained by the municipality if the grantee has an
approved pretreatment program.
-------
-29-
9. Municipal Operations and Workforce Planning and Training
The outstanding Municipal Operations Program issue is the con-
tinuing noncompliance of a large percentage of POTWs in meeting
secondary treatment effluent limitations. The performance of a con-
siderable number (up to 2000) of these plants can be improved to
compliance levels through technical assistance for identified O&M
problems and operator training and certification.
The focal point for improving plant performance is at the State
level. Resources for providing consultative technical, and operator
training assistance to the State and municipalities must be developed
and provided by the private sector and educationaVtraining institu-
tions. Federal resources and expertise will be used during the short-
term to fill technical assistance and training gaps where private and
institutional training resources are inadequate or not available to
achieve program objectives.
It is critical that the Regions and States begin to document and
resolve operating problems of existing POTWs. It is also critical
that increased emphasis on O&M needs of new Federally funded plants be
ensured through coordinated implementation of plans of operation, O&M
manual requirements and startup services.
In FY 78 Regional municipal operations activities should include
the following:
o Identify O&M problems on CEI Form T-51,
concentrating on major POTWs, but including
a representative sample of the minor POTWs.
o Track availability and use of private sector
expertise for on-site technical and training
assistance. Encourage and help States provide
onsite assistance and training to fill gaps.
(Mr. Quarles1 1/5/77 Municipal Compliance
Memo.)
o Identify operator training needs, training
program development problems and availability
of training resources in coordination with
State Operator Training Coordination Committees
(see ABC "Brown Book") and the National
Field Research Center, Phase II Survey.
o Coordinate with States in Operator Training
Course delivery.
-------
-30-
o Track effectiveness of PRM's #772 and #773
and O&M manual requirements of new POTWs
through the Construction Grants process.
o Encourage and support State and designated
208 agencies to identify oompliance/O&M
problems in their initial Water Quality
Management Plan.
o Utilize national O&M data file for input to
permits, compliance, Construction Grants,
Water Quality Management, and O&M.
Assistance, training activities, and POTW permit enforcement
activities must be closely planned and coordinated to achieve
effluent quality goals.
The focal point of Workforce Planning and Training is the
development of water pollution control related training capabilities
at the State level. These capabilities include the identification
of staffing and training needs and the development, demonstration,
and distribution of specific training courses or workshops related
to PL 92-500 programs.
States may be delegated certain water pollution control program
responsibilities provided they meet specified requirements.
Indequate staffing and training in State programs, a persistent
problem, must not be allowed to jeopardize the decentralization
policy of PL 92-500.
In FY 78, Regional workforce planning and training activities
will include the following:
o Participate in a pilot effort to systematize,
through MBO/FPRS, Construction Grants/Municipal
Operations staffing and training needs assessment
and development of responsive training programs.
o Develop Regional/State manpower planning
capabilities for Construction Grants and
Municipal Operations as a pilot effort (all
States).
-------
-31-
10. Disaster Assistance
The Regions should review and update Regional disaster response
plans and maintain a capability to respond to emergencies and major
disasters such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and
droughts.
11. Oil and Hazardous Substances Spill Control
The primary thrust of the EPA spills program is the elimination
of spills through an aggressive spill prevention and control effort.
Therefore, high priority must be given to oil spill prevention for
major dischargers and repeat violators (non-transportation related
onshore and offshore facilities). This effort is to be carried out
through field compliance inspections and prompt corrective action
at problem facilities.
The elimination of spills is the primary long-term objective
of the EPA program; therefore, in addition to the EPA oil spill
prevention program, spills involving transportation-related facilities
should be referred to the U.S. Coast Guard for appropriate preventive
actions.
The Regions must continue their oil spill response programs to
minimize the.impact of spills and ensure that removal and disposal
methods are employed in an environmentally safe manner. EPA's
Oil Removal Regulation (40 CFR 111) establishes guidelines for
proper removal actions on inland waters. Response actions become
the highest priority for major or potential major spills which may
significantly impact human health or the environment. In the first
half of FY 78, increased emphasis will be required for hazardous
substances spill response. (Assuming implementating regulations
under Section 311, FWPCA are promulgated in final rulemaking the
last half of FY 77). Two hazardous substances response training
sessions are scheduled for Regional personnel in FY 78.
After promulgation of the key hazardous substances regulation
the National Contingency Plan will require major revision.
Following the publication of the revised National Plan, Subregional,
and/or State plans will need to be revised to be consistent with
the National Plan. The new plans should be completed by the end
of FY 78.
12. Ocean Dumping
Revised Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria became effective
during FY 77 and all FY 78 permit applications should be evaluated
-------
-32-
using the amended regulations. An expanded workload rnay be anticipated
iia the review of Corps of Engineers (COE) permit applications for ocean
disposal of dredged material. Review of these applications for determinations
of the need for ocean dumping and analytical test results of the material
will involve considerably more interchange between EPA, COE and other
Federal, State and local agencies.
The new Section 228 of the Ocean Dumping Regulations- discusses the
criteria for the management of disposal sites for ocean dumping.
Evaluation of dumping activity in accordance with this^new Section will
provide the necessary information for determining the impact at the site
and will be utilized to determine under what conditions dumping should
be continued at a particular site.
The-Mar-ine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,
is the enabling domestic legislation for the International Ocean
Dumping Convention. The Convention requires that an annual report be
submitted by each country describing dumping activity at the dumping
sites. Regional inputs for this report, and for the required Congressional
Annual Report will need to be provided to Headquarters for compilation
and report preparation.
Preparation of Environmental Irtpact Statements for designation
of dumping sites initiated during FY 77 will continue -through FY 78.
Basel ins surveys of the dumping sites will be conducted under Headquarters
contract to acquire environmental data necessary for the environmental
assessment. Regional support for these activities will be needed and
include obtaining information on materials being dumped, quantities,
rates of discharge, and frequency of dumping.
13. Dredged or Fill Material Permits
Regional personnel will continue to assist the Corps of Engineers
in issuance of permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material
under Section 404(b) by reviewing applications for general and
particular permits and making site visits concomitant with such
reviews as appropriate. Under Phase HI, program jurisdiction will be
extended from its present innermost limit of primary tributaries and
main streams, to all inland waters, inclusive of intfastate rivers and
lakes and to some artificially created channels and canals. Final
404 guidelines and Headquarters guidance review completed during
FY 77 will also result in increased Regional review activity due to
some necessary redrafting of incompleted permits to effect more equitable
treatment of both permit applicants and environmental issues. In some
instances, these Regional scientific personnel will be required to
provide the more difficult environmental assessment of potential risks.
of dredge or fill projects to sustain Agency veto of Corps of Engineers
decisions under 404(c).
-------
-33-
14. Technical Studies and Support
Section 314 of EL 92-500 mandates that the Administrator shall
provide financial assistance to States in order to carry out methods
and procedures approved by him to restore the quality of publicly-owned
freshwater lakes. The Congress has appropriated a sum of $38 million
for the clean lakes program. Reducing or eliminating waste sources
may be the only restorative measure that is needed to achieve the
desired level of improvement of certain lakes in which^natural
flushing results in substantial water quality improvement. But, in
-many lakes, particularly those with poor flushing and long detention
periods, in-lake methods and procedures also may be required
before significant water quality improvement will be realized.
This~Is fHe'only Federal statutory program that provides for water
quality restoration of. the inestimable resource value of the
Nation's lakes.
The Regions will need to increase their support for the clean
lakes program as new applications are received and grants are
approved. Presently, 102 applications have been received by the
Agency of which 68 have been awarded or are being considered
favorably. Particularly important are the responsibilities of the
project officer which are currently addressed by the Regional
Offices. Project monitoring under the clean lakes program will be
emphasized in FY 78. Regional requirement for the clean lakes
program are:
o Participation in the identification, review,
and funding decision of new applications.
o Participation as project officers on awarded
grants. ,
o Periodic site visits to awarded projects
(at least all visited annually) with reports
forwarded to CWPS.
o Status reports on the implementation of
awarded project; these could be. the quarterly
progress reports provided to the project
officer by the grantee.
FY 1978 objectives are to conplete the second round of review
and revision of water quality' standards; to modify and add
criteria; to upgrade use cesignat^icns to meet 1983 water quality
goals, where attainable; and to establish a mechanism to implement
the State antidegradaticn policy. At a minimum, water quality
criteria for the toxic substances considered under the 307 toxic
-------
-34-
effluent standards should be included in State water quality
standards.-- High quality waters and those considered to be
outstanding natural resources should be designated and considered
nondegradable under the antidegradation policy. The antidegradation
policy should be revised in accordance with 40 CFR 131.17 and the
Guidelines for State and Areawide Water Quality Management Plans.
Reference to the implementing procedures for the antidegradation
policy should be included in the revised water quality standards.
The mechanisms for reviewing and revising water quality
standards are to be included in the State continuing planning
process. Revised State water quality standards should be
implemented as rapidly as possible in order to be available for
the next round of NPDES permits.
'The Marine Sanitation Device Standards has prompted intense
Congressional and citizen interest. It Is expected that petitions
under Section 312(f)(3) and (4) of the Act will continue to be
received from the States. Regional representatives will continue
to be involved in such petitions and in ascertaining the reasonable
availability of pump-out and treatment facilities for all vessels
for waters specified in such petitions. Continuing close
coordination between the Regional and Headquarters personnel on
each petition on a case-by-case basis will be required for maximum
effectiveness.
Regional representatives will be required to offer technical
assistance to those interested in developing aquaculture projects,
to review applications, and to approve appropriate aquaculture
projects. In addition, such projects so approved must be monitored
to ensure that the receiving environment is afforded appropriate
protection and that the aquaculture project is meeting the
stipulations of the approval-pursuant to the Agency's regulations
addressing such activities.
15. SBA Loan Review
The objective of the Small Business Loan Program is to perform
the necessary technical review, either by the State^or Federal
government, for all loan applications from the Small Business
Administration in an expeditious manner that will not impede
discharger compliance. These' reviews must be completed within 45
days.
By the beginning of FY 1978, several States should be carrying
out SBA loan reviews. Technical review is confined to a determination
of the necessity and adequacy of the proposed construction or
modification, with SBA conducting the review of financial eligibility.
The likely number of applications that will be received nationwide
is directly related to pretreatrent requirsrents imposed as well as
enforcement of the NPDES program. Statss with NPDES permit authority
should be encouraged to assure the responsibility for technical
reviews and should advise snail business with need for loans that
the loan program is available.
-------
ftTIM
Prnte U-itor roUutlon Co:-:
KIJ}iU
-------
s
H
8
REGIONAL PARTICIPATION
Priority/Industry
1. Timber Products Processing
2. Stream Electric Power Plants
3. Leather Tanning 8 Finishing
4. Iron i Steel Manufacturing
5. Petroleum Refining
6. Nonferrous Metals Mfg.
7. Paving & Roofing Materials
8. Paint & Ink Formulation
Printing & Publishing
9. Ore Mining & Dressing
10. Coal Mining
11. Organic Chemicals Mfg.
12. Inorganic Chemicals Mfg.
13. Textile Mills
14. Plastics & Synthetic
Materials
15. Pulp & Paper
16. Rubber Processing
17. Soap 8 Detergents Mfg.
13. Auto & Other Laundries
19. Miscellaneous Chemicals
Adhesives & Sealants
Explosives Mfg.
Gum 1 Wood " .
Hospitals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Photographic Processing
20. Machinery & Mechanical
21. Electroplating
Regulations
Proposed
3/31/78
3/31/78
3/31/78
3/31/78
3/31/78
3/31/78
9/30/78
9/30/7 8
9/30.78
9/30/78
9/30/78
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/79
11
II
II
ll
II
II
11
6/30/79
6/30/79
Regulations
Promulgated
9/30/78
y/ 30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/70
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
12/21/79
12/21/79
12/21/79
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
12/21/79
12/21/79
Potential Regional Involvement
4*. 6, 10
1*. 7
2.3, 4, 5*. 6, 7, 8
2, 4*. 6, NEIC
3, 7, *10
.
ME 1C
10*', NEIC
8*. 10
2, 3, 4, 6*. NEIC
3, 6*
1, 2, 3, 4*
2, 3*. 4, 6, NEIC
1. 3, 4. 10*
2, 4, 6*. NEIC
7*
2*
3, 4, 5, 6*. 7, NEIC, 10
2*. NEIC
5*
. 1*
Tentative Region*/Individual
Participant Identified ' p)
Mike Taimi
John Donne
Jim McDermott
Bob Wooten
Bill Keffer
Art Masse
Don Gipe
Bob Wailines
Joe Davis
John Dehn
Bill Cloward
Walter Lee
Dan Bodien
John Frisco
Leo Reading
Nick Casselano
Paul Fahrenthold
Eric Krables
Bob Bowers
Rich Cavagnero
s
H3
N>
o\
i
(1) The effluent Guidelines Division is requesting the following
resources for each industry be committed by the Regional
Office's .
a) Up to 160 man hours/particepant
b) Associated per diem & travel funds
which may be needed
participant.
-------
-37-
ATTACHMENT 3 Allocation of Construction Grants Funds by State
($, thousands) Allotment Per HR-4877 Allotment Per HR-TT
TOTALS
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
liew Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
' New Jersey
New York-
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Dist.of Columbia
'EGION iv
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
1,000,000
59,290
• 12,195
5,453
27,662
6,742
3,966
3,272
162,304
47,591
105,294
8,923
496
136,129
j,yt3b
37,874
46,698
22,011
21,614
3,966
137,815
35,792
19,929
14,971
7,535
20,722
13,088
14,872 '
211,282 :
b^, Ib 1
21,713
46,897
15,070
55,522
19,929
83,086 "
10,807 .
: 12,493
3,272
13,484
43,030
49,177
1 1,000
12,192
19,830
6,1 4/
4,538,700 '
269,100
55,350
24,750
125,550
30,600
15,000
14,850
736,650
216.000
477.900 ^
40,500
2,250
617,850
lb,UUU
171,900
211,950
99,900
98,100
18.000
625,500
49,500
I6i!,4b0
90,450
67,950
34,200
94,050
59,400
67,500
958,950
236,700
•98,550
212,850
68,400
"252,000
90,450
377,100
49,050
56,700
14;850
61,200
195,300
223,200
49,950 •
55,350
90,000.
27,900
-------
- A a -
ATTACHMENT 3 Allocation of Construction Grants Funds By State (cont.)
REGION VIII 26,176 118,800
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
8,031
3.77?
T.77?
3.77?
5.057
3.77?
36,450
14.R5D
i4.8=;n
14.850
27.950
14.850
REGION IX 102,221 463,950
Arizona 6,345 .18,800
California 82,39"
373.950
Hawaii 6,940 31,500
Nevada 3,272 14,850
American Samoa' 298 • L,350
Tr.TerrYdT PacTlslds. * 1,983 9,000
Guam . 9S2 -. 4,500
REGION X ; 32,520 147,600
Alaska 4.759 21.600
Idaho • _ 4,065 18,450
Oregon " ,g'32.8 H'?9°
Washington- 15,368 69,750
-------
-39-
II. OUTT.nqE OF HEADQCBKi'KHS ACTIVITIES SUPPORTING THE REGIONAL
The following are the key Headquarters activities to
be accomplished in FY 1978 in support of regional operations.
WRTRR
0 Continue to monitor and evaluate Regional, State, and
areawide program 'activities and provide essential
feedback and guidance.
Specific areas of policy and guidance under current
consideration that will effect FY 1978 program operations
require Headquarters to:
0 Provide guidance on future modes and availability of
208 funding at the earliest' feasible date, and
addressed as appropriate in the final operating
guidance prior to October 197-7.
0 Provide policy on 208 Environmental Impact Statements
released in draft, reouiring EIS's or Negative Declarations
on all 208 plans submitted before October 1977. .FY 1978
actions required by the policy adopted will have the
high priority of all other activities needed to
assure successful completion of W£M Phase II planning.
Provide policy on de-designation and delegation of 208 authori-
ties before October 1977 and prior to issuance of the
operating guidance, and addressed in the final guidance as
appropriate. Actions required by the policy adopted
will also have the high priority of all other
activities needed to assure successful completion
of W&i Phase II planning.
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
0 Establish national policy and provide overall guidance
. to Regions on effective program management.
- Revise the priority list guidance to conform with
the extended priority list concept and the use of
.the priority list in program management by April 1973.
Provide detailed guidance to the Regions on priority
list content, the extended priority list concept,
priority list analytical techniques, and quarterly
update procedures by' April 1978 '(PRM to be
issued shortly for FY 1973 program planning process)
-------
-40-
- Develop long range management information system.
- Forecast national obligations and outlays.
- Perform program analysis and evaluation 'to determine
problem areas before they become critical.
Conduct program oversight visits and evaluations.
Develop improved cost guidance for construction grants
planning by December 1977.
Provide training for personnel who evaluate and
approve grants and for public officials and interest
groups who participate in the grant process.
Provide improved UC/ICR training and guidance.
- Provide guidance and policy on EEC program.
Establish national policy and request adequate manpower
resources to insure fiscal and technical program integrity.
- Conduct program integrity oversight visits and
evaluations.
Evaluate and summarize results of value engineering
program.
Complete quality evaluation of 20 facility plans by Sept. 1978.
Improve Step I facility planning
Provide continuing technical assistance to the
Regional Offices.
- Monitor Step 1 completions on a continuous basis. •
Develop additional land acquisition guidance by Sept. 1978,
• I
- Develop model facility plan for medium sized
. cormtOnities by July 1978.
-------
-41-
Conduct FY 1978 Needs Survey
Prepare cost and procedural guidance by October 1977.
Perform State, Regional, and inter-agency liaison.
Supervise contractors who will perform the
majority of the work on the survey.
Provide issue papers and policy options for management
regarding proposed amendments related to the mid-course
correction for P.L. 92-500.
Prepare regulations and guidance to implement new
amendments to P.L. 92-500, if enacted.
Amend construction grants regulations by September •
1978 to provide for pretreatment incentives, and coor-
dinate pretreatment program with 208 planning and en-
forcement.
Survey about 100 facility plans completed since
January 1, 1977, to determine non-Federal costs for
small communities and to determine whether measures
to reduce costs have been fully considered.
Perform quality evaluation of small community costs.
Develop design guidance on cost-effective systems
for small communities by September 1978.
Ensure environmental integrity of program through •
program guidance development to integrate the NEPA
compliance procedures into facility planning early
in the Step 1 phase of the grant award process.
Comply with environmental laws other than NEPA.
Provide assistance to Regions in meeting legal
requirements in an expeditious manner.
Negotiate with other agencies in developing
less burdensome compliance, procedures.
- Support Agency in proposing amendments to
simplify.the requirements of other laws.
As a result of program management oversight and
evaluation initiate required program changes, new
guidance/ regulations or legislative initiatives.
-------
-42-
TO THE STATES
In support of Regional Office efforts in delegating
various certification requirements of the construction
grants program to States capable of conducting such
certification, Headquarters will:
0 Urge States to establish a fee system to take advantage
of 40 CFR 35.913, which makes the cost of conducting
revise and approval activities under a delegation
agreement an eligible project cost, providing the
State can legally charge municipalities a processing
fee (ceiling amount: 1/2 of 1% of State's allotment) .
0 Support passage of "Cleveland-Wright" or similar
legislation allowing expansion of delegation and
. funding for State- operations from existing allotments.
0 Perform resource analysis at the Region and State
£ levels regarding adequacy of current staffing, resource
needs under delegation, and impact of Region/State
division of functions . (A methodology to perform that
analysis will be provided to the Regions) .
WKEER ENFORCEMENT
0 Evaluate proposed State NPDES program approvals.
0 Provide legal support to resolving adjudicatory hearing
requests and 316 Ca) and (b) requests.
0 Issue legal and procedural guidance manos relating to
adjudicatory hearings.
0 Provide legal assistance in preparation of enforcement
referrals under section 309.
0 Provide emergency enforcement response and other
appropriate enforcement actions as required under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
0 Review implementation of Regional and State NPDES
programs for compliance and enforcement.
0 Review Regional implementation of Enforcement Manage-
ment Systems.
0 Evaluate Quarterly Noncompliance Reports received from
Regions and approved States.
-------
-43-
0 Complete the contract which would alternate the review
of Discharge Monitoring Reports (Compliance analysis
system - CAS).
0 linplement the Discharge Monitoring Report Quality
Assurance Program.
0 Complete review and revision of the Compliance Evalua-
tion Inspection Manual.
PERMIT ISSUANCE
0 Permit Reissuance
Support to the Regions and NPDES States will be furnished by
Headquarters through the development of regulations and policy
guidance, liaison with other Headquarters elements, and on-site
technical and administrative assistance to draft and issue proble-
matic permits. The Municipal staff will coordinate with other
program elements, e.g., Construction Grants, Water Planning,
Municipal Technology Divisions, etc., when their actions may have
an impact on municipal permit issuance. Industrial permits staff
will assist in interpretation of effluent guidelines; determination
of appropriate permit conditions for non-standard permits; and
participate in working groups formed to address specific questions
on industrial dischargers.
0 NPDES Program Reviews
Headquarters will review EPA Regional programs and the pre-
paration of recommendations for corrective action or improved
procedures. Administration of the NPDES program reviews, including
Regional reviews of NPDES States to assure national uniformity is
included.
0 Adversary Proceedings Support
Headquarters assistance will be provided for adjudicatory
hearings that cannot be resolved within the Region or that may have
national importance. The staff will either provide or contract out
for technical services that may be beyond the capabilities of the
Regional offices. They will review requests by a single industry
or similar industries to determine if consolidation would be appro-
priate. Section 301(c) economic appeals having a national impact
or unique circumstances would be reviewed by the staff and assistance
would be given to the Regions in the form of policy guidance.
-------
-44-
0 Pretreatment Identifications, Review and Notifications
Staff assistance will be in the form of liaison with other
program elements, technical assistance and assurance of national
uniformity. Revisions and/or promulgation of pretreatment standards
and regulations will be coordinated ly the staff to provide the
Regions with timely information regarding changes in policy.
0 Section 316" Technical Determinations
The primary role of the Headquarters staff is the preparation
and updating of technical manuals and coordination with other Federal
agencies, particularly Department of Interior and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. The staff serves as a point of contact for Regional
personnel when there is an inquiry that should be answered by or
coordinated with other program elements within the Agency. Regions
are assisted in the review of unique or controversial variance requests.
0 Issuance of New Source Permits and EIA Review
The staff participates in the development of regulations and
policy and provides assistance to the Regions and NPDES States in
the interpretation and implementaton of Agency directives and the
maintenance of a national inventory.
0 Section 403 Permit Issuance and Section 404 Reviews
The primary role of Headquarters is coordination with other
program elements of Federal and State agencies. The staff will
participate in the preparation of regulations, policy and guidance.
Technical assistance will be provided when a determination that will
have a national impact must be made. •
0 Agriculture, Silviculture and Storm Sewer Permits
Headquarters' staff prepares regulations and implements policy
for agricultural permits, and general permits for agriculture, silvi-
culture and storm sewers. Support is also provided in the form of
technical assistance, policy implementation guidance, assistance in
the conduct of public hearings and interagency coordination.
0 Section 208 Areawide Planning Coordination
The primary role of the Headquarters' staff is to assure that
the regulations, policy and guidance issued by areawide planning
and affected program elements are coordinated with regard to the
NPDES program. The staff will also issue guidance for Regions/States
and planning agencies to assure that 208 plan outputs and permits
are compatible.. Technical assistance will be provided if plans and
permits cannot be reconciled.
-------
-45-
WflTER MONITORING
0 Analyze and publish. Section 305 (bl reports in May, 19.77 and
March. 1978.
0 Publish, the Administrator's water quality report in October, 1977.
0 Review Section 130/131 water quality management plans.
0 Operate and maintain STORET.
0 Prepare annual research needs report for ORD on monitoring in
March, 1977.
0 Develop for Regions by July 30, 1977, and thereafter, candidate
lists of industries, stream segments, and fish/shellfish sampling
sites to be sampled for priority pollutants.
0 Publish a compliance sampling inspections manual.
0 Develop and document computerized procedures for storing and
retrieving intensive survey data in STORET.
EFFLUENT
Coordination with all components of EPA. *
Provide technical assistance to Regions and States
on the applicability of the guidelines and standards
to the NPDES Permit Program.
Development of final regulations for 21 industries identified
in the Settlement Agreement and final revision of BAT to be
published in the Federal Register, from Septanber, 1978 to
December, 1979.
Pretreatment
Continue development of technology-based pre-
treatment standards for the 21 industries (covering
65 toxic pollutants) mentioned in the-NRDC/EDF Court
Settlement Agreement.
Consider all written comment and testimony
submitted by the public on the proposed general pre-
treatment regulations published February 2, 1977
in the Federal Register.
- Select national strategy, based on public connent
and testimony, and incorporate chosen strategy in
revised general pretreatznent regulations.
-------
-46-
Pronulgate general pretreatment regulaticns
(40 CFR Part 403}.
Gain local cooperation through contact with a
limited number of States and urban areas with the
most significant pretreatinent problems and highest
probability of success.
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS AND WORKFORCE PLANNING AND TRAINING
0 Provide guidance to Regions and States for:
Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) program
implementation and resolving of treatment plant
compliance problems.
PRM #77-2, #77-3 and O&M manuals, cost effectiver
ness.
Designated 208 Agencies and State Agencies'
development of POTW Compliance and O&M problems in
inventories in the initial phase of the Water Quality
Management Plans by April 1978.
Operator training and certification program
development (through coordination with the National
Operator Training Coordinating Committee and Associated
Boards of Certification) and for the Survey of
Operator Training resources through coordination
with the National Field Research Center Phase II Survey.
Pilot effort to systematize, through MOB/FPRS,
Construction Grants/municipal Operations staffing and
training needs assessment and development of responsive
training programs by August 1978.
0 Develop job related operator training curricula and
certification examinations CGrants with. Charles County
Community College (CCCC) and Associated Boards of
Certification!.
0 Develop training courses and materials and distribute
to the Regions (Instructional Resource Information
System, National Training and Operational Technology
Center!.
0 Conduct and assist Regions/States to conduct on-site
training of StateAocal POIW personnel in process
control techniques.
-------
-47-
0 Coordinate Headquarters and Regional Program activities
towards identification of staffing and training needs
for all P.L. 92-500. Programs and the development of
responsive training programs.
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
0 Revise and update EPA disaster assistance planning
manual by November 1977.
0 Prepare guidance documents for use by Regions in
" preparing EPA Regional disaster operations manuals by Mar. 1973
0 Provide disaster assistance coordination at Headquarters
level of emergencies and major disasters.
OIL AND HAZARDOUS SPTT.T.S CONTROL
0 Promulgate final Regulations for Non-Harmful Quantities
of Oil for Vessels Only [Section 311 (b) (3) (B)] by Nov. 1977.
0 Complete Rationale and Development Document for Other
Source Categories of Non-Harmful Quantities of Oil
[Section 311(b) (3) (B)] by March 1978.
0 Complete Implementation Guidelines for EPA Hazardous
Substances Spill Response Program after xi.S. designation.
0 Promulgate proposed rules for first set of hazardous
substances prevention regulations after the hazardous
substances designation after H.S. designation.
t
0 Develop and' schedule two hazardous substances' field
response training sessions of two week duration for
on-scene coordinators by November-December 1977.
0 Provide mechanism for environmental assessment and
aerial photo mapping of significant spills.
• I
0 Conduct multi-regional program meeting by November 1977.
OCEAN DUMPING.
0 Revise criteria for trace contaminants in order to be
consistent with the London Dumping Convention'by June 1978.
0 Initiate baseline surveys of dumpsites (contract started
in FY 1977) ..
-------
-48-
0 Publish criteria for ocean incineration by June 1978.
0 Conduct multi-regional meeting.by October 1977.
0 Prepare regional guidance on conduct of bioassays for
municipal/industrial waste and dredge material by April 1978.
0 Submit Annual Report to the Congress by .March 1978.
0 Submit Annual Report to IMCO by March 1978.
TECHNICAL STUDIES AND 'SUPPORT
0 Coordinate the review and approval or disapproval of
grant applications for Federa'l assistance under the
clean lakes program (Section 314). Provide technical
advisory assistance to the Regions as requested during
the implementation of grant projects.
0 Provide review and guidance on all' proposed water
quality standards prior to Regional approval. Promul-
gate water quality standards or portions thereof at
the recommendation of the Region.
0 Develop the strategy and implsnenting procedures for
paragraph 12 of the Settlement Agreement.
-------
-49-
III. PROGRAM 'PRIORITIES'
This section of the FY 1978 Water Quality Programs guidance
sets the priorities that the' States and Regional Offices must be
guided by to effectively implement the Agency's strategy and
priorities during FY 1978.
As in the FY 1977 guidance, national water quality program
priorities for State and Regional Office programs have been grouped
into three broad categories. The order in which programs and parts
of programs are listed within each of the broad categories should
not be interpreted as any indication of priorities within each
category.
Highest^Priority National Water Quality Programs for State and
Regional Office Implementation are State and Regional water quality
management, including the 208 program; management of the municipal
construction program; delegations to States; major permits issuance
and enforcement actions; iinplementation of the Basic Water Monitoring
Program; Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement relating to major
dischargers under NPDES; and monitoring support to the toxics strategy.
Second -Priority National Water Quality Programs include non-NPDES
water enforcement; major and minor permit Issuance; Municipal Opera-
tions and Workforce Planning and Training; Disaster Assistance, Oil
and Hazardous Spill Response and Contingency planning; Oil and
Hazardous Spill Prevention and Control programs; effluent guidelines
and pretreatxnent support; Ocean site KES and Ocean Dumping Permits;
Dredged or Fill Materials Discharge Permits; and related aspects of
water monitoring.
Third National Priorities are for issuance of other than
industrial and municipal permits; advertisement of the SEA Loan
programs; and aguaculture. These priorities are listed in greater
detail below.
FY 1978 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAM PRIORITIES
First Priority National Water Program Areas
0 Water Quality Management
The highest priorities addressed in the Water Quality Manage-
ment program narrative are to:
— Ensure completion of State and areawide water quality
management plans, meeting all requirements of 40 CFR
131.11, and incorporating all early outputs in time
to meet Phase II dpadl jnes for submission of approvable
plans.
-------
-50-
—' Ensure that States maintain active coordination and
management roles in State and areawide Phase II plan
development, and in the designation and establishment
of State, areawide, and local management agencies with
necessary authorities; and provide for Regional
monitoring of the operations of those agencies.
— Ensure that each State reviews its Continuing Planning
Process (CPP) and revises it as necessary; and that
the revised CPP includes the State Strategy and
State/EPA Agreement, and reflects an adequate plan
for the implementation of the State's anti-degradation
policy based on completed VQS review and revision.
— Ensure that plan revisions needed under conditional
approval or disapproval actions are obtained through
withholding of funds or other means as required in
individual cases.
These priorities will be monitored by the Headquarters evalua-
tion group through the use of output measures in the formal system,
reporting on profiles milestones, conduct of mid-year reviews, and
other means, as described in the Headquarters activities section of
this guidance.
0 Municipal Construction Program 'Management
The major thrust of the FY 1978 construction grants program
will be to ensure sound effective management through emphasis on
the following objectives:
— achieve obligation and outlay of funds in accordance with
targets.
— institute long range project planning through priority
List management and use of Regional Construction Grants
Management Information System.
— ensure cost-effective, environmentally sound projects
through efficient "front end" management.
provide post award management to ensure fiscal, technical
and operational integrity of projects under construction.
— develop a coordinated strategy among various construction
grants related activities.
-------
-51-
0 Delegation to the States of Construction Grants Certification
Requirements
It. is EPA policy to encourage delegation to the States of as
many certification requirements as possible, within existing
regulations,. commensurate with good program management.
— maximize delegation agreements under existing regulations
and. State capabilities*
— develop with the State a plan to increase staffing and
offer training to encourage delegation over time.
— assess- with each State the delegation time and scope under
proposed legislation.
0 Water Enforcement
rr Vigorous enforcement action against major permittees
who have failed to complete and put in operation
facilities by July 1, 1977, and against POIWs with
permit schedule violations.
— Resolution of pending major adjudicatory hearing
requests in those Regions where a backlog in requests
remains a problem.
— Vigorous enforcement action against major permittees
who have completed facilities but fail to achieve
final permit effluent limitations.
— Approval of State NPDES program and increase in State
participation in the NPDES program.
0 Permit Issuance
— Continue work to encourage transfer of NPDES programs
to the States.
— Timely reissuance of all expiring major industrial permits
to include BAT.effluent limitations, especially BAT for
toxics, where applicable.
— Review and issue major new source permits.
— Obtain information on status of national permit issuance
and permitting activities.
— Review individual Regional and State permit programs.
-------
-52-
— Timely reissuance of major municipal permits to include
BFWTT requirements.
— Resolve all technical issues for pending adjudicatory
hearings and effluent guidelines variance requests for
major industrial permits, and prepare determinations
regarding technical and economic merits of section 301(c)
appeals for -major industrial permits.
Water Monitoring
— Quality assurance programs in the States and Regions.
— Implementation of the Basic Water Monitoring Program
in coordination with the States.
Assess presence 'and concentration of toxic and hazardous
substances including effluent analysis, fish and shell-
fish tissue analyses, and raw water supply segment
analyses.
— AND
Compliance monitoring by the States and Regions to
support, the Office of Enforcement. This includes inspec-
tions of municipal and non-ntunicipal facilities with and
without effluent sampling.
Priority National 'Water 'Program Areas
Water 'Enfdrcaiaent
— Non^-NPDES enforcenfir.t.
Permit Issuance
— Complete reviews and issue determinations for 316(a)
and (b) requests from major permittees for alternative
thermal limitations or cooling water intake impacts.
— Assure that permits to be issued, reissued or modified
do not conflict with approved section 208 areawide
waste management plan outputs.
— Assist in the implementation of promulgated pretreat-
ment regulations and guidelines.
— Review and issue miner new source permits.
-------
-53-
0 ' Municipal Operations 'and Work. Force Planning and Training
— Enprove the performance of new and existing POTWs by
stimulating, supporting/ and assisting State, local and
private sector action on identified O&M related programs.
— Support effective decentralization of PL 92-500 mandated
programs to the States through program related training
of available State manpower.
— Develop systematic approach to identify related staffing
and training needs and prepare responsive training plans
for priority EL 92-500 programs.
0 Disaster Assistance
Maintain capability to respond to emergencies and major disasters
such as floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. When such an
emergency arises, response becomes the highest priority.
0 Oil and Hazardous Spills
Respond to major and moderate spills and maintain updated
contingency plans. When spills occur that will significantly impact
human health or the environment, response becomes the highest
priority. Aggressive spill prevention corrective action through
compliance inspections of Nori-Transportation Related facilities
should be incorporated into the final phase of an emergency response
action.
0 Prevention of Spills of Oil and Hazardous Substances
Conduct spill prevention compliance inspections and review
amendments to prevention plans. Emphasis should be placed on
problem facilities.
0 Effluent Gui<3«?Tines Support
— BAT Strategy
By Settlement Agreement, the Agency is required to
repromulgate revised regulations for 21 industries by
December 1979. The impact of the revised regulations
will allow the Agency to comply with the court order
resulting from the suit brought by environmental groups
and as well as comply with the Act to update the regu-
lations once every five years.
-------
-54-
Industries Covered by 'Interim Final Regulations
and Under Court Prefer
The 15 industries covered by interim final regulations
and the 3 industries covered by proposed regulations are
all under court ordered deadlines and must be promulgated
as scheduled. Again, if any of the regulations are not
promulgated as stipulated by the U.S. District Court, the
Agency will be in violation of court ordered deadlines
and could conceivably risk a contempt of court citation.
The absence of these promulgated regulations would have
a substantial impact on the NPDES Program as they would
need additional time and resources to write case by case
NPDES Permits and handle additional adjudicatory hearings.
— Litigation Responses
*
The litigations for the Group I and II industrial regula-
tions are in response to lawsuits filed on our regulations.
Failure to respond properly to these lawsuits would result
in rsnands by the courts and the negation of all efforts
to produce these regulations. An effort must be directed
to increase the quality of litigation responses to minimize
future remands.
Service
This effort is designed to carry out the work necessary
to repromulgate regulations that are remanded by the
court. The failure to repromulgate regulations results
in incomplete regulations and may result in reopening
existing NPDES permits based on the promulgated regulations.
Timely repromulgation of remands will prevent adjudicatory
reviews of these individual permits.
— Industries Remaining But Not Covered by Court Order
In compliance with PL 92-500, the Agency is committed
to complete regulations not covered under the Court
ordered deadlines and revise all. of the regulations at
least once every five years . . Not promulgating these
regulations could conceivably invite lawsuits requiring
the Agency to complete regulations by 1981-1982.
— 'Pretreatment Standards
The Agency will continue the development of the pretreat-
ment standards for those industrial categories currently
under the Settlement Agreement. The program has no other
option because not promulgating the standards as scheduled
would violate the court ordered deadlines.
-------
-55-
0 Pretreatment
— Allocate resources to local program development.
— Initiate actions to require Section 208 grantees to
properly address pretreatxnent in their plans.
— Depending on pretreatment strategy option selected by
Agency, prepare to implement one or more of the following
incentive options:
Provide 201 or 208 funds for development of local
programs.
Require user charges to cover the operating cost
of local pretreatment programs.
Require, as 201 grant condition for areas with signi-
• ficant industry, that a pretrea-tment program be
developed.
Increase discretionary share of ICR payments re-
tained by the municipality if grantee has approved
pretreatment program.
° Ocean Dumping
Review of applications and issuance of ocean dumping permits,
including permits for emergency situations; conduct of baseline surveys
and preparation of environmental assessments of disposal sites.
° Permits for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Materials
— Provide coordination and guidance to Regional review of
404 permits.
— Develop guidance for Regional 404(c) actions, if compliance
monitoring and enforcenent are conducted (not presently
planned).
Third Priority National Water Program Areas
0 Permit Issuance
— Issue permits for existing coal mines, and offshore oil
and gas operaticr.3.
— Issue permits tc Large agriculture, silviculture and
storm sewer di^c
-------
-56-
— Issue or reissue remaining minor permits to the extent
that resources allow for this activity.
NOTE: Pending legal conclusions on the applicability of the
Administrative Procedures Act to the extension of a
permit beyond its expiration date without formal
reissuance/ a higher priority may be given to first
round minor permits than expiring minors.
SBA Loan Program
Aguaculture
— Review and consider applications.
— Award or deny permits.
-------
-57-
IV. ORD Multimedia Technical Support
to the
Water Program and Regional Office
ORD technical support and technical assistance will experience
about a 10% reduction in FY 1978 over FY 1977 as a result of direct
reductions (5%), added responsibilities,, and inflation (5%).
The FY 1978 Carter budget provides for a slightly reduced level
of effort in the ORD technical support category. Water funding will
essentially remain at the FY 77 level. Interdisciplinary research,
however, has been reduced by eight positions.
The ORD position ceiling overall was held to the FY 1977 level,
with a direction to reprogram 37 positions to toxics, water supply,
and the Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) from other program areas. The
combination of adding new responsibilities for TSCA and RCRA with no
position increase will result in less manhours being available for
all inhouse activities including technical assistance.
In implementing the technical support and assistance function,
ORD will continue to try to be fully responsive to those'requests for
technical assistance which depend on:
1. Uniqueness of ORD expertise or equipment.
' 2. Urgency of request requiring Agency action.
All other requests will be handled on the basis of availability of
manpower or equipment.
/
-------
-58-
In addition to the continuation of technical services, the
following major research outputs directly relating to the water
quality program are anticipated for delivery sometime during
FY 1978:
• . Municipal h'astswater
- State-of-the-art for handling Phosphorus
laden sludges. 6/78
- Process evaluation of pressure and diaphragm
filter presses high efficiency dewatering. 9/78
- State-of-the-art report on transportation modes,
application methods, and site management and
monitoring when applying sludge to land. 11/78
- Report on alternate bulking agents for composting. 9/78
- Report on stripmine reclamation in Midwest. 3/78
- National Symposium on Disinfection alternative
technology state-of-the-art. 9/78
- Preliminary reports on on-site systems. 2/73'
- Pressure sewer system technology report. 12/77
- Vacuum sewer system technolgoy report. 12/77
- Publication of Soil Treatment Design Manual. 9/77
- Publication of Effects of Long-term Operation
of Soil Treatment Systems. 11/77
- Report on Socio-economic-political-legal
aspects of Soil Treatment System. 12/77
- Complete and report full scale field
investigation of screening/dissolved air
flotation treatment of combined sewer
overflows. (Racooe, WI.) 5/77
- Complete and report full scale field
investigation of physical treatment (swirl
and fine screens) and high rate disinfection
of combined sewer overflows.
(Onondaga County, N.Y.) 12/77
-------
-59-
Complete characterization of residual sludges
from combined sewer overflow treatment and
evaluate alternative CSO sludge treatment
processes. 5/77
Complete the state-of-the-art update on
storm and combined sewer overflow management/
treatment and a planning guide for assessment
of stormwater pollution. 8/77
Report on epidemiological study of an
activated sludge waste water treatment plant
and neighboring population. 10/78
Determination of the potential of contaminants
in sludge to enter human food chain. 9/79
Predictive health effects model for marine
recreational waters. 12/80
Industrial Guideline/Standards
- Improved instrumentation for volatile organic
analysis will be reported. 10/77
- Report on the use of Plasma Emission Optical
Spectroscopy for multi-element analysis. 10/77
- Preliminary assessment of the occurrence of the
65 consent decree pollutants in the petroleum
refining .-industry. 12/77
(i
- Preliminary assessment of the applicability of
carbon petroleum refinning wastewaters. 12/77
- Development of biological simulation monitor
for toxicity alert in combined industrial
municipal treatment works. 12/77
- Sampling and analysis of the textile industry in
support of court ordered actions. 6/77
- Sampling pi air* and sampling/analysis of the organic
chemical industries. 12/77
-------
-60-
- Treatment and control of petrochemical manufacturing
wastewaters (chlorinated solvents and pesticide
precursors). 5/77
- Engining evaluation for demonstration of chloralysis
conversion facility for chloro-carbon residues. 6/77
- Demonstration of reductive degradation control
technology for selected pesticide manufacturing
wastewaters. 3/78
- Determine safe concentrations of 20 industrial
effluents using cough-response system. 9/77
- Bioassay of mixed stream effluents. 1/73
208 and Non-point Sources
- Final report and users manual containing a comprehensive
analysis procedure (employing mathematical models)
applicable to the estimation of point and non-point
water pollution problems on a basin-wide scale. ]Q/77
- Users manual for automated parameter estimation and
associated data bases for in-stream processes, for
use with above models. 10/77
- Users manual for an automated non-point source
leading function data base, for use in estimating
NPS pollution contributions. 10/77
- Areawide assessment proceudres manual containing
detailed state-of-the-art planning techniques
oriented toward "208" agencies. 4/77
- Manual for planners/decision makers to evaluate
runoff potential from land application of animal
wastes at rates based on optimum crop production. 6/77
- Development of design and management models for
containment and land application of animal wastes. 8/77
- Manual on cost-effective management systems for
wastes from small livestock production facilities. 8/77
- Development of guidelines .for control of nitrates
from irrigated crop production. 9/77
- Recommendations for best management practices to
control salinity from irrigated crop production
in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 9/77
-------
-61-
- User Manual outlining a methodology for evaluation
of the cost-effectiveness of alternative control
strategies (i.e., BMP's) for forestry non-point ^__
sources of sediment. 5/77
- Economic Evaluation of alternative implementation
strategies'for control of agricultural non-point
sources of sediment and nutrients for nonirrigated
crop production. 6/77
- Assessment of the effectiveness of currently recommended
soil and water conservation practices for water pollution
control in nonirrigated crop production. 9/77
- A one-State (Georgia) assessment of the environmental
impact of placing submariginal lands into crop
production, including technical and socioeconomic
aspects, with methodology for making similar assessment
in other States and regions. 12/77
- Manuals of practice for mining operations — premine
planning, operating mine control and abandment mine
close down. 6/77
Oil and Hazardous Substances
- Methods for antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury,
PCB's selenium. 12/78
- Manual of practice for evaluating on shore input of
off-shore facilities. 12/77
NPDES Permits
•» *.
- Reports for use in permit evaluations by State, Regional
and COE personnel for dredge spoil disposal and ocean
outfalls. 9/77 - 12/78
Quality Assurance
- Validated measurement method for the analysis of pesticides
in municipal and industrial wastewater. 9/78
- Validated measurement methods for trace metals and polychlor-
inated biphenyls in support o*f the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 9/79
- Alternate test procedures and equivalent measurement
methods as required to support the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit program. 12/77
- Quality control reference samples for municipal, industrial,
and ocean disposal wastes to include nutrients, trace
metals, mineral demands, cyanides, phenolics, polychlorinated •
biphenyls, beryllium, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
organic-N, pesticides, organic-P pesticides, LAS, and NTA. 9/78 and
as requested
-------
-62-
- Performance evaluation samples for tcxaphene chlorophenols,
volatile organics, polynuclear aromatics, Kepone, and
-samples in the mass spectral search system. 9/78
- Performance evaluation reports for Regional, State, and other
laboratories analyzing water and wastewater samples. 12/77
- Quality control guides for sampling water and wastewater. 9/78
- Reports on evaluation and performance requirements for
automatic sampling and monitoring instrumentation to include
sample acquisition and pretreatment systems, Delta Scientific
TOC and total phosphorus systems, Teledyne oil in water
monitoring, Stevens flow meter, a sigmamotor flow meter,
and the N-Con automatic smapler. 9/78" and as available
- Expanded mass spectral search system for organic pollutant
identification to include user costs for computer time,
telecommunications costs, and general improvements in the
system with respect to its completeness, efficiency, and
accurancy. 12/78
- Assistance to the Regions in evaluating laboratories and
correcting deficiencies. 10/77
Measurement Techniques
- Laser fluorosensor for monitoring water quality by measurement
of surface water chlorophyll a_ and organic pollutants. 9/78
- Remote sensing multispectral scanner digital system for
environmental monitoring of: non-point sources of pollution
in accordance with 208 categories; and water quality parameters
such as temperature, turbidity, sedimentation, etc. 12/78
- Remote monitoring wetlands project so that a dollar value can
be geographically put on these areas. 9/78
- Photointerpretation keys for monitoring harbor pollution; S02
effects on vegtation; and leachate contamination. 12/78
- Multimedia monitoring system—source through pathway to critical
receptor of toxic substances, carcinogens, and hazardous
materials. 9/78
- Deployable waterborne monitoring packages capable of unattended
monitoring of turbidity and dissolved oxygen. 7/78
-------
-63- ;
Analytical methods and instrumentation to cost effectively
satisfy requirement for legally defensible data through
automation of AAS, GC/MS, EDX fluorescence spectrometer
and optical emission spectrometer. 9/78 for at least one laboratory
Methods for PCB's, phenois, benzidine, halomethanes, vinyl
chloride, chlorinated ethanes and ethylenes, kepone, Biological
Methods Manual, Microbiological Methods Manual. 9/73 and as available
-------
-64-
V. REGIONAL COMMITMENTS
Units
T = Regional Total
ByS = State by State
ByAS = Approved States
E = EPA only
ST = State only
E+ST = EPA and State (separately)
I.E. WRIER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Outputs
Frequency
Q = Quarterly
SA = Semi-Annually
A = Annually
Units
A. No. of Phase II 208 plans received
with State certification and given final
or conditional approval by the Regional
Administrator. T
B. No. of prospective 208 outputs for
which implementation will be initiated.
(In order to avoid duplicative reporting
requirements this data will be entered
via GIGS according to instructions forth-
coming in a 208 policy (SAM) memorandum
regarding the 208 agency profiles.) ' ByS
Activity Indicators
1. No. of areawide agencies awarded
continuation and/or extension grants. T
2. No. of designated Federal, State,
areawide, and local management agencies
approved by EPA. T
3. Number of approved _regula±.ory
programs.
Freer. ' Start Level
Q
Q
Q
SA
SA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.B. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
Outputs
A. No. of new Step 1 Awards.
B. No. of new Step 2 Awards.
C. No. of new Step 3 Awards.
D. Total Estiinated Obligations.
Units 'Freg. Start Level
ByS Q No
ByS Q. No
ByS Q No
ByS Q No
-------
-65-
E. No. of Step 1 projects corpleted. ByS Q No
F. No. of Step 2 projects completed. ByS Q No
G. No. of Step 3 projects completed. ByS Q No
H. Total PL 92-500 Projected Outlays. T Q No
NOTE: The output (xmnrbnents are to be developed based on the
balance of existing funds from Title III of the Public
Works Employment Act. (PL 94-369), the anticipated $1 billion
supplemental appropriation in FY 1977, and the planned $4.5
billion appropriation in FY 1978. The $5.5 billion in expected
new funds are assumed to be alloted per Attachment 3.
The output cotrmitinents for new awards and total estimated
obligations quarter are to be derived from a .project-by-project
buildup frcm the approved priority list.
3. B. WSTER ENFORCEMENT
Units
Non-Municipal Municipal Start
Outputs (Major) (Major) Freer. Level
A.- B. No of facilities
which have completed con-
struction but are violating
final effluent limitations. T T Q Yes
C.- D. No. of facilities in
violation of permit compliance
schedules. T T Q Yes
E.- H. Average response time
to violations. E+ST E+ST Q Yes
I. No. of adjudicatory hearing
requests which are unresolved
six months from date of request. E (municipal and Q Yes
non-municipal.)
-------
-66-
J.- K. Notices of Violations,. ByAS
L.- M. Administrative Orders. E
N.- 0. 309 Referrals. E
Activity Indicators
1 .- 2. No. of NPDES violations
referred by State to State
Attorney Generals. ByS
ByAS
E
E
Q
Q
Q
No
No
No
ByS
Q
No
4. B. PERMIT 'ISSUANCE
Outputs
A.- D. No. of permits
issued or reissued.
Activity Indicators
1.- 4. No. of permits
issued and in effect.
5.- 8. No. of dis-
chargers identified
that must have a
permit.
Units
Non-Municipal Municipal
Major' Minor Major' Minor
ByS ByS ByS ByS
ByS ByS
ByS ByS
. ByS ByS ByS ByS
Freg.
Q
SA
SA
Start
Level
No
Yes
Yes
5.5. WATER HDNTTORING (I)
Outputs
A. No. of State laboratories meeting
the minimal quality assurance require^
ments. ' . "•
«*..
B. No. of discharges for which the
Regions will determine the presence
and concentrations of toxic and
hazardous substances in their
effluents.
C. No. of stream segments where the
Regions will analyze fish and shellfish
tissues to assess bio-accumulation of
toxic or hazardous substances.
Units Freq. ' Start Level
SA
SA
No
No
No
-------
-67-
D. No. of raw water supplies that
the Regions will assess to determine
the presence and concentrations of
toxic or hazardous substances. E SA No
6. WRIER MDNITORING (II)
Outputs Units *• Freq. Start Level
A.- B. No. of Compliance Evaluation
inspections for major non-municipal
facilities. • E+ST SA .-No
C.- D. No. of Compliance Evaluation
inspections for major municipal
facilities. E+ST 5 A No
E.- P». No. of Sampling Inspections
for major non-municipal facilities. E+ST SA No
G.- H. No. of Sampling Inspections
for major municipal facilities. E+ST SA No
7. B .MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS AND WORK FOPCE PLfiNNING AND TRAINING
Outputs • ' Units Freq. Start Level
A. No. of POTWs brought into comoliance
with interim or final effluent limits
through technical or training assis- T Q No
tance.
8.B . OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Activity Indicators • Units Freq. Start Level
1. No. of spills* requiring removal
action by EPA. T SA Yes
2. No. of spill* removal actions
monitored by EPA. . T SA Yes
*•
3. No. of spills requiring environ-
mental damage assessment studies. T SA Yes
* Relating to either oil or hazardous substances.
-------
-68-
9 . B .DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL DISCHARGE 'PERMITS
Outputs . ' Units Freq.' Start Level
A. No. of permits-reviewed. E Q Yes
-------
-69-
VI. DISCUSSION OF DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO REGIONAL COMMITMENTS
l.B. WKTER QUALITY MSNAGEMENT
Output A. Phase H 208 plans are conpleted plans as required
to be submitted by Novsnber 1, 1978, or earlier, depending upon
dates of grant awards and start of planning/ unless specifically
referred to as p^T"*"1' a 1 plans.
Output B. "Initiation of implementation" will be counted when
"actual completion" of either 208 agency profile implementation mile-
stone f 10 (adoption of selected Reg. , Inst. , Fin. Programs) , or $11
(mgmt. agencies operational)' , has been reported to the Water Planning
Division, Headquarters. Carmitments will be counted based on "original
projection" dates in the profiles, unless a revised "current pro-
jection" has been provided by the Region. A separate "prospective
output" for each agency will be counted for each problan category
identified in the profiles when implementation milestones are
committed to or reported as completed. (Handling of early outputs
and elimination of any multiple counting due to Statewide imple-
mentation milestones being counted also as individual areawide
agency milestones will be addressed in a forthcoming 208 policy
(SAM) memorandum regarding the 208 agency profiles.)
2.B. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION
The following schedule summarizes significant dates related to
the development and approval of FY 1978 construction grants output
cuiinitments ;
June 1, 1977 - Preliminary construction
grants fundable and extended
project priority lists submitted
to Regional Offices. (§35. 563 (a)) .
June 15, 1977 - Draft State 106 plans (ex-
cluding preliminary construc-
tion grants fundable and
extended project priority
lists) submitted to Regional
Offices. (§35. 562 (a)).
July 1, 1977 - Final construction grants
fundable and extended project
priority lists submitted to
Regional Offices . (§35 . 563 (b) ) .
August 1, 1977 - Final State 106 plans (excluding
construction grants project
priority lists) submitted to
Regional Of f ices (§35. 562 (b)) .
August 1, 1977 - Approval of final construction
grants project priority lists
(fundable portion only) by
Regional Administrator (§35. 566 (b)) .
-------
-70-
August 15, 1977 -
September 30, 1977 -
October 15, 1977 -
October 31, 1977 -
Final construction grants out-
put commitments submitted to
Headquarters by Regional Offices.
TToa^gi^-r+'AT'g' conditional
approval of output cuuuitments
pending final end of year figures.
Revisions to construction
grants ocmmitments based on
actual end of FY 1977 experience
.and new funding legislation (if
different from assumptions)
submitted to Headouarters by
Regional Offices.
Headquarters final approval of
construction grants output
commitments.
The above schedule calls for the submission of final construc-
tion grants output commitments on August 15, 1977, two weeks follow-
ing the approval of the State project priority lists by the Regional
Administrator. This two week period is essential if construction
grants output commitments are to be based on a project-by-project
analysis of approved priority lists. It should be noted that in
order to provide sufficient time for the approval of these priority
lists by the Regional Office, final fundable and extended lists
should be submitted by the States on July 1, 1977. This is one month
prior to the submission of the rest of the State 106 plan.
The August 15, 1977 submission date for regional output commit-
ments is critical since EPA is required to provide estimates in
support of the President's FY 1979 budget in early September.
Regional Offices should make every attempt to assure that the commit-
ments reach Headquarters by that date. Following detailed review
and analysis of Regional Office submissions during September, Head-
quarters will conditionally approve the output commitments by September
30, 1977. The Regions will have the period from October 1 to
October 15 to revise the commitments/ as appropriate, based on their
actual FY 1977 end of year experience. It is recognized that project
slippages during the period from August 15 to September 30 can
drastically alter the commitments for FY 1978. Headquarters will
issue final approval of these output ccmniitments on October 31,
1977. Any subsequent changes to these approved commitments can only
be made within the framework, of the procedures established in the
Formal Planning and Reporting System. Requests for output commit-
ment changes will be considered through the first three quarters of
the fiscal year only, and approvals will be effective on the first.
day of the quarter following the quarter the request was received.
-------
-71-
Outputs A. - C. These output. commitments are for the number of
new awards fay step for projects awarded by quarter in FY 1978. Only
new and continuation projects should be included. This cotmitment
does not include the number of amendments (increases or decreases)
to previously funded projects, nor does it include reimbursable
awards made under section 206 CaT. Actual performance against these
three output commitments will be measured fay monitoring PCGMIS data
element L5 (Final Approval, and Award Date) for Status Code AE
(Completed/Approved).
Output D. This output commitment is for the projected net
dollar amount of funds that will be awarded by quarter in FY 1978.
This cantdtinent should include projected awards to both new and .
continuation projects and, to the degree possible, amendments
(increases and decreases) to previously funded projects. Obliga-
tions from recovered funds should also be included. Awards made
under Section 206 (a) are excluded. Actual performance against this
output commitment will be monitored through the Headquarters P.L.
92-500 file maintained.in Grants Administration Division.
Outputs E. - G. These output commitments are for the number of
projected completions by step by quarter in FY 1978. Completions
of P.L. -84-660 projects should be included with Step 3 completions.
This commitment does not include '•woodwork" reimbursable projects
funded under section 206(a). A step 1, 2, 3 or P.L. 84-660 project
is considered complete when EPA determines that all grant conditions
have been satisfied and no further action remains to be taken on the
project by EPA subject to final audit. For step 1 projects only,
the project will also be considered complete for the purpose of this
output camiitment if it has been determined by the Regional Admin-
istrator that the facility plan is sufficiently complete to make a
step 2 award. Actual performance against these output commitments
will be measured by monitoring PCGMIS data element'N5 (Project
Completion) for status code AD (Project Complete) for step 1, 2, 3
or P.L. 84-660 projects, and data element M9 (Facility Plan Review)
for status code AH (Facility Plan sufficiently complete to make a
Step 2 award) for step 1 projects only if data element N5 has not been
coded complete.
Output H. This output, commitment is for the total projected
outlays under P.L. 92-500 contract authority by quarter for FY 1978.
This corrmitment does not include outlays for projects funded under
P.L. 84-660, Title III of P.L. 94-369, reimbursable projects funded
under section 206(a), or any subsequent construction grants funds
appropriated. Actual performance-against this output commitment
will be monitored through, the Agency's.Financial Management System.
-------
-72-
3.B. DELEGATIONS TO STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
(No definitions)
4. 3.WATER ENFORCEMENT
Outputs A, B. Number of major facilities which have
completed construction but are violating final (statutory)
effluent limitations. Facilities shall be countedIn
violation when any of the following are true:
1. The Discharge Mbrdtoring Reports (DMRs)
indicate effluent limitations are not being met.
2. DMR reporting violations (missing or in-
complete reports) have not been resolved.
3. A reported effluent violation has not been
.resolvefl' and all follow-up activity is pending.
Outputs C, D. Number of major facilities in violation
with permit compliance schedules. Facilities shall be
counted in violation when any of the following are true:
1. All conpliance schedule reports required by
the permit have not been received.
2. Compliance schedule reports indicate that
schedules are not being met.
3. Existing violations are pending resolution.
The definition for facilities in violation is the
number of facilities not in compliance at the end of the
quarter.
There are basically four categories in which any major
discharger can be placed at the end of 'any quarter: (1) in
compliance with compliance, schedules, (2) out of compliance
with compliance schedules, (3) in compliance with final
effluent limitations, or (4) out of compliance with final
effluent limitations. In reporting each quarter, each major
facility should be assigned to one of these categories but
you should report only on those permittees who are out of
compliance. Dischargers that have received ECSLs (Enforcement
Compliance Schedule.Letters) and operating under Consent
Decrees fall under category #2. No one major discharger can
fall into more than one category. The number of dischargers
included in all four categories should equal the number of
major dischargers in the Region.
-------
-73-
In sane cases, a decision will have to be made
as to whether to report the compliance status of a
discharger under "compliance schedule"' or under
"final effluent limitations." Although you have
some judgmental latitude in making this determination,
for purposes of reporting, it will be assumed that
unless a facility is required to be meeting final
effluent limitations at every outfall of the plant,
that particular facility will be counted as either
in or out of compliance with its compliance schedule.
If a facility is required to be meeting final effluent
limitations throughout the plant at the end of the
quarter, it should be counted as either in or out of
compliance with those final effluent, limitations.
• • «
Outputs E-HV Response time is calculated from
the date of the violation by the permittee to the date
of the-initial action response (letter, phone call,
etc.) by the Region or State.
For purposes of averaging response time, the
response time figure is the average time taken for
all initial action responses made during the quarter
covered in the report. This means that initial
responses made during the reporting quarter to
violations occurring that quarter will be averaged
together with initial responses made during that
quarter to violations which occurred in previous
quarters.
When no response has been made to violations
which occurred in quarters, prior to the reporting
quarter, a response time figure will be included in
the average, with the required date for completion
of the current report used as the artificial "action"
date. Where no action has been initiated on violations
occurring during the first two months^ of the reporting
quarter, the artificial action date isvalso imposed.
Such instances of no response are included in each
succeeding quarter's average until an actual response
is initiated. (It should be noted that the artificial
action date for no response is not imposed on violations
which occurred in the last month of the reporting
quarter. If an artificial- date were imposed in
these instances, the result could be a misleadingly
low "response time" credited to the Region or State
that failed to take any action.)
-------
-74-
Initial responses made in previous quarters to
these "continuing nonconpliance" violations are no •
longer included in the response time averages. Thus,
the present system of^'conputing 'response time, reflects
the current Regional/State capabilities in responding
to violations.
An Enforcement Management System (EMS) is being developed
jointly by State, HQ, and EQ personnel and is available to provide
for the more efficient review and response to identified permit
violations. Additional methods for improving Regional/State
capabilities in detecting and responding to identified violations,
are currently being explored. For example, a feasibility study has
been completed which indicates that an automated DMR review system
•ean be-introduced"by the end of FY 1978. When available, this auto-
mated system will further reduce the._resource requirements associated
with DMR review. Additional information on improvements to the DMR
process will be made available as developed.
Output I. To be included in the output for unresolved adjudi-
catory hearing requests are those requests which, six months after
receipt, have no been (1) withdrawn, (2) resolved by stipulation which
is signed by all parties and approved by Headquarters, or (3) resolved
by initial decision of the Regional Administrator.
5.B. PEEMIT ISSUANCE
AEL OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS
a. Major Dischargers are large identified dischargers plus any
other dischargers that have a high potential for violation of
water quality standards. For municipal dischargers (publicly
owned treatment works) large identified dischargers are those
with a flow greater than 1 MOD or a population greater than
10,000. Major Permits are permits issued to major dischargers.
b. New Sources are included in all activity indicators and outputs.
c. Federal Facilities are excluded for all activity indicators
and outputs.
OUTPUTS • .
Outputs A.-D. A permit is reissued only if. it has expired or been
revoked. This output is a count of permits issued or reissued
during FY 78 only. There is no start level. It represents work
accomplished during FY 78. .
-------
-75-
ACTlVnY INDICATORS
A/t's I.-4. The number of permits issued and in effect is the total
number of permits that have been issued and are wholly or partially
in effect.. This activity indicator should count the number of
permits outstanding/ i.e./ the number of permits currently in effect.
Thus, this number should never exceed the number of identified
dischargers. Every effort should be made to avoid any form of double
counting. The number of permits issued and in effect may decrease or
increase as permits expire, are revoked or lapse on the one hand and
are issued or reissued on the other hand.
A/I *-s- JT. -6. An identified discharger is any known discharger that is
required "to have an NPDES permit. A discharger need not have applied
for a permit to be included. . Not all applicants are necessarily
identified dischargers. Some applicants may be found not to need a
permit; and when this is determined, such applicants should not be
included as identified dischargers. Dischargers which were previously
issued a permit which was subsequently revoked because a permit was
no longer required are also excluded.
6.B. WATER M3NITORING (I)
(No definitions)
6.B. WATER tOTITORING (II)
Outputs A.-ii. The term "ccmpliari.ce monitoring"
is a generic term meant to cover all activities
taken to ascertain a discharger's compliance status.
This includes, but is not limited to, compliance
inspections —NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspections
and NPDES Sampling Inspections, and compliance
review — the review of discharge monitoring reports
and compliance schedule reports. "Compliance monitoring"
may also include aerial monitoring and special site
visits for other non-NPDES enforcement.purposes' but
compliance monitoring resources have.not been provided
to support these efforts*' All inspection activity
is to be conducted on the premise that it may lead
to enforcement-action. ' : ,
Outputs A.- H.A visit to a facility for compliance
inspection is to be counted in-only one of the
categories listed. Thus, a single visit cannot be
counted as a compliance evaluation inspection as
well as a sampling inspection. It must be one or
the other.
-------
-76-
Outputs A.-D Each major municipal and non-
municipal facility should be inspected by the State
or EPA a minimum of once annually during the compliance
schedule period and more often during critical
phases of construction. In addition, those permittees
that have online treatment facilities should be
inspected to verify the adequacy of their self-
monitoring program and records and to assure that^
their operation and maintenance program is being
conducted in a manner that will ensure permit conpliance.
In summary nonsampling inspections are undertaken
for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Observe the status of construction
required by the permit;
2. Assess adequacy of the permittee's
self-monitoring and reporting program;
3. Check the completeness and accuracy
of permittee's performance/compliance records;
4. Evaluate the permittee's operation
and maintenance activities;
5. Express concern that permit requirements
be met.
In the case of municipalities, compliance
evaluation inspections have a second important
objective. That objective is to assure an adequate
flow of up-to-date information on the status of O&M
activities at municipal wastewater. facilities. Such
data is essential for the Agency to meet its obligation
for an annual O&M survey and report to Congress as
required by section 210 of the FWPCA and to provide
longer term monitoring of the integrity of the construction
grant program in providing operable facilities and
in meeting water pollution abatement goals. Such
data also provides vital feedback to the planning,
construction grants, research and development,
manpower planning and training, and municipal operations
programs. The O&M data are also essential for the
Regions and States to consistently make meaningful
decisions on appropriate responses to permittee
noncompliance, selecting from an array of enforcement
and assistance alternatives toward assuring timely
compliance at miniinum cost.
-------
-77-
To eliminate duplication in facility inspections,
simplify planning, and streamline water output
conmitments and related FPRS reporting, Reconnaissance
Inspections and O&M inspections have been integrated
into a single reporting unit, "Compliance Evaluation
Inspections." To ensure that both objectives outlined
above are met - permit compliance and O&M data
flow - a compliance evaluation inspection of a
municipal facility is considered complete only when .
the site inspection is followed by the completion
and submission of the appropriate portions of a
compliance evaluation inspection report.
Guidance for conducting compliance evaluation
inspections and for submitting the appropriate
report forms are contained in the "NPDES Compliance
Evaluation Inspections Manual" which has previously
been provided to EPA Regions and States.
Outputs E.- K.Sampling Inspections are inspections
at which representative composite sample(s) of a
permittee's effluent is collected and analyzed to
verify the accuracy of the permittee's discharge
monitoring reports. This activity also includes the
same objective as a compliance evaluation inspection,
and where appropriate, may serve to gather detailed
information regarding compliance with, effluent
limitation for the possible institution of legal
action against the permittee. However, 'credit is to
be given to only one type of inspection.In this case it
would be for a sampling.inspection. We" recognize
that sampling inspections, are considerably more
resource intensive than compliance evaluation
inspections.
A "representative composite sample" consists of
a series of aliquots or discrete samples collected
during the course of an operating day^. collected at
the location specified in'the permit or appropriate
representative location chosen by the inspector, and
appropriately weighted for variations in flow and/or
concentration to be representative of the effluent
discharged during the sampling period.
-------
-78-
A. grab sample may be taken to satisfy this
definition only in those situations when the inspector
has sufficient knowledge of the manufacturing process
and wastewater treatment facility to ensure that a
grab sample will be representative of the permittee's
discharge.
It is expected that every major permittee
meeting statutory effluent limitations should be «•
sampled annually. Priority will be given to sampling
permittees achieving statutory effluent limits and
for verification of continued compliance with statutory
effluent limits once achieved.
A sampling inspection is considered complete
only when the sampling inspection is followed by the
completion and submission of the appropriate portions
of a sampling inspection report. Guidance for
conducting sampling inspections and for submitting
the appropriate report forms are contained in the
"NPDES Compliance Sampling Manual" which will be
provided.to EPA Regions and States.
7. B. MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS ^ND WORKFORCE "PLANNING AND TRAINING
Output A . This output commitment indicates the number of POTWs
brought into compliance where laboratory analysis clearly shows that
the effluent from a POTW fails to satisfy interim or final effluent
limits prescribed in the facility's NPDES operating permit. The
objective is to assure credit is given for each EPA/State on-site
technical assistance or 'on-site training activity completed, which
upgrades the POEW's operational efficiency to bring it within com-
pliance of the operating permit. Each assistance activity to be
counted must be in response to effluent limit violations reported
from EMR reviews, sampling inspections/ or CEIs. Telephone or
correspondence assistance is to be counted when the advice/recommen-
dations result in permit compliance. Do not include assistance
related to construction schedule compliance. The time frame within
which on-site technical assistance services may be provided may vary
from one or more days; however, each event that actually results in
raising the'plant operating efficiency to a level to- meet assigned
permit conditions should be listed as a single output commitment.
-------
OFFICE OF WRIER SUPPLY
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-81-
Water Supply Agency Guidance
FY 1978
Program Narrative
The thrust of the water supply program in FY 1978 will be
guided by Regional accomplishments in the prior fiscal year. The
water supply strategy, "One Step At A Time," states that EPA-will
implement the Safe Drinking Water Act on a step-by-step basis
building on existing state and local institutions. The program
is committed to promoting the assumption of primary responsibility
by state governments for assuring the safety of drinking water and
for protecting present and potential sources of drinking water.
As the program-moves toward assumption of new program responsibi-
lities for public water systems supervision by all qualified states,
a major initiative will be launched in the development of state capability
in the area of groundwater protection through the regulation of underground
injection. Water supply program objectives will be two-fold, directed at
the implementation of the public water systems supervision and the under-
ground injection control programs. The levels of Regional activities to
accomplish the objectives of each program will vary between Regions as a
function of existing program arrangements with the states in performing
activities required by the program regulations. This guidance establishes
priorities among regional activities. Within the framework of the
guidance and status of individual state programs, the Regions will develop
and implement their own strategies that will enable them to achieve the
objectives for the fiscal year.
-------
This year's guidance is divided into four major categories:
headquarters priorities for the fiscal year, priorities relating
to the public water systems supervision program, priorities relating
to the underground injection control program and a summary of outputs
and activity indicators for the entire water supply program.
A new section of Headquarters activities and priorities has been
introduced to provide a total integrated program. Priorities for both
the public water systems and UIC programs are further subdivided to
indicate priorities within the program area. The contents of this
guidance may be modified based on discussions with the Regions. Wherever
appropriate, discussions of recommended state guidances are included.
-------
I. Headquarters Activities
Fiscal year 1978 marks the third full year of program implementation
after the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The program has made
substantial progress in fulfilling the intent of the law. A major factor
contributing to the success of the has been the participation of the
Regions and States in program and regulations development. In an effort
to institutionalize this procedure and to enable the Regions to plan and.
recommend additional activities that Headquarters should address, the
Agency Guidance for FY 1978 includes Headquarters as well as Regional
activities. This section outlines the major categories of Headquarters
activities accompanied by examples of program areas/activities that will
receive high priority. Headquarters activities are not limited to those
specified. The need and priority of activities may be modified or amended
based upon discussions with Regional personnel.
-------
Program Planning and Evaluation Activities
Within the area of program management and implementation, there
are many activities which are camion to all Regions and which are more
efficiently and effectively addressed by the national program manager.
Two examples are public information and training activities relating to
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) and public water systems programs
and support activities such as the conduct of feasibility, cost/benefit
and systems design studies for ADP systems relating to the UIC program.
As part of the program planning and evaluation activities, the Office
will analyze progress toward compliance with the Act, monitor Regional/State
progress, analyze available information to identify problems and evaluate
alternative solutions. Moreover, the Office will coordinate program
activities with other Federal agencies, other EPA program activities, and
the Regions.
Sane of the activities that will be addressed in FY 1978 by the
Office of Water Supply follow:
* Economic analyses
* ADP systems design and implementation
* Public information
* Training programs
* Program evaluations
* Rural water survey
* Special studies
-------
.._r85r
G.uciance Documents for Program Implementation
Program implementation of both the public water systems supervision
and underground injection control programs is the highest Regional prior-
ity. In FY 1978, the public water systems supervison program will be in
full-scale implementation for community water systems. It is anticipated
that additional guidance documents will be necessary to clarify national
policy and communicate modifications in program strategy. In addition,
the Public Water Systems Supervision (PWSS) program must prepare for the
application of the primary regulations to non-community water supplies
in FY 79.
The underground injection control program will be in the initial.
stages of program implementation. The Regions will be working closely
with the States to develop plans and applications for primacy that will
satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements. Experience with
public water systems supervision programs showed that requiring desig-
nated States to submit a plan for implementing a program within 270 days
is unrealistic. In many instances, states will require modifications to
existing or new statutory and/or regulatory authorities. To alleviate
the problem, EPA has included in its FY 1978 legislative package an
amendment to allow the States 18 months after the date of promulgation
of the UIC regulations to submit their plan for the assumption of primacy.
Should this amendment be adopted, the Regions will have 18 months to pro-
vide guidance and assistance to the States.
-------
-86-
To assist the Regions in implementation, Headquarters will
develop guidance documents relating to both the PWSS and UIC programs.
Development of these guidance documents will be coordinated with the
Regions. The following is a tentative list of program activities to be
covered.
* Inventory of non-community systems ' 9/77
* Variance and exemption procedures for rr>n-community systems 9/77
* Public notification procedures for non-ccmmunity systems 10/77
* Minimum State requirements for primacy for UIC program 7/77
* Issuance of rules and/or permits 10/77
* Grant award procedures on a consolidated grant program
* Inventory of injection facilities 8/
-------
Promulgate Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Although the law required the completion of the National
Academy of Sciences Study by December 16, 1976, the results of the
study will not be available until May 1, 1977. At that time, EPA must
evaluate the NAS findings and recommendations and promulgate revised
primary drinking water regulations taking costs into consideration. Some
of the activities that will be undertaken in the regulation development
process include, but are not limited to the following.
* Conduct special monitoring studies to determine extent
of a problem and investigate possible solutions.
* Consult with technical experts and with public health officials
of the local State and Federal governments.
* Coordinate research activities that may yield pertinent data.
* Consult with general public, environmental groups and utility
operators: .
* Conduct economic studies to determine the impact of proposed
new or revised regulations; determine and evaluate costs of alternative
treatment techniques.
* Establish a standard' for organics which will protect the
public health.
* Develop information materials on technical and scientific
data which are required by the Regions for uniform interpretation
and implementation of the regulations.
* Provide toxicological assistance to the Regions.
* Develop effluent control strategy relating to drinking water
contamination in cooperation with the Office of Water Planning and Standards
and the Office of Enforcement;.
-------
-88-
II. Public Water Systems Supervision Programs
States are expected to assume primary enforcement responsibility
for public water systems supervision (PVBS) programs no later than one
year after the date of the initial grant award. In order to qualify for
primacy/ a state must satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 142.10. A
major problem confronting many states is the need to enact necessary
legislative authority. States, furthermore, have expressed reluctance
to enforce the public notification procedure and the level of penalties
required by the regulations. The effectiveness of public notification,
unduly alarming the citizens, and the anticipated paperwork are reasons
cited by the states for their reluctance. In addition, many states feel
that the level of penalties are excessive and that these penalties will
never be applied to violators.
Although the states announced an intent to assume primary enforcement
*
authority within one year when they applied for their FY 76 grants, EPA
recognizes that legislative authorities and regulation promulgation
procedures will prevent most, if not all, states from achieving that
goal. It is highly desirable for them to have primacy by June 24, 1977,
the effective date of the primary drinking water regulations. However,
Headquarter's assessments indicated that many states will not meet that
goal. In keeping with the policy of a low Federal profile, the regional
offices should utilize as much of a state's program as possible in
exercising primary enforcement authority in FY 78. State programs of
plan review, sanitary surveys, technical assistance, etc. should not be
duplicated by the regional office. Federal enforcement should follow,
not preceed, State enforcement activities.
-------
-89-
However, in regard to public water systems owned and operated by
Federal agencies, the State may not exercise jurisdiction unless State
substantive and procedural standards applicable to Federal water systems
are virtually identical to existing Federal standards. In all other cases,
EPA will have primacy over Federal public water systems. Enforcement
policy for Federal facilities is being formulated.
As the program progresses toward full implementation, program manage-
ment and administration responsibilities of the Regions will become
increasingly more important. Many of these activities will be similar to
those undertaken in FY 1977 particularly if the program grant legislative
amendment is approved and funds are appropriated. 'Regional tasks included
in this activity are:
* Review and approve grant applications within the required timeframe.
* Monitor the grants which includes tracking state expenditures and
ensuring that Federal funds are being expended in a timely fashion.
* Assist in the conduct of national mid-year evaluations of state
programs to measure progress of states in achieving the goal of "Safe Drinking
Water for All Americans."
* Inform states in a timely fashion of grant reallocations and ensure
that the requirements of regulations are satisfied.
* Conduct public information programs to reach individual citizens,
suppliers of water, injection facility operators, state officials.
* Coordinate with other regional programs such as 208, grants
administration, financial management, regional counsel, etc.
-------
-90-
Priority 1; Exercise Primary Enforcement Responsibility for
Public Water Systans Supervision Programs
In the public water systems supervision program, the Regions
will assign the highest priority to exercising primary enforcement
responsibility. This activity will be conducted in states without
primacy, on Indian reservations where states do not have civil
jurisdiction, on off-shore drilling platforms outside State territorial
waters and on Federal facilities where State standards are more stringent
than the Federal standards. In implementing this priority, the Regions
will be guided by Water Supply Guidance #27, 31, and 36 which set forth
minimum manpower and financial needs for EPA primary enforcement authority
for public water systems supervision programs. As such the Regions should
pursue the following activities.
* Coordinate and integrate existing State program activities
involving sanitary surveys, plans review, sampling, and analyses.
* Establish and maintain the Model State Information System
(MSIS) for each state without primacy. As part of this task, the
Region should obtain the necessary data, update and complete the in-
ventory of community systems.
* Review the priorities on the MSIS for conducting sanitary
surveys' and ensure that the highest priority is assigned to those systems
which are not in compliance with the IPDWR. Communicate the priority
list to State officials for those supplies subject to State laws.
* Establish an interim laboratory certification program
which conforms to program guidance which will.be issued in FY 1977.
* Arrange for the collection of samples and the performance of
analyses at an EPA laboratory as part of EPA's enforcement action.
-------
* Initiate and conduct public information campaigns to
disseminate information to suppliers of water of their responsibilites
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
* Establish a procedure to ensure that suppliers of water give
public notice of violations as required by the Act.
* Arrange to have records available to the public in each
State for which EPA has primacy or require the suppliers of water to
make their records available for inspection.
* Implement the variance/exemption guidelines and input the
granting of such-into the MSIS.
Within this priority the Regions should allocate resources to
undertake these tasks generally in the following order of relative program
importance: (1) implementation of 'the PWSS program in states without
primacy, (2) implementation on Federal facilities where states have more
stringent standards than Federal standards, (3) implementation on off-shore
drilling platforms and (4) implementation on Indian reservations. The
highest priority will be assigned to implementation in states without primacy.
Priorities assigned to the other categories will be expected to vary among
the Regions according to need. The Regions should ensure that activities
are initiated in all of the above categories, (except that implementation
on off-shore drilling platforms applies solely to Region VI).
-------
_-92- .....
Priority 2 Continue Assistance to Enable States to At+^in and Maintain
Primary Enforcement Responsibility far Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS)
Although the Regions will begin enforcement of the national interim
primary drinking water regulations for PWS in states without primacy,
they must continue to strive toward the goal of State assumption of
primacy. In many instances, the only obstacle to state primacy will be
the enactment of statutory authority. The Regions should support State
efforts to obtain primacy, assist in the development, expansion or
modification of existing water supply programs, and, as necessary,
provide technical assistance in the implementation of current programs.
Consistent with EPA1 s commitment to State primacy and to provide continued
financial assistance to States which have made substantial progress
toward the assumption of primacy, EPA has submitted legislative amendment
which would allow the Administrator to award another one-year grant for
an amount not to exceed 80% of the grant to which they would otherwise be
entitled in FY 1978 upon a determination that the state is actively seek-
ing and making substantial progress toward assumption of primacy. In
the absence of enactment of these amendments, the Regions should be
prepared for increased State reluctance in assuming primacy and therefore
continue Federal program implementation.
Continued support of States with primacy will also be needed. The
Regions should assist these States in development and improvement of their
programs and in resolution of problems which arise in the implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The State program grant process will be useful
in this connection.
L/
-------
-23-
Priority 3 Initiate a Review of Variances and Exemptions Granted
By States with Primary Enforcement Responsibility
States with primacy may issue variances and/or exemptions to public
water systems from any maximum contaminant level (MCL) or from any treatment
technique specified in the primary drinking water regulations. The Safe
Drinking Water Act requires that the Administrator complete a review of all
variances and/or exemptions granted by a state with primacy no later than
18 months after the effective date of the IPDWR. These results and response
to comments are to be published in the Federal Register. To meet the
statutory timetable, the Regions should initiate a review of all variances
and exemptions issued by each state with primacy during the one-year period
beginning June 24, 1977. Headquarters will provide guidance for the conduct
of this review.
Program Guidance 28 provides for uniform interpretations and protocols
for the issuance of variances and exemptions. In undertaking this activity,
the Regions should:
* Examine documentation submitted by suppliers of water to
support request for variances and/or exemptions.
* 'Evaluate state adherence to its established procedures for
granting exemptions or variances.
-------
-94-
Priority 4 Ensure the Compliance of Interstate Conveyances
with the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
In FY 1977, EPA will enter into an interagency agreement with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assure safe drinking water on
interstate conveyances. This agreement covers the water source, watering
point inspection, and plan review and construction inspections of water
handling facilities. The Regional involvement will be limited to:
* Coordinating program implementation with Regional FDA
personnel.
* Collecting and analyzing check samples on conveyances
to determine compliance.
* Providing technical assistance to operators and owners-
of interstate conveyances.
* Conducting compliance monitoring or arranging for monitoring
to ensure that the water source meets the regulations in those states
without primacy.
-------
_r95-...
III. Underground Injection Control Programs
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the establishment of
underground injection control (UIC) programs to protect the Nation's
underground drinking water sources. During FY 1977, meetings have been
held with state representatives, environmental groups, oil and gas
associations and other Federal agencies during the regulations development
process. The comments of these groups as well as those of the general
public have been considered in the formulation of the final UIC regulations.
Regional resources necessary to provide assistance to the states
are being developed in FY 1977. Guidance has been minimal to date;
emphasis has been placed on the promulgation of the UIC regulations and
the establishment of criteria that may be used by the Administrator to
designate those states which in his judgment require UIC programs.
The law specifies that designated states shall submit plans to
implement their UIC programs within 270 days after the promulgation of
the regulations. EPA then has 90 days to approve or disapprove the plan.
If the state fails to submit a plan or if the plan is disapproved, EPA
must implement a UIC program in the state. Based upon experience with
the PWSS program, a legislative amendment has been proposed to provide
the states 18 months to submit a plan. Should this amendment be approved,
the Regions will have an additional 9 months to assist the states with
such activities as developing necessary legislation or legislative
modifications, preparing adequate plans, submitting adequate grant
applications, evaluating existing programs etc. Activities common
-------
to all regions include assistance in the development of an automatic
data processing (ADP) system for the UIC program; assistance in review
of existing state legislative needs; preliminary planning .for EPA
implementation of UIC programs in states without primacy, on federal
facilities as necessary, and in areas in which the states do not have
civil jurisdiction; and completion of the inventory of injection facilities.
The list published in the -Federal Register designated less than
half of the 56 states based upon groundwater usage, population, injection
facilities etc. It is EPA's intention, however, to periodically evaluate
state needs and if appropriate eventually designate all 56 states as
requiring UIC programs to protect ground water sources. It must be
remembered that this is a new program in which EPA's experience is quite
limited. However, in the implementation of the program, the "one step at
a time" strategy will be applied and public participation will be encouraged
during all phases of program implementation.
-------
Priority 1 Technical Assistance to those states designated
as requiring Underground Injection Control Programs
The UIC program is a very new program for the Regions; no
national program exists on which EPA can build. Simultaneous with
their efforts to develop capability in this area, the Regions must work
closely with the states to develop an open channel of communication.
This activity in itself is quite complex since in some states there are
as many as five state agencies with responsibility for groundwater
protection. Although EPA has requested the designation of a lead state
agency, responses have been quite disappointing.
The Regions have an immense task ahead which can only be addressed
effectively if priority is given to this program area. Regional activities
will begin at the base-building level. Thus, activities that will have to
be undertaken within regions in which states have been designated include
the following.
* Evaluate existing state programs, legislative authorities
and regulations to determine changes or modifictions necessary
for the state to qualify for primacy for the UIC program.
* Assist in the development of necessary legislation and/or
regulations to qualify the state for primacy.
* Assist states in developing implementation plans for primacy.
* Provide guidance to the states in the preparation of grant
applications.
-------
-98-
* Provide information packages and, in cooperation with State
agencies, conduct discussions with injection facility owners/operators
on requirements of the regulations and impact of regulations on their
operations.
* Assist states in the development of permit issuance
procedures and rule documentation requirements.
* Provide technical/program support to the states during
public hearings.
* Facilitate state participation in training programs and
special program support projects.
Priority 2 Liaison and Assistance to Non-designated States
EPA has established criteria which were used in the designation
of states which require UIC programs during the first year of
operation. The majority of the states were not included; however,
EPA will satisfy the congressional intent that all 56 states should
be included as necessary to protect ground water sources. The Regions
should establish and maintain a channel of communication to non-designated
states and work with them in developing the capability and programs that
will enable them to assume primacy when they are designated. The Regions
should undertake assistance activities similar to those provided to
states designated.
-------
IV. Water Supply Outputs and Activity Indicators .
Output 1 Number of States obtaining Primary Enforcement
Authority for the Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
State assumption of primacy remains a high program objective.
In FY 1977, many states will apply and be approved for primacy.
Current program assessments, indicate that there will be a number of
states that do not have the necessary legislative authority or will be
unable to satisfy the regulatory requirements for primacy. EPA will
continue to work with these states and allocate appropriate resources.
The output report will be used by Headquarters to assess
implementation progress, to develop resource projections and to
guide program direction.
Output 2 Number of States Applying for Underground Injection
Control Grants
The Administrator will list in the Federal Register, those
States which, in his judgment, require an underground injection
control program; in addition, other States may petition to be included
on the list. These states are eligible for program grants, provided
they declare their intent to assume primary enforcement responsibility
for underground injection control programs within ta*3 years after the
date of the initial grant award.
This output will provide Headquarters with information to determine
whether additional states should be designated in the next fiscal year,
resource implications for the program and to provide information on
State intention to assume primacy.
-------
-100-
Sumtary Listing of Outputs with Reporting Frequency
Outputs Units Frequency . Start Level
1CA. Number of States obtaining
Primacy for PWSS Programs T Q yes
in the fiscal year
2CA. Number of States applying
for UIC Grants T Q yes
3CA* Number of States satisfying
interim laboratory certifi-
cation requirements T Q yes
Abbreviations used to indicate the reporting units and frequency
arei
Reporting Units Frequency
Regional Total = T Q = quarterly
A = annually
-------
-101-
V. ORD Support for Water Supply
Technical service to the water supply program will slightly
increase in FY 1978 because of the expected five position increase.
Such activities as telephone consultations and quick-response types-of
support can be expected to continue. Listed below are major research
outputs anticipated sometime during FY 1978:
* Public Systems
Interim report on economic evaluations of treatment alterna-
tives. 11/77
Report on removal efficiency of Giardia Lamblia by filtration. 1/78
Report on influence of water quality on asbestos release from
Asbestos/cement pipe. 1/78
Report on use of granular activated carbon for removing .specific
organics. 12/77
* Underground Injection
Two reports on parameters for describing the subsurface
environment. 7/77 and 12/77
* Quality Assurance
Validated measurement methods for the analysis of volatile organics
and trace metals in public drinking water. 9/78
Approved/"alternate test procedures for national use in deter-
mining maximum contaminant levels in public drinking water. 10/77 and
continuing
Final manual of procedures and acceptance criteria for certification
of water supply laboratories. 6/77
Quality control and reference samples for trace metals, nitrates,
fluorides, chlorine residual, turbidity, chlorinated hydrocarbons,
pesticides, herbicides, and coliform bacteria. 9/77
Performance evaluation reports for Regional and State laboratories
analyzing samples of potable waters. Annually
On-site evaluation reports and recommendation to support Regional
approval (certification) of State and other water supply laboratories.
9/78 as required.
Quality control guides and samples, and on-site evaluation reports
of radiochemical laboratories for radiochemical analyses. 10/77
Training courses in microbiology and chemistry. 5/78
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
OPERATING GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-105-
I. Program Narrative
A. Section 3 Registration/Reregistrati on
A radical change is being proposed in the registration/reregis-
tration process. This proposed change consists of two basic
elements. First, because of various complaints and pressures as well as
the recent court decision and other pending court cases concerning the
different criteria applied to registration vs. reregistrati on, new
registrations and reregistrations will be subject to the same
requirements. Second, chemical-by-chemical standards will be
established against which individual products will
be judged. It is anticipated that 1500 chemical standards are needed
overall and that although each standard will generally address a
chemical, in some cases it will address a compound or chemicals in
'varying states. These standards will allow a comprehensive
and rapid review of a registration request, because the criteria for
approval/disapproval of a chemical and its uses will be specified in
detail. The standard will specify the acceptable uses of the chemical
and explain the rationale behind the decision of acceptability. The
standard will discuss the specific data on which the decisions were
based. Registration of an individual product will be made on the
product's conformity to the applicable standard. This will eliminate
the present procedure where a registration request goes thru the
review procedure without taking into account previous decisions
on similar products. The new procedure will utilize the knowledge
gained in the disposition of prior registration requests
-------
-106-
and incorporate this information in the standards. This new procedure
however, may require a change in the law, which presently requires
each registrant to develop his own data or pay compensation for data
developed by others.
If the needed legislative changes are made, or if congressional
approval is obtained through report language, then the new procedure
will be to revise the standards every five years and apply them to
all registrations, new and existing. During FY'78, with current
resource constraints, we can realistically expect to complete 50
new standards. Since it will take five years under this procedure
to reregister all currently registered products and to handle new
registration requests, products are being classified by regulation,
in order to meet the Oct 77 deadline. However, products reregistered
by regulations will ultimately undergo the full registration process.
As part of this registration procedure it is intended to have
a continuous program of tolerance reassessments. Most tolerances
were set in the early 1950's without the benefit of today's more
precise scientific and laboratory procedures and instrumentation.
Since that time only a few tolerances have been reviewed on an ad
hoc basis. The General Accounting Office criticized EPA in FY'76
for its delinquency in reassessment of tolerances. In FY'77 a
review of procedures for handling the reassessment of tolerances
was started and will continue thru the fiscal year and should be
completed by the beginning of FY'78. Tolerances will then be incor-
porated in the standards being developed for the registration of
-------
-107-
specific chemicals, which will ensure the reassessment of tolerances
concurrently with registration/reregistration.
Guidelines for Registering Pesticides are being revised by
headquarters to reflect considerable more requirements for data to
support registration. As the guidelines have been developed drafts
have been circulated to the regions and the working group for com-
ment and their inputs have been incorporated as appropriate. In
late April a notice will be published in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of an advance draft of the Guidelines,
thus allowing for public and State input. Publication of 3 of the
5 major parts of the Guidelines is projected during the latter part
of FY'77 with the remaining two parts early in FY'78. Of signifi-
cant importance are the parts dealing with environmental chemistry,
human hazard, and fish and wildlife hazard. Also evaluation of
pesticides will be expanded to include a more detailed evaluation
of the significance of the "inert" portion of the formulation
in the overall hazard assessment.
The RPAR process is an integral part of the Sec. 3 registration/
\
reregistration activities mandated by the FIFRA amendments. Past
EPA cancellation/suspension activities have been criticized because
many considered that sufficient data were not available to the
Administrator when such regulatory decisions had to be made. By the
end of FY'77 it is expected that decisions on presumption against
46 chemicals will have been made. About 70 other chemicals are
presently on OSPR'.s Referred Chemicals List. Any new chemicals
which appear to trigger RPAR risk criteria will also be added to
the list.
-------
-108-
Beginm'ng in May, 1977 representatives of the Office of Special
Pesticide Review (OSPR) will begin holding Regional meetings to
discuss, develop and initiate a plan for Regional participation in
the RPAR Process. This will include discussions on procedures,
formats of special reports, and assessments and respective roles
of OSPR, Regions and State Liaison Coordinators. The plan is scheduled
to be completed by September 30, 1977. The consensus of present
thinking on this plan is that although OSPR takes the program lead,
vital regional support is needed in the provision of a limited amount
of benefit and rebuttal data on RPAR chemicals pertinent to their
geographical area. Regional support is also needed to discuss the
background and significance of RPAR actions with State Regulatory
Agencies, User and Environmental Groups. Regional support will be
needed to establish formal working agreements with individuals
designated by USDA as State Liaison Coordinators for reports on RPAR
chemicals, whose role as USDA field representatives provides the
necessary interagency awareness and cooperation.
The following is a more precise explanation of the proposed approach
that OSPR and the Regions would follow, subject to refinements coming
out of the upcoming planning meetings.
Each Region will review the current RPAR Status List. The latest
copy will be sent by June 30, 1977. A chemical impact assessment,
(C.I.A.) should be made of the overall impact of cancellation and/or
suspension of a chemical within that region (format and a sample will
•
be made available by September 30, 1977). In some instances there
will be no impact because the chemical is not used in the region.
-------
-109-
In other instances, several chemicals used on major regional crop may
be on the RPAR list, (for example Toxaphene on cotton - Regions IV,
VI, IX). The impact of loss could be considerable. Therefore a
Region will have a real interest in the actions involving these chemicals
The C.I.A. would be prepared by November 30, 1977 and updated as new
chemicals become candidates for RPAR.
o
Then the Region would develop a chemical-by-chemical profile which
reflects usage of chemical, crops and availability of substitutes. This
format too and a sample will be provided by September 30, 1977.
The depth of this profile should be sufficient to allow for decisions
as to impact of cancellation. Where "Non-Agricultural" uses for a
chemical exist in a Region, the Region would prepare a "Non-Agricultural"
Uses List for the candidate RPAR chemical which contains site/pest
information and State recommendation. This list would be checked
against the Pesticide Use Profile prepared for a candidate compound
at the beginning of the RPAR time line and used by the OPP and USDA
teams in beginning the Benefits Data Collection process.
Using the working relationships with State Liaison Coordinators,
Regions would also make Benefit Data Reports (BDR) for the "Non-
Agricultural" uses of a chemical, (definitions of areas of responsi-
bility vis-a-vis Regions and USDA as well as precise guidance with
format and sample to be provided September 30, 1977)
The following steps would be followed:
a) Prepare "Non-Agricultural Users List
b) State Liaison Coordinator receives requests from USDA
Federal-State Assessment Team for benefits data
-------
-110-
c) Regions and State Liaison Coordinator discuss significance
of above data requests and list
d) State Liaison Coordinator may involve Regions in specific
State Assessment team activities or merely inform them.
Regions should be particularly concerned about the inclusion
of minor uses.
e) Regions would define uses for which "Non-Agricultural"
Benefits Data Report will be prepared and review it with
the State Liaison Coordinator. It may include minor uses.
f) Benefits data would be collected from affected user grouos
to complete the "Non-Agricultural" Benefits Date Report.
g) Benefits Data Report would be available to EPA and USDA groups.
Risk Data Reports (RDR) would be prepared by OSPR for all RPAR
candidates used in a Region. They would then be sent to each Region
for comment and addition of the following types of data which
may have been omitted.
Available PERS data, with major emphasis on data not
submitted to PERS.
Any monitoring or exposure data available in the
Regional Office, whether through State Agencies
sources.
Any wildlife effects data available.
Return of comments would be required within 10 working days after
receipt to fit into the RPAR schedule.
-------
-Ill-
It is recognized that because of the RPAR clock on the 46
chemicals and the late inclusion of the Regions into the RPAR
process, a number of Regional reports could not have been prepared
nor other assistance obtained from the Regions. Obviously regional
responsibilities cannot be assigned in such cases.
The RPAR process contains 4 decision points. (See the attched
RPAR Major Milestone Schedules). At each of these points, Decision
Papers are prepared by a Working Group, reviewed by the Pesticide
Chemical Review Committee (PCRC) and sent with the proposed Federal
Register Notice to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, OPP for a
decision. At this point the chemical can proceed towards eventual
cancellation/suspension or proceed to reregistrati on. The four
decision points are:
Should the presumption be issued (Risk only)
Is the presumption rebutted (Risk rebutted)
Do risks outweigh benefits (Risk/Benefit Analysis)
Should a cancellation or suspension notice be issued?
OSPR will send the Regions copies of the Decision Paper concerned with
Risk/Benefit analysis, with a reply expected within 10 days. The review
however, will take place only if the C.I.A. indicates an impact on the
Regions of firm regulatory decisions.
In order to have a focal point in each Regional Office, a RPAR
Coordinator should be identified by each Region. Given the reallocation
of priorities in the overall EPA guidance package, existing Regional
Resources should be considered for reprogramming to support this need.
The following are proposed manpower estimates for Regional RPAR activities.
-------
RPAR MAJOR MILESTONE SCHEDULE
ISSUE
RPAR
INITIATE
BENEFITS
COLLECTION
OLD
START DATA
COLLECTION
TIME
-90
I
-GO
-30
ADM'S
DECISION
RISK
REBUTTAL
INFO DUE
BENEFITS
DATA
DUE
RISK
ANALYSIS
FIRST; THEN IF
APPLICABLE
^-BENEFITS —i>
ANALYSIS
ADM'S
FINAL
DECISION
SAP
USDA
COMMENTS
DUE
+105
+180 +210
+240 +270 + 300
I
LINE
I
-90
-GO
-30
DATA COLLECTION—{>
STARTS AS SOON
AS NEW REFERRAL
IS PRIORITIZED;
SCHEDULED AS SOON
AS DATA COLLECTION
COMPLETE.
NEW
INITIATE
BENEFITS
COLLECTION
ISSUE
RPAR
+ 105
I
+180 +210 +240 +270 +300
RISK
ANALYSIS
ONLY
RISK
REBUTAL
INFO DUE
BENEFITS
DATA COLLECTION
240 DAYS .
RISK
DECISION
DUE
BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
AND
RISK/BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
IF APPLICABLE
DATA PXG
COMPLETE
BENEFITS
DATA DUE
SAP
USDA
COMMENTS
DUE
ADM'S
DECISION
ADM'S
FINAL
DECISION
-------
-113-
RPAR REGIONS (Manyears)
o
Functions I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Communication/Coordination 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2
CIA's/"Non-Ag" use list 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3
Prepare B.D.R.'s 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4
Prepare R.D.R.'s 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3
Review Decision Documents 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
TOTAL 3.5 1.2 1.5 3.0 2.9 2.4 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.4
It is also proposed that Regions, as part of their 24(c) technical
assistance to State programs, review such registrations against the
RPAR list. State Agencies would then be informed that RPAR chemicals
which have been presumed against are not suitable for 24(c) registration.
B. Certification of Applicators (Section 4)
Section 4 of amended FIFRA becomes effective October 21, 1977
three weeks into FY'78. Efforts must therefore be continued for the
remainder of FY'77 to ensure the implementation of acceptable
certification programs by the various States. This means that not only
should current efforts be maintained, but in those States where problems
still exist with having acceptable state laws and final approved
State plans, increased efforts will be needed. This will most likely
require an increase level of personal involvement by Regional
Administrators with States to support their Pesticide Branches.
-------
-114-
FY'78 should see the peak implementation of State certifi-
cation plans in almost every State. Thus, in FY'78, concurrently
with State certification efforts, there will be a major EPA
shift toward evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of
applicator certification and the adherence of States to their
a
responsibilities under approved plans. Headquarters is currently
exploring a nationwide evaluation program, and expects to contract
with a nationally recognized testing firm to develop a qualitative
data model which will show the relative effectiveness of various
certification approaches as they relate to quality of pesticide
use. The contract should be awarded this fiscal year, with the
bulk of its implementation coming in FY'78. We consider that the
use of this model and the guidance it will provide will be of
considerable help to Regions in monitoring State Plans. To be
productive, evaluation must include overall training and certifi-
cation mechanisms as well as the evaluation of State performance
and results. Based upon the final product from the Headquarter's
contract and its usefulness in subsequent Regional evaluations
of State plans, OPP and Regions should be able to jointly review
and implement any modifications of the program indicated by the
results of these surveys.
Another major commitment in FY'78 will be to carry out Federal
certification in those States without approved State plans. At the
present time there are perhaps no more than three States where
there is a probability of failure of State action to implement
•
Section 4. The outcome of the situation in these States will be
-------
clearly known by the end of the current fiscal year. Should these
or any other States fail to establish a State certification program,
Federal certification will need to be carried out in such States.
This could be highly resourceful intensive to those regions involved
and will require considerable Headquarter-Regional interaction on
how best to proceed on a region-by-region basis, but every effort
should be made to diffuse the direct burden. Funds should be available
to Regions from monies which would otherwise have gone to non-partici-
pating States. Further participation of individual State Agencies
in the EPA-administered program should be pursued. Consideration
should also be given to entering into contracts with private sector
entities to perform certain functions under the Federal plan. Head-
quarters and the Regions are currently developing detailed contingency
plans to implement Federal certification programs in those States
without State programs. These contingency plans will be completed
by May and ready for implementation if needed.
As originally conceived, Federal employees would be qualified
for State certification by undergoing training and examination
sponsored by Federal agencies under the Government Agency Plan (GAP).
During the last two years, it has become evident that the concepts
underlying GAP are not viable. We are now pursuing a modification of
-------
-116-
the State plan regulations to provide for Federal agencies to
certify their own employees under EPA approved Federal agency
plans. We are also working with the Federal agencies to develop
the necessary agency programs and plans to enable the Administrator
to grant such agencies the authority to certify their own employees.
We expect these actions to be accomplished during FY'77. In FY'78
our activities in this area will be devoted primarily toward monitoring
and evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal agency plans in
meeting the requirements of Section 4, and also in monitoring the
extent to which Federal agencies adhere to substantive State standards.
The State Plan Regulations provide to Indian Governing Bodies
the option of preparing their own certification plans or entering
into cooperative agreements with States to utilize the State certi-
V
fication mechanisms. To this point in FY'77, few Indian Governing
Bodies have indicated their intent to utilize either option. Thus,
over the next several months Regions should be making a concerted
effort to ensure that Indian Governing Bodies have the opportunity
to establish their own certification program, or as an alternative,
to join in cooperative agreements with the States. As with the
other programs, the Regional level of activity in FY'78 will be to
monitor and to evaluate the effectiveness of Indian Certification
programs and the extent to which cooperative agreements are serving
the needs of applicators on Indian reservations.
-------
-117-
C. State Registration of Pesticides to Meet Special Local Needs
24(c) and State Issuance of Experimental Use Permits 5(f) and
Sec 18 Emergency Exemptions
Promulgation of final 24(c) and 5(f) regulations are projected
for September of this year. As each of these programs provides States
the authority to carry out certain functions with respect to reaistration
of products and the issuance of experimental use permits, Headauarters
is currently undertaking a legal review to ascertain the dearee
to which current and proposed State legal authorities will satisfy
the reguirements for State plans which must be approved by EPA.
Headquarters is additionally developing the proaram elements
which must be present in the 24(c) and 5(f) State plans in order
for Regional Administrators to grant approval.
Given the anticipated promulgation of the reflations late
this fiscal year, we will have only just begun State plan review
and approval by the end of FY'77.
FY'78 will involve, therefore, development and review of 24(c)
and 5(f) State plans and evaluation of implementation and performance
of States under approved plans. The locus of these functions will
be at the Regional Offices; Headquarters will provide necessary
guidance and support. Regions will also have a major role in
reviewing registrations issued by States under 24(c) and experimental
1
use permits issued under 5(f).
-------
-118-
The power to Issue an emergency exemption of national siani-
ficance is reserved by the Administrator. For emergency exemptions
not of national significance the Assistant Administrator issues the
exemption with the concurrence of the Regional Administraor. Guidelines
and procedures for HQ/Regional coordination and execution on this
process will be developed in FY'77.
0. Regional Assistance to Registrants, Formulators and Users
Individuals and firms are increasingly in need of information on
the registration process. Many of these reguests in the oast have
been addressed to HQ, which has proven unsatisfactory because of
instances of HQ lack of knowledge concerning field situations and a
heavy workload. Therefore, the Reaions, traditional contact point
for inquiries from the field, will increase their role in providing
technical assistance. However, some Regions may need training in this area.
To meet this need, the Program Supoort Branch of the Operations Division
will implement a training program in registration requirements
for Regional personnel late FY'77 or early FY'78.
The scope of the regional role in this activity would be to:
• answer routine questions on the registration/reregistration
process;
• provide assistance to registrants in completing the
registration/reregistration aoplication forms and
labeling package; and
• direct questions or information to the proper Head-
quarters office when appropriate.
-------
Regions will serve as prime contact points for servicing smaller
firms in their areas on registration and reregistration, by conducting
preliminary technical and administrative reviews of their registration/
reregistration application packages.
E. Integrated Pest Management
In response to the mandates of the Congress, Headquarters has
initiated a series of in-house and contract efforts to compile
integrated pest management (IPM) information. The successful col-
lection, evaluation and dissemination of this IPM information will
require the Regions to act as a clearinghouse and make appropriate
inputs to IPM information coming from the States and subsequently
from Headquarters. Toward this end, the Regions should monitor IPM
programs in the States and be aware of pest control problems and any
solutions for these problems being developed locally.
F. Pesticides Enforcement
The Pesticides Enforcement program in FY'78 will be directed
toward three principle objectives. They are:
o Ensure the proper use of pesticides
o Strengthen the Federal/State cooperative enforcement
program
o Ensure industry compliance with registration/requirements
Recognizing the potential for serious health problems and
environmental damage resulting from improper pesticide use, high
priority will be placed upon ensuring the proper application,
storage, transportation, and disposal of pesticides. This will
-------
-120-
be accomplished through use and re-entry observations, experimental use
observations, experimental use permit monitoring, and inspection
of certified applicator operations. Such use surveillance activities
will be conducted both by EPA and by States participatinq in
cooperative enforcement programs. While use surveillance will
be a shared responsibility, it is anticipated that, due to the
preferences and special needs of participating State aaencies,
EPA will conduct the greater share of agricultural use surveillance
and enforcement activity.
Also of great significance in the pesticides enforcement orogram
is the expansion and strengthening of the Federal/State cooperative
enforcement program. By the inclusion of Section 23(a) in the
FIFRA, Congress clearly indicated its-intention that the States
play a significant and complementary role with EPA in the national
pesticides enforcement effort. With the closer association of State
agencies with local pesticides producers and users and greater aware-
ness of their use patterns, pest problems* and pesticides industry
operations, the States are uniguely qualified to complement EPA's
pesticides enforcement program. While all States have some existing
pesticide control program, many States encounter fundinq constraints
which limit their enforcement capabilities. Such States will require
Federal funding in order to participate in the full range of activities
and responsibilities of a complete pesticides enforcement proqram. In
FY'75, EPA implemented a pilot Federal/State cooperative enforcement
program to study the feasibility of a large-scale cooperative grants
program. Generally favorable results led EPA to develop a model
-------
-1.21-
Federal/State Cooperative Enforcement Agreement and to expand the
program to the present level, with an anticipated 15 States partici-
pating by the end of FY'77. The availability of significantly
increased grant funds will enable as many as 34 States, including those
continuing from FY'77, to participate in the program in FY'78.
The potential adverse impact on the Health and environment
resulting from failure to observe such reqistration retirements
as proper formulation and labeling requires continued surveillance of
industry compliance. It is crucial that harmful products be detected,
before they enter channels of trade, through the inspection
of producing establishments and visits to ports of entry. The
focus on industry compliance activities, like that upon user
compliance, is dictated by statutory mandates contained in the
amended FIFRA: the registration and reregistration of pesticides, and
the use of restricted use pesticides only by or under the direct
supervision of certified applicators. Industry compliance efforts
will thus be directed at ensuring that restricted use products
are sold and distributed in accordance with registration and
classification requirements. Priority for inspection and samolino
will be placed upon such restricted use products.
A primary consideration in the general conduct of the national
pesticides enforcement program is that of the dramatic increase in FY'78
grant monies made available to EPA by the Office of Manaoement and
Budget. The anticipated 55 million makes possible a sizeable in-
crease in the number of Federal/State cooperative enforcement
-------
-122-
programs and may also allow a limited number of these grants to be
dramatically enhanced, serving as pilot projects for more in-depth
State Programs.
Demands will necessarily be placed upon the Regional Offices
in terms of the implementation and oversight of State coooerative
programs. However, it is also hoped that as State proqrams become
more comprehensive and sophisticated, the impact of the expanded .State
role will be to free Regional enforcement resources for concentration
in other areas of the program. In particular, it is anticipated that
EPA can significantly reduce its role in producer establishment insoec-
tions and marketplace surveillance activities, with the expectation
that such reductions will be more than offset by increased State
activity. Concurrently, the Regions can increase their attention
upon import surveillance and resource-intensive use surveillance
activities, and, in fact, initiate new program activities as the
need for them arises. Further guidance will be provided from
Headquarters on other specific proaram activities, such as enforce-
ment of cancellation/suspension orders, test data verification,
device compliance enforcement, etc.
-------
-123-
II. Headquarters Support Activities
HQ will continue to provide policy guidance and technical
assistance for regions to carry out their various Pesticides
responsibilities. Most important of these are:
A. Section 4 State Plans
Most State Plans should be in place and operating by the
beginning of FY'78. Therefore, HQ's role will be to assist Regions
in maintaining the plans which will include such modifications as
required by Sec. 4(d), FIFRA (Instructions in IPM Techniques), and
Section 171.8 of the Regulations (Maintenance of State Plans).
Assistance will also be provided in monitoring and evaluatino individual
State plans and annual reports in accordance with established procedures.
Headquarters is currently exploring a national program evaluation con-
r"1
tract with a nationally recognized testing firm to attempt to build
qualitative data model to indicate the relative effectiveness of various
certification approaches as they relate to quality of pesticide use.
B. Section 24(c) and 5(f) State Plans and Sec 18 Emergency Exemptions
HQ's will provide training and guidance to the Regions in the
review and approval of Sec 24(c) and 5(f) State plans and the review
of Experimental Use Permits and Special Local Needs Registrations
issued pursuant to the approved State Plans. To assist in this
effort a slide/tape program with accompanying workbook will be
developed and made available by the end of FY '77. Guidelines and
procedures for the Regional/HQ coordination and issuance of emergency
exemptions will be initially developed in FY'77 and expanded and
revised as needed in FY'78.
-------
-124-
C. Assistance to Registrants, formulators and users
Headquarters will conduct a training program in late FY'77
or early FY'78 for Regional personnel to improve their ability
to provide registration information. Throughout FY'78 Headquarters
will continue to keep Regional personnel informed of changes and
developments in the registration process through correspondence,
telephone contacts and follow-up training courses as required.-
D. Integrated Pest Management
Past pest control efforts have sought to understand natural
systems by detailed study of smaller and smaller components. As
a result of this specialization, we have not been able to respond
to large scale pest problems. The environment is composed of related
dependent subsets. These components when combined result in larger
functional units. It has been shown that the properties of the large
scale, integrated systems hold solutions to most long range pest
mangaement problems. It is essential that all of the parts of these
pest control systems be first identified and then integrated. Such
integrated pest management (IPM) is best achieved by a team approach
and will result in biologically compatible, cost effective,
alternatives to existing pest control programss.
In response to Congressional mandates, Headquarters is taking
several actions to promote the IPM systems approach to pest management.
(1) All available information regarding IPM on agricultural and
urban pest management systems is being collected and evaluated.
-------
-125-
(2) Available IPM information will continue to be made
through the Extension Service of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and EPA Regional Offices to those requesting
such information and
(3) Based on available information, an Agency strategy for IPM
is being developed. This effort will be done in coordination
with the Regions and will be completed to begin internal
review on Nov. 1, 1977. This effort will (1) identify means
of increasing the development of information on a systems
level, (2) promote the flow of this information to the urban
and needed to implement such pest control systems.
Several specific approaches are being made at oresent to obtain
IPM information. First, contract studies are being developed to
obtain information on urban pest management and greenhouse pest
management. A study is nearing completion which looks at the
relationship between cosmetic standards and pesticide use. Second,
an interagency agreement with the Council on Environmental Quality
is being developed to hold a symposium on IPM at Cornell. This meeting
will look at problems relating to implementation of IPM and their
solutions. The thrust of this meeting on problem solving will be
a discussion of the interactions between the Federal, State, industrial
and private sectors. Third, in-house activities done with Regional
cooperation will include the development of:
(1) a core manual for IPM;
(2) a listing of publications and authors in IPM and;
(3) the continued development of agricultural and urban pest
management information.
-------
-126-
E. Registration Process
Headquarters thru the Regional Support Branch of the Operations
Division will keep Regions closely informed of the status of registration
and RPAR activities. This will include telephone contacts and a
monthly summary report of chemicals in the RPAR orocess with special
reports as required. This will increase the ability of the Regions
to respond to inquiries. Further, Headquarters will be working
with the Regions in the collection of data in support of the
RPAR process under the USDA Pesticide Impact Assessment Proqram.
F. Pesticides Enforcement
The primary emphases of pesticides enforcement are ensurina the
proper use of pesticides, the expansion and strengthen!'nq of the
Federal/State cooperative enforcement programs, and ensuring
industry compliance with registration reguirements. Considering
such priorities, the primary responsibilities of the Pesticides
and Toxic Substances Enforcement Division in support of Regional
and State efforts in these areas, along with other continuing
activities, are:
• Maintain general guidance, oversight, and coordination of
national pesticides enforcement program
• Provide assistance and guidelines to Regional Offices and
States in developing cooperative enforcement agreements
• Develop and publish Pesticides Enforcement Policy Statements
(PEPS)
-------
-127-
• Develop policy, enforcement strategy, and guidance to
Regional Offices for:
- device compliance
- cancellation/suspension monitoring activities
- restricted use pesticides
- disposal and transportation regulations
- special local needs registrations
- child-resistant packaging regulations
- advertising
• Maintain PEMS and ERSS comouter systems and provide
Regional training and liaison
• Provide legal research of pesticides enforcement issues
in conjunction with the Office of General Counsel
• Publish Notices of Judqement
-------
-128-
III. Program Priorities
Priority I
Registration/Reregistrati on and Tolerance Reassessment
Headquarters planning is based on the assumption that the leaislative
changes or clarifications previously discussed will be accomplished.
This will allow us to utilize the knowledge gained from previous registra-
tion reviews to expedite future registration requests and to classify
pesticides on an interim basis for restricted use pending review under the
new system. Implementation is scheduled early in FY'78. The new procedure
will allow a concurrent tolerance reassessment.
OSPR and other OPP divisions will be exoandinq the RPAR process and will
more fully involve Regions and States thru formalized aqreements and pro-
cedures . This will have a major impact on the guantity and quality of
registrations/reregistrati on.
Ensure Compliance with Label Directions for Use
The continuing and increasing concern over the danqers of the
improper use of pesticides mandates top priority to this activity.
Increased State participation in the overall pesticide enforcement
program will, in two ways, produce greater resource levels which can
be directed to this activity: an expanded number of Federal/State
cooperative agreements, all calling for some level of use surveillance
by States, will increase the absolute level of State use surveillance
over present levels; and the greater level of all State activity will
free Federal resources for assignment to use surveillance. It is
anticipated that the Regional Offices should direct JU% of their total
enforcement to this activity.
-------
-129-
Priority 2
Applicator Certification
All States desiring to conduct certification programs are exoected
to have plans approved and operational by the beginning of FY'78.
By the beginning of the FY'78 growing seasons (March'78) all applicators
desiring certification should have been qiven the opoortunity to become
certified. By the end of FY'77 Federal certification plans should be in olace
in non-participating States, all Federal agency employees should be able
to acquire a Federal certification allowing them to apply restricted use
pesticides in performance of their official duties, and aoplicator certifica-
tion Plans for Indian Governing Bodies should be aporoved and ooerational,
where desired.
In FY'78 Regional emphasis will shift to one of monitoring and mainte-
nance. State programs will be monitored to assure compliance with aooroved
plans and to measure effectiveness. Maintenance programs will consist of
training and certifying new applicators, recertifying existing applicators
where applicable under State regulations, and updating programs to meet
changing needs, e.g., additions to restricted use list, new technology, etc.
Strengthen Federal-State Cooperation in the Enforcement of FIFRA
The Regional Offices should attempt to enter into cooperative
enforcement programs or grants in FY'78 with at least three of the States
in their Region, including those presently participating in the program.
Guidance will be provided by Headquarters for the selection of partici-
pating States and the allocation of funds. Emphasis will be olaced uoon
developing a cooperative relationship whereby EPA manages overall
-------
-130-
national policy within which States can operate based uoon their best
judgment of local need. 30% of Regional enforcement resources should
be devoted to this aspect of the total program.
Priority 3
Integrated Pest Management
State integrated pest management programs have been ooerating
at varying levels of commitment and effectiveness for some time.
The recently passed Richmond Amendment to Section 4 of FIFRA requiring
EPA to make integrated pest management information available on
request should have a positive effect on these programs. In FY'77
Headquarters will amend Section 171 by adding Section 171.12 and
will develop an IPM core manual. There will be participation by the
Council on Environmental Quality, and also the development of an
urban pest management program and strategy. Regions in FY'78 will
assist the States in amending their State Plans to incorporate the
Richmond Amendment.
Accident Reporting
Continued development of useful and comprehensive accident
reporting in cooperation with State agencies involved in the use
and effects of pesticides is a critical reauirement in, and support
of the Registration and RPAR Process in order to identify and
correct label deficiencies, improve use patterns, and rectify
packaging problems. Data provided through PERS will continue to be
an important input to the hazard evaluation system. To ensure
-------
-131-
properly coordinated Headauarters response to accident situations,
including prompt risk evaluation the Pesticide Episode Response Branch
is the principal recipient, repository, and coordinator of nesticide
accident data within the Office of Pesticide Proqram.
Ensure Industry Compliance with Registration Requirements
In comparison with precedinq years, this activity will require a
lesser direct commitment of enforcement resources at the Federal level.
This is in anticipation of a significant increase in State operations
which will largely supplant EPA activity in the areas of producer
establishment inspections and marketplace surveillance, althouqh
EPA import investigations will increase somewhat. Approximately
15% of Regional enforcement resources will qo to this activity.
The remaining 25% of Regional enforcement resources are oresently
designated as unprogrammed. Of this total amount, each Reqion may
program 10% to whatever activities it feels are appropriate and
necessary within that Reqion, either in the way of unique Reaional
activities or to augment existing national programs as outlined
above. The remaininq 15% will remain available for other national
program activities, further guidance for which will be forthcomina
from Headquarters.
-------
-132-
IW ORE Support for Pesticides
Technical services from OP.D can be expected to remain at about
the same level in FY 1978 as that in FY 1977. Regional offices
can anticipate continuation of such activities as telephone consultation,
assistance to support litigation, analytical assistance, etc. throughout
FY 1978. In addition, ORD plans to produce the following outputs
sometime during 1978:
* In the Quality Assurance area,
Validated measurements methods for pesticide residues (and
transformation products) in biological materials and soil
to include alkyl phosphate in urine, hexachlorobenzene in
adipose tissue, Myrex in adipose tissue and milk, and analyt-
ical methods for toxaphene. 9/73 (reference samples)
12/78 (methods)
Bulk quantities of standardized column materials and some
quality control samples for routine measurements of pesticide
residues in biological materials and soil. Continuing
Performance evaluation reports to upgrade laboratories and to
improve data precision and accuracy. 9/78 as scheduled
* Measurement methods for aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DOT, toxaphene,
and Kepone. 12/78
* Report on the distribution of Kepone among water, sediment and
organisms and changes in these levels over time. 6/78
* Manual describing information to be included in toxicity reports
submitted as registration documentation. 1/77
* Complete evaluation of the Micro-Volume Electron Capture Detection
System for pesticide analysis. 4/77
* Reports on the environmental and health effects of 16 chemicals:
Arsenic to Toxaphene. 11/77
* Identification and specification of inputs for benefit-cost modeling
for pesticide use decision making. 4/77
-------
* Assessment of the feasibility and need for designing cost-Effective
pesticide use monitoring and compliance strategies. 9/77
* Integrated Pest Management
Evaluation of alternatives for reducing insecticides on cotton
and corn: economic and environmental impact. 5/77
Evaluation of the principles, strategies and tactics of pest
control in major crop ecosystems of cotton, soybeans, alfalfa,
citrus and apples. 11/77
Final Report on Bionomics of Soil Arthropods; Corn and Root
Vegetables. 9/77
Final Report on Tactics and Strategies for IPM; Corn, Citrus,
Apple, Alfalfa, Soybean and Pine. 9/7
-------
-134«
V. Regional Commitments
Output Title: 1-E: Ensure Acceptable Operation of Section 24(c) State Plans
Output Unit: 1-E-A Number of States with operational Sec. 24(c)
State Plans (SA)
Activity Indicator: 1-E-l Number of special local needs
registrations reviewed.in Regional Office (by State) (A)
Output Title: 2-E: Ensure Acceptable Operation of Sec. 5(f) State Plans
Output Unit: 2-E-A Number of States with operational Sec. 5(f)
State Plans (SA)
Activity Indicator: 2-E-l Number of experimental use
permits reviewed in Regional Office (by State) (A)
Output Title: 3-E: Ensure Compliance with Label Directions for Use
Output Unit: 3-E-A Number of use inspections conducted (Q)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-l Number of experimental use "
permits monitored (SA)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-2 Number of reported misuse
inspections conducted (SA)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-3 Number of applicator
inspections conducted (SA)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-4 Number of section 9(c) use
warnings and section 14(a)(2) warnings issued (SA)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-5 Number of civil complaints
resulting from use activity (SA)
Activity Indicator: 3-E-6 Number of criminal cases
referred to U.S. Attorney resulting from use activity (A)
-------
Output Title: 4-E: Strengthen Federal-State Cooperation In the
Enforcement of the FIFRA
Output Unit: 4-E-A Number of States participating in formal
cooperative programs (SA)
Activity Indicator: 4-E-l Number of States awarded grants-
in-aid (SA)
Activity Indicator: 4-E-2 Number of State-conducted use
inspections by State (SA)
Activity Indicator: 4-E-3 Number of State-conducted producer
establishment inspections by State (SA)
Activity Indicator: 4-E-4 Number of State-collected samples
from producer establishments by State (SA)
Activity Indicator: 4-E-5 Number of State-collected market-
place samples by State (SA)
Output Title: 5-E: Ensure Industry Compliance with Registration
Requirements
.Output Unit: 5-E-A Number of producer establishments inspected (Q)
Output Unit: 5-E-B Number of marketplace investigations conducted (SA)
Output Unit: 5-E-C Number of import investigations conducted (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-l Number of section 9(c) warnings
resulting from establishment inspection or marketplace
activities (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-2 Number of civil complaints resulting
from establishment inspection or marketplace activities (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-3 Number notices of arrival reviewed (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-.4 Number of import detentions (SA)
-------
-13 ff-!-
Activity Indicator: 5-E-5 Number of stop sale, use, or removal
orders resulting from all activities, including both use and
industry compliance (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-6 Number of criminal cases referred to
U.S. Attorney resulting from all industry compliance activities (A)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-7 Number of recalls initiated from all
activities (SA)
Activity Indicator: 5-E-8 Total number of official samples
collected from all sources (SA)
Abbreviations: (Q)-Report quarterly
(SA)-Report semi annually
(A)-Report annually
-------
-137-
OUTPUTS/ACTIVITY INDICATORS DEFINITIONS
Output Title: Use Compliance
Output Unit:
Use inspections - report all programmed use inspection made,
including experimental use, re-entry, and applicator inspections,
as defined below {inspections include visits made to application)
sites to determine if label directions are/were being observed
to dealers to determine if terms of an experimental permit are/
were adhered to, to institutions to determine if a pest control
operator is/was applying a pesticide under proper conditions,
etc.). All such inspections are to be reoorted, whether
conducted under Section 9(a) or on the basis of consent.
Activity Indicators:
Permits-monitored - report total number of permits monitored
regardless of the number of actual inspections made to monitor
one permit. Actual number of inspections will be reported as
part of Output Unit.
Reported misuse inspections - report all "after the fact" inspec-
tions resulting from reported misuse activities, as opposed to
programmed inspections for the purpose of observing use, experi-
mental use, or re-entry activities. Each reported incident counts
as one inspection regardless of the number of visists made to
various locations to investigate each incident.
Applicator inspections conducted - report number of programmed
inspections of commercial applicators conducted under, the Agency's
"Enforcement Priorities" program for the various types of appli-
cator operations, or as part of the Region's inspection program.
If an inspection is made of an applicator's place of business
followed by a later inspection of the applicator's use application
site, count as two inspections.
Enforcement actions - report all enforcement actions taken by EPA
as a result of use violations; report separately for each type of
action; include actions taken by EPA as a result of violations
detected, by cooperative State efforts.
Output Title: Federal-State Cooperation
Report State activities as part of this Output only. Other
Outputs are for Regional activities only.
Output Unit:
Formal cooperative programs - include all states havina either
non-funded or funded cooperative agreements or those to which
grants-in-aid have been awarded.
-------
-138-
Activity Indicators:
Report State activities individually for each State; individual
Activity Indicators will apply bor a tate only if the agreement
or grant-in-aid specifies such activity. Since the quarterly
reporting requirements of an agreement or grant may not correspond
with EPA's quarters, the Activity Indicator totals should reflect
State accomplishments through the most recently completed quarter
of the agreement or grant.
Samples collected - report official samples collected by the
State under Agency procedures only.
Use inspections - see above; note, however, this Activity
Indicator includes misuse inspections.
Output Title: Industry Compliance
Output Unit:
Import investigations - commit to visits to be made for examinations
and/or sampling of a product in import status even though visit
may not be to a port of entry.
Activity Indicators:
Samples collected - report official samples only.
Enforcement actions - report all enforcement actions taken by
EPA against product/producer violalrions; report all criminal
prosecutions as one total, regardless of source; report stop
sale and recall actions for all violative products whether
discovered during use, establishment, or marketplace activities;
incude actions taken by EPA as a result of violations detected
by cooperative State efforts.
Total samples collected - report all official samples collected
by EPA regardless of sources (use, establishment, marketplace,
etc.).
-------
OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS
OPERATING GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
RADIATION GUIDANCE - FY 1978
I. Program Narrative
Exposure to ionizing radiation principally results from
naturally occurring sources, some of which have been enhanced
through man's intervention in mining and manufacturing
processes; from medical and industrial applications of
x-rays and radioactive materials; and from various aspects
of the nuclear power industry. EPA accepts as a prudent
health assumption the concept that any radiation exposure
results in some adverse health effects. While some public
exposure to radiation is inevitable, no avoidable risk due
to radiation exposure should occur to individuals, to the
population at large, or to the environment without the
existence of offsetting benefits.
EPA's principal efforts towards achieving its objective
of preventing unnecessary radiation exposure are directed
towards the control of radiation exposure from naturally-
occurring sources not covered under the Atomic Energy Act
and from exposures associated with all phases of nuclear
power generation. With completion of the development of the
uranium fuel cycle standard for control of planned releases
from nuclear power generation activities, increased emphasis
is being placed on environmental problems surrounding the
management of radioactive wastes. A major effort to develop
criteria and standards for various classes of wastes and
alternative disposal techniques will continue through FY 1978
and beyond. Other significant activities are directed toward
development of guidance of medical x-rays and nuclear medicine
applications in Federal health care facilities, the develop-
ment of guidance for acceptable radiation levels in structures
built on reclaimed phosphate mined land and toward investigating
ambient levels of nonionizing radiation and attendant health
effects. A decision on the need for standards for population
exposure to nonionizing radiation is projected for FY 1977;
standard development, if needed, will take place in FY 1978.
The nature of radiation problems and the organizational
structures of other Federal agencies which have responsibili-
ties for radiation protection require that EPA have a strong,
centralized program for the management of standards setting,
-------
-142-
review of radiation-related EIS's other than those for
conventional light-water-cooled nuclear power plants,
technology assessments, and environmental monitoring programs.
This requirement defines the role of the Headquarters
component (ORP) of the EPA Radiation Program. The role of
the Regional Offices in the EPA Radiation Program is equally
important as, and complementary to, the role of ORP. Together,
the Regional Radiation Programs and the ORP constitute the
Agency's Radiation Program.
The Regional Radiation Program staffs, which consist of
only one or two professionals in each Region, are the repre-
sentatives of the Agency for radiation matters within their
Regions. They are responsible for the day-to-day interactions
with State and local agencies, the public, news media, industry,
and others on radiation problems of mutual concern. They serve
as the radiation experts within the Regional Offices, providing
consultation and advice to other components of the Regional
Offices, as well as to the States and the public. Technical
backup, if needed, is provided to the Regional Programs by ORP
Headquarters and Laboratory staffs, but the Regional Radiation
Programs are the main point of contact and coordination within
the Regions.
Additional elements of the role of Regional Offices in
the EPA Radiation Program include the technical radiation ._ .. .
review of conventional nuclear powerplant EIS's; implementation_
of radiation standards and guidance; assisting States in the
development and testing of radiological emergency response, plans;
providing management and coordination of the Regional portion of
the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System; performing
environmental reviews of radiological aspects of selected Federal
facilities and participating in EPA inspections pursuant to E.O.
11752; providing coordination with States of ORP field activities
conducted in the Region and participating in such activities;
assisting States in developing capability to assume resoonsi-
bility to implement 'the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water
Act,- particularly in the areas of laboratory radioanalytical
capability, quality assurance, and laboratory certification;
obtaining, compiling, and reporting technical information on
selected nuclear and radiation facilities for ORP; and
participating in the technical review of EIS's for nuclear and •
radiation activities in the Region, other than conventional
nuclear power plants.
-------
.._ -143-
II. Outline of Headquarters Activities Supporting the
Regional Offices
FY 1977 Program
Federal guidance for radiation protection in
Federal health care facilities covering prescrip-
tion and technique for medical x-rays will be
promulgated. (6/77)
Protective action guidelines covering particulates
in the reactor plume resulting from nuclear reactor
• accidents will be developed and issued for State
use. (9/77)
Final recommendations will be made on corrective
measures for existing structures on reclaimed
phosphate mined lands, and on screening measures
for structures planned to be built in undeveloped
areas'. (7/77)
Complete and publish the background considerations
report and supporting documents 'needed for .the
promulgation of fundamental environmental criteria
for radioactive waste management. (9/77)
Additional efforts on waste management will be
directed toward assessments of the Maxey Flats,
Kentucky, and West Valley, New York disposal sites
(2/77), and environmental transport of radwaste at
West Valley, N. Y. (9/77).
Review and comment on environmental impact state-
ments involving generic issues or advanced
applications, including the last part of Offshore
Power Systems, Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facility,
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the spent fuel
storage, and mixed oxides fuel fabrication facility.
Monitoring efforts will be continued; the second
annual Radiological Quality of the Environment Report
will contain trends analyses.(4/77)'
Industry influence on pollution of the environment
and human population by natural radionuclides will
be reported. (9/77)
Data analyses will be performed for selected nuclear
facilities.
Low-level nonionizing radiation surveys on the West
Coast will be completed. (9/77)
-------
-144-
FY 1978 Plans
Environmental criteria for radioactive waste
management will be developed. While the nature
of the criteria for radioactive waste management
have not as yet been completely determined, such
criteria would include parameters for defining the
degree of protection that should be afforded to
present and future generations and for specifying
risk limits from such activities. (12/77)
Promulgation of environmental standards for disposal
of high-level radioactive wastes. (6/78)
Additional efforts on waste management will be
directed toward developing and reporting on an
environmental model of high-level waste disposal in
geological formations; publishing reports on shallow
land burial of low-level wastes; and issuing regula-
tions on site selection and baseline monitoring for
ocean disposal of radioactive wastes.
Protective action guides for food and water contami-
nated by particulates released by a nuclear accident
will be issued to further assist States in developing
emergency response capabilities. (9/78)
Promulgate Federal guidance for cleanup, restoration,
and occupancy of areas contaminated by plutonium. (1/78)
Develop EPA policy on radioactivity in fossil fuels
and implications for increased use of these fuels. (3/78)
Assess the need for covering radon and uranium in
drinking water standards.(6/78)
Developmental work necessary for the publication of
criteria for disposition or stabilization of uranium
mine and mill tailings at active and abandoned sites
will be continued.
The development plan for technical analysis of the
thorium fuel cycle in support of a standard will be
completed. (9/78)
Promulgate final standards for carbon-14 from the
uranium fuel cycle, an effluent not covered in the
original standards. (6/78)
The data bases for radon standards, for a plutonium
recycle standard, and for defense-related and commer-
cial usage of plutonium will be completed. (9/78)
-------
-145-
Draft Federal guidance for acceptable radioactivity
concentrations in building materials. (9/78)
Review of EIS's for generic issues and advanced
applications of nuclear.technology will be performed
as needed; generic issues expected to be included
relate to mixed oxides statement (GESMO); waste
management statement; safeguards; proliferation/-
reprocessing. Advanced applications will be reviewed
for the Exxon fuel reprocessing plant; Idaho Nuclear
Engineering Lab; and the Savannah River Plant.
Environmental measurements will be reported to
assure conformance with safe drinking water standards.
*
A guidance manual on sampling procedures will be
issued. (10/77)
Data analyses for selected nuclear facilities will
be published. (9/78)
III. Program Priorities
The following tasks for the Regional Radiation Programs
are listed in order of priority in support of the EPA National
Radiation Program:
1. Conduct the technical review of conventional nuclear
power plant EIS's (or other assigned technical reviews).
2. Complete the final report on a project useful to
Headquarters and/or other Regions. Because of unique exper-
tise or capability on the part of the radiation staff in a
particular Region, or because of the occurrence of a radiation
problem unique to one or a few Regions, other Region-specific
roles or activities can be defined.- Certain Regions will be
designated as "Lead Region" to provide input to particular
standards-setting activities and working groups, or Regional
input to special radiation problems being studied by ORP. A-
Region may also be designated as project manager for ORP
contracts where the contractor is located within the Region'
and the Regional Office can provide "on-site" monitoring
of the contract. Region-specific radiation projects have
been developed through consultation between ORP and the
Regional Office and are listed in Section V, Regional
Commitments.
-------
-146-
3. Implement the radiological portion of the EPA
Drinking Water Standards in support of the Water Supply
Program. Assist States in development of their capability
to assume responsibility for implementing the Drinking Water
Standards. (ORD will provide quality control guides for
radiochemical analysis in Fyl978. See Water Supply Agency
Guidance, p.92.)
4. Assist States in the development, testing, evaluation,
modification, and maintenance of State radiological emergency
response plans, and, as warranted, promote the devlopment of
interstate, intraregional, and interregional emergency response
coordination. Such assistance to States will be primarily
through Regional participation on the Regional Steering Com-
mittee and in Federal Cadre operation. Particular emphasis
should be placed on working with States to assure integration of
EPA Protection Action Guidance into the State plans. In
addition, the Regional Office should provide Regional
Radiological emergency response coordination should such an
emergency occur within the Region.
5. Perform environmental reviews of radiological aspect
of selected Federal activities pursuant to E.O. 11752.
6. State and Other Technical Assistance:
a. Provide technical and program consultation and
assistance to States where required.
b. Respond to public and Congressional inquires.
c. Stimulate productive functioning of Regional
Training Committees to meet State training needs.
d. Facilitate and coordinate ORP activities with
States.
e. Participate in EIS reviews of non-conventional
nuclear activities to extent delegated and/or
capable.
7. Obtain., compile, and report technical information
on selected nuclear and radiation faciliLies, including
facilities with potential for naturally-occurring radio-
activity problems.
-------
-147-
IV. ORD Support for Radiation
Responses to such items as technical services from ORD can be
expected to remain at about the same level in FY 1978 as that in
FY 1977. Regional components can anticipate technical assistance to
support legal matters, telephone consultation, and other brief
scientific assistance as it relates to the radiation program. In
addition, regional offices can anticipate the following outputs
sometime during FY 1978:
* Quality Assurance
Performance evaluation reports to State, utility, and private
laboratories participating in the cross-check sample studies
program for food, milk, and soil. (The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission participates in this output). Quarterly and semiannual.
Quality control reference samples for radiochemical measure-
ments that have been subjected to traceability studies with
the National Bureau of Standards to ensure their precision
and accuracy. Continuing.
On-site evaluation reports and recommendations to the appropriate
certification authority for 28 radiochemical laboratories. 9/78
* Completion of teratologic evaluation of intrauterine exposure to FM
frequency radiation. 8/78
* Completion of the relative effectiveness of pulsed vs continuous
wave microwave indication on immunocompetent cells. 6/78
-------
-148-
V. Regional Commitments Attached are completed forms
RADIATION PROGRAM OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS
The following is the list of outputs and activity
indicators (A/I) requiring commitments and/or reporting
through the Formal Planning and Reporting System (FPRS)
during FY 1978. The list indicates for each output and A/I
the reporting unit (Region or State), the milestone and/or
reporting frequency, and whether a FY 1978 start level is
required.
Abbreviations used to indicate the unit and
frequency are:
Reporting Units
Regional Total - T
Frequency
SA - Semi-annually
Activity Indicator
IF 1. No. of Radiation EIS
Reviews Completed
Units Frequency Start Level?
T SA No
Special Regional Radiation Projects*
Final Report Useful to Headquarters and/or to Other-Regions
REGION
Project
Define and assess the problem
of radon in drinking water in
the six States in the Region.
Data will be used in assessing
the need for covering radon in
drinking water standards.
* Each Region is being asked to complete a .report. The final
report will indicate successful completion of the project.
-------
REGION PROJECT
II Develop a Regional assessment of
the problem of transportation of
radioactive material through high
population density urban environ-
ments. This report will be used
by other Regions with similiar
problems.
Ill . Implement the radiological portion
of the Safe Drinking Water Act for
the State of Pennsylvania. Report
on the efforts, problems, and solu-
tions involved in a Regional Office
implementing the SDWA will be used
by other Regional Offices who may
have to implement the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
IV Develop and test a system to
evaluate and chart a State's
progress in emergency response
planning; such system to provide a
"master plan," indicate where a State
is in the plan, and what has to be
done to achieve the final goal of an
acceptable and workable emergency
response plan. This system will be
used by other Regions to assess State
emergency response planning.
V Define and evaluate the problem of
decommissioning of radiological
facilitites located in urban areas.
This report will be used by ORP in
their assessment of waste management
and siting issues for decommission-
ing radioactive facilities.
VI Develop a report of the impact on
State programs of proposed high-
level radwaste repository in New
Mexico. This report will be used
by Regions and States where radwaste
disposal facilities may be located.
VII Assess the problems in disposal of
• radium removed in water treatment
processes. This report will be used
by other Regions in giving technical
assistance to States.
-------
-150-
VIII Conduct a study of technical and
legal problems related to radio-
logical impact on the environment
of proposed in-situ solution
mining of uranium. This report
will provide input to the ORP study
on the impact of solution mining.
IX Develop a report of recommended
criteria and practices on manage-
ment of low level radwaste disposal
sites. This report will be the
outgrowth of a work group or
symposium of Federal, State, and
industry representatives and will
provide input to the development
of criteria and standards for
disposal of low-level radioactive
waste.
X . Define the scope and need for field
work on the problem of the use of
slag from the phosphate industry
in building construction. This
report will provide input to the
development of guidance on radio-
activity in building materials.
-------
OFFICE OF NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
"PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-153-
NOISE PROGRAM GUIDANCE
I. Program Narrative
In the "Proposed National Strategy for Noise Abatement
and control," the Agency set out specific goals for the noise
program including:
- elimination of environmental noise induced hearing
loss, reduction of environmental exposure to below
75 dB Ldn in the immediate future with long term
reduction below 65 dB Ldn
- minimization of intrusive noise
-.minimizing the degradation of existing environmental
noise levels, where such levels are acceptable.
The rapidity with which these goals are.met is dependent
on the Agency1s decisions on product noise emission regulation
(both standards and labeling) and the strength and nature of
the total Federal/State/local program aimed at producing an
acceptably quiet environment.
This.guidance outlines Federal work which will be on-
going in the product regulation and labeling areas. It also
sets out a new program designed to implement a broader and
more effective control program at State and local level.
The main impact of these goals on the Regions in FY 1978
will be the implementation of the Each Community Helps Others
(ECHO) Program and the Quiet Communities Program (QCP).
-------
__ -154- .
There are no major resource shifts planned for noise
in FY 1978. Regional resources will continue to include
one permanent position and related funding, with additional
funding to support at least one additional temporary man-
year of support. Further assistance is available through
Level of Effort Contracting Support. It is also planned that
each Region will received an additional man-year for implemen-
tation of the ECHO and QCP programs through Agency participation
in the Older Americans Program. In addition, each Region has
designated a Regional Noise Enforcement Attorney within the
Regional Enforcement Division, although no resources will be
formally authorized for the Regions for noise enforcement' in
FY 1978.
II. Significant Headquarters Events Influencing FY 78
Regional Programs
A. New Product Regulations
The following new product regulations for products for-
mally identified as major sources of noise should be proposed
in FY 1977 and made final in FY 1978 with effective enforce-
ment dates in FY 1979 or later: motorcycles, buses, truck
mounted solid waste compactors and refrigeration units and
wheeled and crawler loaders and dozers.
The Agency will also be issuing regulations in FY 1977
requiring labeling of hearing protectors and setting out a
general product labeling program aimed at assisting consumer
choice'of quieter products.
-------
EPA promulgated final noise regulations for portable
air compressors on December 31, 1975 and heavy duty trucks
on March 31, 1976. These regulations will become effective
on January 1, 1978 (the beginning of the second quarter of
FY 1978). The Noise Enforcement Division (Office of Enforce-
ment) including the Sandusky Noise Enforcement Facility, will
have the primary responsibility for enforcing these regulations.
NED will monitor and conduct product vertification (PV) and
selective enforcement audit (SEA) enforcement testing both at
the NEF site and at product manufacturers' facilities. In
addition, NED will assist in the development of enforcement.
strategies for new products to be regulated by EPA in the
future. NED will also make its NEF available to ONAC for use
in the development of additional new product standards and
regulations. It is anticipated that Regional personnel may
assist with this Federal enforcement and, as well, assist
State and local agencies in the adoption and enforcement of
compatible regulations.
B. In-Use Regulation Of Trucks and Railroads
The EPA promulgated noise' emission standards for inter-
state motor carriers on October 29, 1974 and for interstate
rail carriers on January 1, 1976. The DOT/Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety compliance regulations for interstate motor
carriers became effective on October 15, 1975; and the DOT/
Federal Railroad Administration interstate rail carrier
-------
compliance regulations were proposed on November 11, 1976
and will be effective in the near future. Regional offices
may assist State and local agencies with the adoption and
enforcement of identical regulations and, where required, in
applying to EPA for waivers of the Federal preemption because
of special local conditions.
C. Control of Aircraft Noise
EPA has developed a systematic noise abatement planning
process that can be applied at individual airports. EPA now
proposes to work with 10 or less airports to demonstrate how
this planning process can result in noise abatement, beginning
in FY 1977 and continuing throughout FY 1978. Criteria for
the selection of such demonstration airports have been circu-
lated to the regions for comment and the actual selection of
such airports will be done with the consultation.'of the Regional
offices. This demonstration effort should result in a number
of airport noise abatement plans which, if implemented, will
\
provide significant relief from local airport noise problems.
D. Technical Assistance to State and
Local Agencies
The Agency has new program tools for Regional use which
are either in hand or about ready for delivery: The modified
noise vans, the Model Community Monitoring Protocol, the
Community Noise Ordinance Workbook (available during the second
quarter of 1977); the Model Building Code (scheduled for pub-
lication in the fourth quarter of 1977), and Guidelines for
Implementation of ECHO and QCP (scheduled during the fourth
quarter of 1977),
-------
EPA is now undertaking a joint construction site
demonstration with the Federal Highway Administration. This
project will determine, evaluate and demonstrate the cost
effectiveness of alternative, construction site noise control
techniques outside the area of new product regulations. This
information will be made available to the Regions in FY 1978.
With respect to community awareness, the agency will
provide the following public information brochures: Noise
Around Our Homes; Noise and Recreational Vehicles; Noise and
Its Measurements; Noise At Work; and Noise On Wheels, in FY 1977.
These should be distributed to the public and State and local
agencies by the Regions.
III. Program Priorities for FY 1978
The following are the Agency's highest priority activities
in noise control in FY 1978:
- The Agency will continue to set noise emission standards
for various products (products under consideration for
future standard setting include: automobiles, lawn-
mowers, light trucks, pavement breakers, rock drills,
and other sources.) Any resulting regulations will not
become effective during FY 1978. Proposed regulations
will be promulgated in FY 77 for: motorcycles, buses,
wheel and tractor loaders and dozers, truck-mounted
refrigeration units and solid waste compactors. None
of these will become effective in FY 1978.
-------
The Agency will begin enforcing noise emission
standards for air compressors and medium and heavy-
duty trucks, which become effective in 1978. There
will be a need for local and State efforts emphasizing
these sources to supplement Federal enforcement carried
out at the Sandusky Facility.
The above efforts will be the Agency's highest priority
activities in noise control for FY 1978. However, the
following second priority efforts are also essential
to attainment of the national goals and are the primary
responsibility of the Regions:
The Agency will initiate a self-help program (ECHO
or Each Community Helps Others) whereby .the EPA, through
the Regional offices will make financial and other
assistance available to existing noise control programs
in order for these programs to assist other communities
in the same State or Region in setting up noise programs.
Current planning is that each Region would participate
in this program.
The Quiet Communities Program, will focus on develop-
ment of noise control programs in a few selected
communities, which presently do not have such programs,
through direct EPA assistance. Due to manpower re-
strictions, not every Region will participate in the
»
QCP.
-------
-159-
Through the above programs, the Agency expects to utilize
existing State and local programs to broaden the expert advice
available to stimulate development of new programs. To the
extent possible, in addition to the above the Agency will
continue to assist existing programs and communities initiating
programs with information on Federal standards, model State
and local laws, enforcement and environmental assessment.
A third priority effort will involve continuation and
expansion of the Agency's noise labeling program. Proposed
labeling requirements for hearing protectors should be out in
FY 1977 and proposed labeling requirements for mufflers should
be out in FY 1978. Development work will be going on in the
household products, consumer products and industrial machinery
groups. It is expected that Regional involvement in the labeling
effort will be minimal; however, as labeling standards are
developed, the Regions will become involved in the Agency's
consumer education program which will be set up to inform the
public on noise and to provide information on product labeling.
This will not require Regional action in FY 1978.
Next in priority, EPA has developed a process to enable
airports and communities to assess the magnitude of the airport
noise problem in their communities and to indicate the potential
benefits of specific remedial actions, and is working with
number of airports and communities to plan and implement noise
abatement efforts.
-------
-160-
Other lesser priority areas of emphasis,-all of which
have minimal Regional involvement, include: the establish-
ment of joint demonstration programs with other Federal
Agencies, coordination of the over-all Federal noise research
program and the implementation of the Low Noise Emission
Products (LNE'P) program whereby Federal agencies will purchase
products which are significantly quieter than the Federal
Standards.
In addition to the high priority areas, the Regions
should continue to provide effort on lower priority activities
including: -noise reviews of EIS's on a regular basis; tech-
nical assistance to Federal facilities located in Regions
including the review of noise reports submitted by other Federal
agencies as part of EO-11752 requirements; and public information
on noise, including the status of EPA regulations, and carry
out preliminary review of Special Local Conditions preemption
waiver requests.
Regions are expected to assess, and provide assistance
to, other Federal agencies' noise programs, as they are imple-
mented at the Regional level. However, this effort should be
held to a minimum in FY 1978 in view of other tasks. Where
relevant information on the application of other Federal agencies
noise-related policies, practices, and regulations comes to
the attention of the Regional office, it should be provided to
ONAC for inclusion in EPA coordination of all Federal noise
programs.
-------
-161-
IV. Office of Research and Development: no active noise
^^^^~ ^^^-^-n T-I—i. an *~ ,
component. £/^ ^ sJv JL*f*jK*L>**(&****.
-------
-162-
The QCP program will be concentrated on developing new
local noise programs through a contract effort with the com-
munity. It is anticipated that the Regional Noise Representative
will be required to work closely with the community during all
phases of the program.
The QCP includes the following six phases: (1) physical
and social survey; (2) development of a community noise plan;
(3) translation of the proceeding into legislative needs;
(4) passage of the legislation; (5) training of enforcement
personnel and; (6) implementation of the noise program.
In addition to the communities identified under the QCP
and ECHO, the Regions will continue to provide technical
assistance to State and local agencies as requested.
The Regional Noise Enforcement Attorneys may assist the
Regional Noise Representatives with the development and implement-
ation of this State and local assistance.
In view of this objective, the noise "output" assigned
to the Regions for FY 1978 will emphasize the planned con-
centrated assistance to State and local agenices. (See attached
summary.)
-------
-163-
Regional Noise Program Output and Activity Indicators
The following output and activity indicators (A/I)
require commitment and/or reporting through the Formal
Planning and Reporting System (FPRS) during FY 1978. The
following indicates for the output and A/I the reporting
unit (Region or State), the milestone and/or reporting
frequency, and whether a FY 1978 start level is required.
Abbreviations used to indicate the unit and frequency are:
Reporting Units Frequency
Regional total - T Q - quarterly
SA - semi-annually
1-G Increase the Number and Effectiveness
of State and Local Noise Programs
Outputs Units Freq. Start Level
A. No. of ECHO recipient
communities T Q 0
Activity Indicators
1. No. of QCP participants
(in selected Regions) T . Q 0
2. No. of noise ordinances
adopted T SA 0
-------
-164-
' NOISE OUTPUT UNIT DEFINITIONS
A. # of ECHO recipients: the number of jurisdictions which
are served by ECHO instructors (see below); can be
either State or locality- To be counted as a recipient
an arrangement must be in effect whereby the jurisdiction
is actually receiving help from an instructor jurisdiction;
i.e., jurisdictions with established noise programs
which will provide assistance to other jurisdictions
(can be either State or locality).
1. # of Quiet Communities: the number of communities
selected for intensive development of a noise control
program; specific community to be included will be
negotiated with the ONAC. Locality only.
2. Total -number of communities (including non-ECHO and
non-QCP) that adopt noise ordinances.
-------
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
OPERATING GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-167-
FY 78 TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL GUIDANCE
Overview;
Implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act in
FY 1978 will require coordinated Headquarters and Regional
office activities in five basic areas:
1. Dissemination of implementation policy information
to industries, environmental groups, and the general public.
2. Development of source and ambient monitoring data
for specific chemical substances. Such data will be used
in the determination of the need for and extent of possible
regulatory actions.
3. Development of selected State Agency, programs to
complement EPA Toxic Substances Control Act implementation
activities.
4. Establishment of formal EPA information development,
and regulatory action, rules required for implementation of
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
5. Development of programs for enforcement of regulations
dealing with PCB's and chlorofluorocarbons.
6. Development of operational strategies.
Dissemination of Information:
During the balance of FY 77, and through FY 78, the
Agency will develop and publish certain specific rules under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. These rules will be of interest
to environmental groups and the general public and, especially,
-------
-168-
to industries. The most important of these rules, as they
concern the Headquarters/Regional Office relationship, involve
the publication of the initial inventory of chemical substances
being manufactured (section 8b) , and the initiation, of the
pre-manufacturing review process (section 5a). It can be
expected that numerous inquiries concerning Agency policy
in these areas will be received by each Regional Office.
During the last two quarters of FY 77, the Office of Toxic
Substances will provide instruction to the Regional Offices
concerning Agency policy for each specific rule. The in-
struction will be provided in the form of concise written
guidance, and through Headquarters/Regional Office policy
discussion meetings.
Development of Source and Ambient Monitoring Data:
The Agency will move aggressively, in the remainder of
FY 77 and throughout FY 78, to develop information regarding
the risk to human health and the environment which might be
associated with existing chemical substances. The Administrator
announced, on March 22, a serious examination of 15 such
substances. It is likely that certain Regional Offices will
be asked to develop source and ambient monitoring information
on these substances during the first half of FY 78. It can
also be expected that Regional Offices will be asked to develop
similar information for additional chemical substances during
the balance of FY 78, and that like requests will continue
into the foreseeable future.
-------
-169-
During the final quarter of FY 77, and in the first
quarter of FY 78, the Office of Toxic Substances will meet
with the Regional Offices to plan for specific information
development programs applicable to FY 78.
Development of Selected State Agency Programs;
During the final two" quarters of FY 77, the Office of
Toxic Substances will work with the Regional Offices to develop
rules for State Agency toxic substances control programs.
These State programs are to complement and be an extension
of EPA's activities to implement the Toxic Substances Control
Act.
During FY 78, the Office of Toxic Substances and the
Regional Offices will initiate State grant programs, under
section 28 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. It is likely
that only a few selected State programs will be offered grant
support.
Rule Development;'
Regional Office participation will be assured for each
TSCA rule development group instituted in the remainder of
FY 77 and throughout FY 78. Specific Regional Office repre-
sentation for a particular development group will be determined
.through consultation with the Office of Regional and Inter-
governmental Operations.
-------
-170-
Regular meetings of'the Office of Toxic Substances and I,
Regional Offices will be conducted to discuss priorities for
rule development and other pertinent issues. The Office of
Regional and Intergovernmental Operations will determine the
frequency of these meetings.
PCS's and Chlorofluorocarbons;
Regulations regarding labeling and disposal of PCB's
and the prohibition on manufacture and use of. PCB's except
in a totally enclosed manner will be promulgated during the
next several months. Regulations affecting aerosol uses of
chlorofluorocarbons also will be issued during this period.
Regional offices, in cooperation with EPA Headquarters, will
need to develop appropriate plans to ensure compliance with
these regulations.
Strategy Development:
Each Regional Office will be expected to develop and
implement an integrated toxic substances control strategy
which provides for the formulation of a priority list of
chemical substances and of procedures for integration of en-
forcement, monitoring, technical assistance, and data manage-
ment activities across program lines:-' During the remainder
of Fiscal 1977, Headquarters will work with the Regional
Offices to develop a model strategy from which each Regional
•
Office ,can formulate a document suited to its own situation.
r;j?"
-------
-171-
Regional Commitments:
Output Title 1-L '• Integrated Toxics Strategy
Output Unit 1- L-A: Develop and implement a Regional
Office integrated toxic substance control strategy. (A, T)
Consideration is being given to additional outputs and activity
indicators. These will be circulated for discussion and
added to the system as appropriate.
-------
PY 1978 Operating Guidance
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
-------
-175-
I. REGIONAL OPERATING PRIORITIES
A. EIS-309'Review
1. Strive for timely, high quality reviews
which make use of all available expertise.
2. Stress pre-EIS liaison, particularly for
projects .expected to have significant adverse
environmental effects, e.g., energy, water
resource, and major transportation and com-
munity development projects. EIS coordinators
should be familiar with planning systems and
processes of other Federal agencies.
3. Concentrate technical assistance in critical
areas where EPA's technical input can signi-
ficantly improve the quality of an agency's
plans and projects.
4. Selectively follow up at the post-EIS stage
on key projects to assure that crucial miti-
gation measures are incorporated as promised
in final EIS's, report critical discrepancies
to OFA. Periodically monitor projects of a con-
tinuing nature (eg. navigation projects) to
acquire new information and identify need for
project modifications.
5. Foster closer link between EIS reviews and
related environmental reviews such as new
source reviews, 109(j) determinations, and
404 reviews.
B. NEPA Compliance
1. Construction Grants/208 Planning NEPA
Compliance
Most of the Agency's nonregulatory NEPA
Compliance workload is that of performing
environmental reviews of municipal construc-
tion grant projects for which a Step I grant
has been awarded, or. for which Step II or Step
III grant applications have been received
-------
-176-
without prior Step I grants, with appropriate
measures taken to ensure funding environmen-
mentally sound, cost-effective projects. In
addition, environmental reviews will be required
on all Section 208 State and areawide water
quality management plans. Regional operating
priorities are:
a. Encourage potential construction grant
applicants to begin writing their environ-
mental assessments as early as possible in
project planning.
b. Perform environmental reviews for all Step
I projects and all projects for which a Step
II or Step III application has been received
without prior Step I grants.
c. Attempt to make initial ElS/negative decla-
ration decisions before awarding Step I
grants in order to take advantage of joint
ElS/environmental assessment preparation
procedure (piggybacking).
d. Perform environmental reviews of Section
208 state and areawide plans.
2. Water New Source Permits NEPA Compliance
The Agency's objective is to provide environ-
mental assessments of all new source discharge
permits (NPDES) issued by EPA. Regional oper-
ating priorities are:
a. Perform timely environmental reviews of all
new source discharge permit applications.
b. Request all permit applicants to prepare an
environmental questionnaire and assessment,
where appropriate.
c. Where feasible, utilize third-party arrange-
ments rather than contract or in-house
arrangements for EIS preparation.
-------
-177-
d. Where necessary, encourage and obtain
commitments from other agencies to parti-
cipate in EIS development.
e. Full participation with NRC, in accordance
with the second EPA/NRC Memorandum of Under-
standing, on EIS preparation for Nuclear
power plants.
C. Federal Facilities Compliance
1. Air and Water Standards Compliance
Refer to OFA all non-complying major Federal
facilities that are not making satisfactory
progress toward meeting applicable standards
after all local channels to obtain compli-
ance have been exhausted. A referral to OFA
should be fully documented, comparable to a
formal enforcement action.
Negotiate compliance schedules .for consent
agreements for non-complying facilities
which do not have such schedules.
Review compliance status of all major sources
through compliance evaluation inspections or
evaluations of self-monitoring reports.
Continue efforts at early identification of
needed pollution abatement .projects to insure
their inclusion in Federal agencies' budgets
and A-106 Reports. Ensure that all relevant
compliance status information is utilized in
evaluating and prioritizing A-106 funding
requests.
Provide coordination, consultation, and
technical assistance,.as resources permit,
to major non-complying facilities with
critical pollution abatement problems.
c.
-------
-178-
2. Solid Waste Management Standards Compliance
a. Complete compliance determination for
land disposal sites.
b. Continue efforts at early identification
of needed pollution abatement projects to
insure their inclusion in Federal agencies'
budgets and A-106 Reports. Ensure that all
relevant compliance status information is
utilized in evaluating and prioritizing
A-106 funding requests.
c. Provide coordination, consultation, and
technical assistance, as resources permit,
to major noncomplying facilities with cri-
tical solid waste management problems.
d. Assist headquarters in the review of
Federal agency plans for implementation
of the other guidelines.
3. Compliance with Other Environmental Standards
a. Continue efforts at early identification
of needed pollution abatement projects to
insure their inclusion in Federal agencies'
budgets and A-106 Reports. Ensure that all1
relevant compliance status information is
utilized in evaluating and prioritizing
A-106 funding request.
b. Provide coordination, consultation, and
technical assistance, as resources permit,
to major non-complying facilities with
pollution abatement problems.
D. Federal Contract Withholding (E.O. 11738)
This program concerns the responsibilities assigned
to the Administrator of EPA (by Section 306 of CAA,
Section 508 of FWPCA, and Executive Order 11738) to
induce the operators of all facilities which are the
prospective recipients of Federal contracts, sub-
contracts, grants, subgrants, loans or subloans to
comply with applicable air and water pollution
standards and regulations. Facilities violating
U
-------
-179-
I/
such standards or regulations become ineligible
for use in a Federal contract, grant, or loan if
they are placed on the List of Violating Facili-
ties (40 CFR Part 15) by OFA. The withholding is
directed to the specific polluting facility, not
the company as a whole. Efficient execution of
the program responsibilities require that the
Regional Enforcement Divisions recommend to OFA
candidates for listing so that a Listing Proceed-
ing can take place. Regional operating priorities
are:
1. Each Regional Office should as soon as possible
refer to OFA for listing its "top 10" polluters.
2. Make greater use of the listing program as an
alternative or supplement to filing court
actions.
E; Environmental Workforce Development
Regional operating priorities for workforce
development should be directed primarily toward
encouraging State environmental agencies to (a)
identify workforce requirements for implementing
EPA-delegated programs and (b) initiate cooper-
ative statewide workforce development programs to
meet those requirements:
1. The Regional Offices should assess the current
level of effective liaison between State envi-
ronmental agencies and State education/training/
placement agencies.
2. Identify needs and opportunities for signifi-
cant improvement in intra-state coordination
and cooperation on environmental workforce
development.
-------
-180-
3. Encourage State environmental agencies to
develop a workforce planning capability; to
conduct such planning; to integrate such plan-
ning with overall program planning; and, on the
basis of resulting plans, to initiate cooperative
workforce development projects with State education/
training/placement agencies.
II. HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL
OFFICES
A. EIS-309 Review
1. Continue to review Federal agency regulations,
clear regional EIS comments, conduct head-
quarters liaison, and provide assistance to
regions in framing 309 determinations and
other significant adverse comments, with
special attention to energy, water resources,
and major transportation and community devel-
opment projects.
2. Negotiate 309 referrals and followup with CEQ and
sponsoring agencies.
3. Continue development and up-dating of policy
and technical guidelines.
4. Provide training to EIS reviewers on use of
OFA guidelines for impoundments, channel-
ization projects, and nuclear power plants.
5. Continue to assist the Regional Offices in
conducting significant 404 reviews and coor-
dinate data systems development with Corps of
Engineers.
6. Develop and maintain a selective followup-
monthly reporting system for 404 reviews and
issue appropriate guidance for its use.
B. NEPA Compliance/EIS Preparation
1. Construction Grants/208 Planning NEPA
Compliance
-------
-181-
a. Review controversial EIS's and negative
declarations upon the request of CEQ,
other Federal agencies, Congress or
citizens.
•
b. Complete development of technical guide-
lines on secondary impacts.
c. Revise EPA regulations 40 CFR 6 to comply
with new CEQ guidelines, National Park
Service regulations on historic preser-
vation, and revised E.O. 11296 on flood-
plain protection.
d. Provide guidance and conduct training
conferences for regional offices.
e. Manage contracts and resources to meet
regional office needs for contractor
assistance in preparing EIS's and NEPA-
related studies.
2. Water New Source Permits NEPA Compliance
a. Complete development of Technical Guide-
lines and Appendices for Selected New
Industrial Sources.
b. Continue efforts to integrate new source
discharge permit reviews and air new
source reviews with EIS-309 reviews.
c. Manage contracts and resources to meet
Regional Office needs for contractor
assistance in EIS preparation.
d. Provide guidance and conduct New Source
EIS Conference for regional staff.
-------
-182-
C. Federal Facilities Compliance
1. Promptly respond to all regional office
"escalation" referrals on non-complying
Federal facilities: upon receipt of fully
documented case of noncompliance from the
Regional Office, initiate discussions on the
referral issues with the headquarters of the
Federal agency involved; strive to achieve
prompt resolution of the matter, keeping the
.region informed of the progress of the
discussions.
2. Coordinate A-106 review and maintain Federal
facilities data system.
3. Develop and recommend to OMB a suggested re-
vision of E.O. 11752 to include recent legis-
lative provisions of Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
4. Develop guidelines for Federal agencies and
EPA setting forth how the requirements of
SDWA and RCRA will be implemented.
D. Federal Contract Withholding (E.O. 11738)
1. Improve definitions of significant, contin-
uing, and recurring violations subject to
listing.
2. Continue to hold listing proceedings upon
request of Regional Offices
3. Provide sample enforcement scenarios
4. Seek a lowering of the amount of contract
exemptions to increase the impact of listing.
5. Provide consultation to Regional Offices on a
case-by-case-case basis.
6. Improve Federal Agency perfomance in distri-
buting list to field contracting offices, and
improve mechanisms to assure "flow-down" to
all tiers of sub-contractors.
-------
-183-
7. Gather data to ensure uniformity of program
application among regions; bring to attention
of Administrator those regions not actively
participating in program.
E. Environmental Workforce Development
1. Provide guidance to the Regional Offices on -
a. Assessing the level of effective liaison
between State environmental agencies and
State education/training/job placement
agencies.
b. Encouraging and supporting State environ-
mental agencies to plan and coordinate
State-wide workforce development programs
in cooperation with State education, train-
ing, and placement agencies.
2. Develop Agency-wide guidance on workforce needs
assessment activities to ensure (a) relevancy
to programmatic needs, (b) conformity with
Agency reports management policies, (c) tech-
nical validity and reliability, (d) agencywide
coordination and (e) intermedia comparability
.. of resulting information.
3. Assess the applicability of current Federal
assistance programs in education, training,
and job placement to environmental workforce
development at the State and local level,
negotiate appropriate interagency agreements
at the headquarter's level to encourage and
.assist in such application, and incorporate
such assessments into regional guidance on
assistance to State environmental agencies.
-------
-184-
III. REGIONAL OUTPUTS
l.M EIS Review
Output Units: A. Percent of draft EIS's with
pre-draft liaison (SA, T)
B. Percent of EIS's reviewed on
time (SA, T)
Activity Indicators: 1. Number of draft EIS's r
rated ER, EIJ, or 3 with'
pre-final consultation
(SA, T)
2.M Construction Grants/208 Planning NEPA Compliance
• Output Unit: A. Number of draft EIS's filed with
CEQ (SA, T)
Activity Indicators: None
3.M Water New Source Permits NEPA Compliance
Output Units: None
Activity Indicators: 1. Number of new source
determinations made
(SA, T)
2. Number of negative declarations
on new source NPDES permits
(SA, T)
*
4.M Federal Facilities Compliance (Air)
Output Units: A. Number of Regional Office referrals
to OFA (SA, T)
Activity Indicators: .1. Number of major sources in
compliance with emission
limitations and/or abatement
schedule (SA, T)
2. Number of major sources in
violation of abatement schedule
plus major sources of unknown
compliance status (SA, T)
-------
-185-
5.M Federal Facilities Compliance (Water)
Output Units: A. Number of Regional Office referrals
to OFA (SA, T)
B. Number of major sources issued or
re-issued permits (SA, T)
Activity Indicators: 1. Number of major sources in
compliance with permit
conditions (SA, T)
2. Number of major sources in
violation of permit conditions,
plus major sources of unknown
compliance status (SA, T)
6.M Federal Facilities Compliance (Solid Waste)
Output Units: None.
Activity Indicators: 1. Percent of land disposal
sites in compliance (SA, T)
7.M Environmental Workforce Development
Output Units: None
Activity Indicators: None
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-189-
Agency Guidance for FY 78
Solid Waste Management
I. Program Narrative
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of
1976 (P.L. 94-580) provides the mechanism to establish
strong Federal State regulatory programs for residuals
management—by 1) redefining solid waste to include waste
sludges, liquids, and contained gases from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, as well as
the more traditional garbage and refuse; 2) requiring control
over the storage, treatment and land disposal of hazardous
wastes; 3) and requiring the gradual phase out of "open dumps"
and the institution of environmentally sound land disposal
and/or resource recovery systems for solid waste. Thus,
the scope of solid waste management activities has been
expanded significantly by the Act.
^
RCRA views the States as the primary force in the
control of health and environmental problems resulting from
improper solid waste management practices and as the in-
stitutional catalysts for increasing the conservation and
recovery of resources.
-------
-190-
The Agency's solid waste management objectives are to
provide the technical and financial support mechanism so as
to maximize State assumption of responsibilities under the
Act. The primary State tasks prescribed in the Act are to
develop and implement solid waste management plans (§4003,
§4006, and § 4007), to establish hazardous waste management
regulatory programs (§3006) , and to eliminate open dumps
(§4005).
Over the past several years, EPA has- provided financial
support to the States to develop comprehensive solid waste •
management plans—focusing on State-wide problems and solu-
tions—which plan had to be approved by the Governor and
accepted by the Regional Administrator. The plans included
strategies for land disposal, hazardous waste management,
and resource conservation and recovery.
With the passage of the Act the major outputs in FY 77
became State solid waste management strategies which include
the concepts required by RCRA, which involve the preparation
of work plans to meet Section 4003 requirements, and the
carrying out of the open dump inventory. In FY 78, assistance
to States to (1) conduct the open dump inventory, (2)
complete their State Plans, and (.3) develop and implement
authorized State solid waste management programs, including
-------
-191-
development of hazardous waste programs are number one
priorities for regional programs.
Federal agencies will be encouraged to comply with the
various solid waste management guidelines by providing them
EPA technical assistance upon request; however this activity
has a low priority in view of the urgency of preparing the
States to assume a leadership role.
II. Outline of Headquarters Activities Supporting the Regional
Offices
A. RCRA mandates the development and promulgation of
guidelines, standards, and criteria. These actions are
listed below in order of their due dates:
Section of RCRA Action Due Date
4002(a) Guidelines for identification of 4/77
regions and appropriate units for
planning
7004(b) Guidelines for public participa- 9/77
tion in RCRA implementation
1008 Guidelines for solid waste disposal 10/77
4004(a) Criteria for sanitary landfills 10/77
3001 Regulations establishing criteria 4/78
for identifying and listing
hazardous waste
3002 Regulations applicable to generators 4/78
of hazardous waste
-------
-192-
3003 Regulations applicable to trans- 4/78
porters of hazardous waste
3004 Regulations applicable to hazardous 4/78
waste storage, treatment, and dis-
posal facilities
3005 Regulations for permits for hazard- 4/78
ous waste facilities
3006 Guidelines for State hazardous waste 4/78
programs
3010 System for notification by hazardous 4/78
waste generators, transporters, and
facility owners/operators
4002(b) Guidelines for development of State 4/78
solid waste management programs
4005(b) Publish open dump inventory (one 4/78
year after 4004 criteria)
6002(e) Guidance for procurement practices 1/79
1008 Guidelines for land disposition ~ 7/79
municipal sludge
B. Other activities:
1. Model State Hazardous Waste Management 4/77
Act
,2. Interim procedures for gathering haz- 4/77
ardous waste data and performing inspec-
tions
3. Technical assistance plan 9/77
4. Open dump inventory survey form 10/77
III. Program Priorities.
The first priority is to develop State programs that
. meet the requirement of Subtitles D, State solid waste
management plans (including the inventory of open dumps), and
-------
-193-
C, hazardous waste management of RCRA. Headquarters, with
Regional Office input, will develop and promulgate the
required guidelines, standards, and criteria, as well as
provide specialized technical, scientific, and economic
tools in the form of information and direct assistance. The
Regional Offices will manage State grant programs and the
technical assistance delivery system (Resource Recovery and
Conservation Panels) designed to provide State and local
governments with the technical assistance on solid waste
management, resource recovery, and resource conservation
necessary to implement the State plans.
The second priority involves the States that do not
meet the requirements of Subtitle D and C of RCRA. Because
most States have already established solid waste planning
programs, that include some type of solid waste disposal
control, it is expected that all but a few States will be
able to upgrade their programs and conduct the open dump
inventory to meet the requirements of Subtitle D. However,
the Regional Offices will have to conduct the open dump
inventory in those few States that do not. In addition,
because only a few States have established programs to
control hazardous waste management, it is expected that in
FY 79 direct Federal actions will have to be taken by the
Regional Offices in a number of States to issue and enforce
-------
-194-
permits for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous
waste. Preparation for these tasks in FY 78 is necessary to
ensure an orderly assumption of responsibility in FY 79.
The third priority is for the Regional Offices to
provide technical assistance on solid waste management,
resource recovery, and resource conservation to:
1. Local governments to help them improve operating
practices.
2. Executive agencies to encourage compliance with
solid waste management guidelines, in accordance with
appropriate Federal legislation, Executive Orders, and other
regulations.
ORD) -See Attachment page 224.
Regional Committments for implementation of RCRA
ID. Develop State solid waste management
plans to minimally contain the requirements
of RCRA Section 4007 (1) and (2), and of
Subtitle C, to make State eligible for
funding under Subtitle D of RCRA.
Outputs Units Frequency Start Level
A. Number of States with approved plans
under Section 4007 of RCRA ST Q No
-------
-195-
2D. Inventory all open dumps as
required in Section 4005 of RCRA
Output
A. Number of State inventories
completed- ST Q No
3'D. Develop authorized State hazardous
waste management regulatory programs
as provided for under Subtitle C of RCRA
Output
A. Number of States with authorized (ST) (Q) (No)
(interim or full) hazardous waste
programs 1 1 • 1
Headquarters and Regional Offices have mutually agreed to delay any ,_forma_
regionalcamdtiient to Output 3D. A: until October 31, 1971, wnen informs
tion~on work plans will be Available. No.additional reporting will
be required.
-------
-196-
/ V7"~ ORD Support for Solid Waste
ORD's technical support/assistance to OSW is expected to continue
in FY 1978. Such efforts as the development of a standardized method
for determining and characterizing leachate in landfills, a study
on the adverse effects of solid wastes from active and abandoned mines,
and participation in a study on sludge are cited as examples of such
support. In addition, the following major research outputs are
expected to be available sometime during FY 1973.
. Landfills
- Pilot scale evaluation of sanitary landfill gas and
leachate production from municipal solid waste (MSW)
under controlled moisture conditions and mixed with
industrial and municipal wastewater sludges. 12/77
- Effect of processing (baling/ shredding, baling and
shredding) on MSW decomposition as characterized
by gas and leachate production. 12/77
- Assessment of hazards from land disposal of selected
hazardous wastes and energy residues. 3/78
- Field test of a simulation techniques for predicting
movement of contaminants at land disposal sites. 4/78
- Migration and degradation rate of pesticides in soils
following high concentration application. 3/78
- Evaluation of new methods for chemical analysis of
leachates. 3/78
- Evaluation of existing methods for chemical analysis of
leachates. 7/78
-y-Engineering feasibility study for best practical technology
for remedial action for environmentally unsound disposal
sites. 12/77
. Alternative Land Methods
- Technical and economical assessment of land cultivation/
refuse farming. 3/78
-------
-197-
Methods for Hazardous Pollutants
- Experimental laboratory studies determining time
temperature requirements for complete destruction
of selected hazardous materials. 1/78
Resources Recovery
- Assess and evaluate fine grinding in resource recovery.
systems. 2/78
- Compilation, development and testing of interim procedures
for analysis of products recovered from MSW. 3/78
-------
EPA Air Program
Operational Guidance for FY 1978
-------
-201-
EPA Air Program
Operational Guidance for FY1978
I. Program Narrative
A. SIP and Related Programs
Priorities for SIP related efforts for FY1978 are as follows:
1. Qxidants and Organic Emissions Control
The program emphasis is to be (1) on emission control rather than
on detailing all aspects of the control strategy needed to attain and
maintain the standards, and (2) on reducing peak Ox levels in problem
urban areas rather than focusing on the less severe problems found in
rural situations.
The FY 1978 minimum program for Ox calls for regulations requiring
all reasonable control (RACT) of stationary HC sources as rapidly as
possible in broad urban areas that have Ox levels significantly above the
standards, and rigorous new source review (NSR) activities for HC including
emission offset in urban areas and, in addition, BACT on new HC sources.
Transportation control measures such as I/M and VMT reduction
programs are important strategies for HC control and should be included
in SIP revisions for Ox where required to attain the standard. The
programs must be realistic, and the schedules for implementing these
measures may have to be more flexible than for control of stationary
sources given the need, in many cases, to obtain enabling legislation
by the States. Improved data collection Tor Ox and HC should be,called
for to allow evaluation of the impact of this round of control and for
-------
-202-
the future development of additional SIP requirements needed to attain
and maintain the standard.
2. Particulates and Fugitive Emissions
The control of fugitive emissions from point sources and fugitive
dust in urban areas violating the TSP standard is a high priority for
FY 1978. It is clear that the problem in urban centers is more pervasive
*
and difficult than anticipated due mainly to fugitive emissions, fugitive
dust, and reentrainment of dust by motor vehicles. These problems are
to be addressed during FY 1978.
3. Carbon Monoxide
The rapid deterioration of CO emission control performance of in-use
vehicles places a greater need for control of the CO problem by way of
the SIPs, at least for the next several years. Inpsection/maintenance
programs offer the most promise for effective CO control. Additional
methods such as VMT reductions will be more difficult to implement and
their potential effectiveness should be carefully analyzed to insure
that regulatory requirements can be implemented in a timely manner.
4. Sulfur Dioxide
Although compliance with present regulations continues
to pose some problems, the main S02 concern now is main-
tenance of the standards amidst the curtailment of gas
and oil and.-Increasing use of coal. It is EPA's policy
not to require control strategies which are solely de-
pendent on the availability..of. low__sulfur fuel's. .Pro-
gram emphasis is on good NRS and conversion analyses.
However, it should be noted that fuel shortages may dic-
tate additional SIP related actions for S02 in FY 1978.
-------
-203-
5. Nitrogen Dioxide
The national strategy for NC^ remains one of maintenance of standards
through national emission standards for mobile and stationary sources. In
addition, it is also probable that Ox reductions achieved through organic
emission programs will slow the conversion of NO and N02 and help mitigate
future.problems. However, since NOX may be implicated in the rural Ox
problem and in the formation of toxic organic nitrogen compounds, the
current strategy will be reviewed on a regular basis to insure that the
public health is protected adequately.
6. Delegations to States
To date, there are significant parts of the State Implementation
Plans that have not been developed by the States, or that are deficient
in some respect. Special efforts should be expended on improving the
State programs and plans during FY 1978. The development of workplans
jointly with the States in areas such as new source reviews (including
implementation of the emissions offset policy), prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality, improvements in monitoring practices, tall
stacks, and continuous emissions monitoring (in addition to the revision
of control strategies for the attainment and maintenance of the standards
where required) should be emphasized during FY 1978.
The implementation of the Federal new source control programs (New
Source Performance Standards) and hazardous pollutants (NESHAP), will
be facilitated by the delegation to the States (or adoption by States)
of enforcement of these standards. In addition, the control of desig-
nated pollutants (section lll(d)) through State plans should be encouraged.
-------
-204-
7. Revisions for Maintenance and the Planning Process
The development of general, long range plans to maintain the NAAQS
is a major air pollution activity, but maintenance plans must be accorded
a lower priority in areas where attainment plans cannot be implemented,
e.g., in areas with severe oxidant problems. However, it is essential
that all SIP actions consider the effects of anticipated growth and
related emissions increases. These increased emissions should routinely
be incorporated into control strategies to avoid future attainment or
degradation problems.
Working relationships among the various Federal, State, and local
agencies that have responsibilities that directly affect or are affected
by some of the air quality planning and control measures involved in
NAAQS attainment and maintenance should continue to be encouraged.
Agencies with such responsibilities include, but are not limited to the
following: Metropolitan Planning Organizations; "701" Areawide Planning
Organizations; '208' State and Areawide Water Quality Management Agencies;
Coastal Zone Management Agencies; and 'A-95" Agencies.
8. New Source Control
Regulations to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) and for new
sources review (NSR) to ensure maintenance of the air quality standard
(tied intimately to land use and growth), and along with the national
standards for hazardous pollutants and the NSPS, place greater emphasis
on preconstruction review and approval of major new sources. The
primary thrust of new source control in FY 1978 should be to assure that
States handle as much of the new source control tasks as possible. The
EPA role should be one of providing guidance and technical assistance
rather than direct enforcement.
-------
-205-
9. Monitoring
A first step in the FY 1978 program for monitoring is the develop-
ment of a plan for implementing the overall monitoring strategy in
each State, and a minimum quality assurance program for both source
and ambient air monitoring is to be given greater emphasis.
No later than the end of the first quarter of FY 1978, the Regions
are to develop a plan (possibly extending into FY 1979 and "FY 1980), with
their States, for implementing SAMWG's major air monitoring recommen-
dations, including quality assurance. These plans, including schedules
and resources, are to be submitted to OAWM and will be tracked.
EPA, beginning in FY 1979, will accept data only from those States
whose monitoring networks are operating under a minimal quality
assurance program. Quality assurance activities begun during FY 1977,
which include evaluation of State laboratories and participation in
quality assurance performance surveys,' should be continued. Each
State monitoring plan must provide that each agency conducting ambient
and source monitoring in support of the SIP fully implement at least
•
a minimum quality assurance program during FY 1978.
Guidance on development of these plans and reporting will be
made available at the time of issuance of the Air Monitoring Strategy
by SAMWG.
10. Changes to Ambient Air Quality Standards and Control
of Additional Pollutants via NAAQS and SIPs"
The technical basis for each ambient air quality standard (i.e.,
the criteria document) is being reviewed to include new information
developed since publication of the documents. The reappraisal for
Ox will be completed during FY 1978; the others will be completed
-------
-206-
over the next three years. It is unlikely that the existing standards
will be relaxed, certainly not to an extent that would make redundant
any abatement programs now being enforced or developed.
Recent court action has added lead as a pollutant for which
criteria and NAAQS will be issued; the projected date of final NAAQS
promulgation is November 1977, with SIPs due from the States during
FY 1978. There also is pending a court decision on the need for a
NAAQS for sulfates. Unless directed by the courts, EPA will not act
to regulate sulfates at this time because there does not yet exist
enough information on effects, information and transport to allow or
support regulatory initiatives specifically for sulfate. Court
actions on sulfates will not influence work plans for FY 1978.
Aside from these two pollutants, there are no current plans to
set additional ambient air quality standards within the next five
years.
B. National Emission Standards
1. Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAP}
Hazardous pollutant standards to date include selected sources
(new and existing) of asbestos, beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride.
No new hazardous pollutant standards are anticipated in FY 1978;
however,investigations are underway on PCB, arsenic, and benzene that
may lead to standards in the next two to three years. Existing
standards for mercury and asbestos will be modified to include addi-
tional sources.
-------
-207-
2. New Source Performance Standards - Non-Criteria Pollutants
Standards under Section 111 and lll(d) represent the entire national
strategy for fluorides (aluminum and phosphate fertilizer), total reduced
sulfur (kraft pulp mills odors), and sulfuric acid mist (acid plants).
No additional controls are planned under lll(d) at this time.
The schedule for these controls is:
Regulatory Guidelines State Control Plans
Sources issued Due
Phosphate fertilizer plants 3/77 12/77
Sulfuric acid plants 11/77 8/78
Kraft Pulp mills (3/78)*
Primary aluminum **
*Projected proposal of guideline.
*NSPS in litigation. No projected dates for issuance.
3. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
NSPS are being developed for all major sources of criteria pollutants
in order to provide legally enforceable baseline emission limits. In
the past two years priority has shifted to sources of NO and hydrocarbons
• » i
(organics) and on emerging technologies.
About 15 NSPS will be promulgated in FY 1978. There is no mandatory
preconstruction review. Enforcement is by EPA until the authority is
assumed by the States. Therefore, delegation of this authority is a
high priority.
4. Mobile Source Emission Standards
Mobile source emission, standards complement the national control
program for CO, HC (Ox), and N02 and are undeniably high priority.
-------
-208-
Emissions of other pollutants from exhaust control devices (such
as sulfuric acid mist) are being carefully monitored to ensure that new
air pollution problems are not created. No new regulatory initiatives
for these pollutants are anticipated in the next year or two.
-------
-209- I/
C. Enforcement
1. Stationary Sources
The basic thrust of EPA's stationary source enforcement
program is to promote State enforcement of. air pollution
control requirements within their jurisdiction, and EPA's
policy continues to be to assist States through program grants
and provision of specialized expertise in dealing with difficult
technical, political, or policy issues. Although it is EPA's
policy generally to defer to State enforcement efforts where the
State is moving effectively, a strong Federal, enforcement program
is needed to take action where the States cannot or will not
enforce. During FY 1978 the stationary source enforcement
program will continue to concentrate on compliance with SIP
emission limitations in non-attainment AQ.CRs. As SIP revisions
are completed, efforts must be focused on ensuring that
enforcement of existing standards continues and that new
provisions are achievable and enforceable. Regional and
State enforcement personnel must continue to identify non-
complying sources causing non-attainment, work with State
and local agencies in correcting this cause for existing
attainment problems, and pursue enforcement actions. In
addition to continued efforts to control Class A sources,
control of critical Class B sources is essential in
some urban areas as the cumulative effect of such
sources has a major impact on non-attainment. Furthermore,
emphasis wil be placed on Class A hydrocarbon sources
and controlling their impact on photochemical oxidant
problems since it is recognized that compliance with
mobile source standards will not be able to eliminate
oxidant attainment problems completely.
Efforts will continue in the area of compliance by all
Class A sources in all AQCRs; e.g., inventories, compliance
determinations, evidence gathering, case development and
prosecution. Besides close surveillance of Class A sources
still on schedules, of particular importance will be the
projected 5% of Class A sources still in violation or of
unknown status The majority of these sources are powerful,
recalcitrant industries requiring extensive enforcement
resources to collect evidence, negotiate agreements and/or
mount effective court actions if they are to be brought into
compliance.
Because of the far-reaching implications of policies to
be developed around new source review and the complex issues
involved, FY 1978 will see a significant increase in the
number of resources needed in the area of new source
compliance. Enforcement activities will include assessing
-------
I/
-210-
State NSR enforcement programs to determine adequacy,
providing guidance and assistance to States in
instituting effective programs, and initiating
needed enforcement actions. In addition, enforcement
of Federal regulations to prevent significant
deterioration to air quality will be required; this
will include delegation of PSD to States or encouraing
States to incorporate similar provisions in SIPs. Control
of NSPS sources is also critical in attaining standards
in many areas of the country and the applicability of NSPS
is one of the factors that will influence decisions made
in enforcing NSR and PSD regulations. With the addition
of new categories of new sources subject to NSPS, resources
will be needed to delegate to States enforcement
authority for new standards, to provide technical and
legal assistance, and to conduct source inventories,
compliance inestigations, evidence gathering and
case development.
There will be an expanded enforcement role in
dealing with a possible caseload of up to 1,000 fuel
burning sources prohibited by FEA from burning oil or
natural gas. Activities will include establishing
compliance schedules, holding hearings, developing
interim requirements, monitoring compliance with and
enforcing requirements, and working with FEA on potential
candidates for orders. Since these sources could cause
non-attainment problems, close attention will be
required during FY 1978.
A critical aspect of the enforcement program
in FY 1978 will be the need to ensure that all States
conduct adequate compliance determination and field
investigation programs. Regional resources will be
required to audit these programs, to evaluate their
findings, and to develop plans to correct identified
deficiencies. These audits will be essential to the
entire stationary air enforcement program so that
there will be an assurance of quality control in all
State field inspections.
• The intent of the stationary air enforcement outputs
is to assure achievement of the Agency's priority
objectives, while reducing to a minimum regional and
State reporting requirements through use of the
Compliance Data System (CDS); Therefore, there is an
entire output title devoted to CDS and extensive
guidance is provided in the Air Appendix as to the
proper use of CDS. The system must be maintained as
indicated so that it serves as an effective management
tool and as an efficient reporting mechanism.
-------
-211-
2. Mobile Sources
The maj'or issue regarding mobile source enforcement
for FY 78 stems from the cut of 16 fuels positions in the
FY 78 budget. If the reduction is implemented, it will
result in a total of only 17 regional positions to enforce
the unleaded gasoline-, Stage I Vapor Recovery", and Stage
II Vapor REcovery programs during FY 78.
Four.factors create a very high risk future in regard
to-in-use-emissions from catalyst-equipped vehicles. These
factors are: ' (1) the substantial, price differential
(currently from 2 cents to lp cents per gallon) between
unleaded gasoline and leaded regular gasoline at the pump;
(2) the growing trend toward self-service gasoline retailing;
(3) the strains on octane generating capacity created by
the lead phase-down regulations; and (4) future tightening
of the exhaust emission standards.
MSED will make available funds in excess of those
originally programmed for State and/or private contracts to
compensate for the reduction in Regional resources necessitated
by the cut.
Despite present uncertainties regarding EPA's authority
to enforce State Inspection/Maintenance programs created by
pending litigation before the Supreme Court, as well as the
uncertainties associated with potential Clean Air Act
legislation,'we believe -that the establishmert of State
Inspection/Maintenance programs continues to be essential
in assuring that in-use vehicles attain the reduction they
are designed to achieve by the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program. Consequently,-each Region is urged to place high
priority on providing assistance to ongoing State Inspection/
Maintenance programs and, whenever possible, to devote
resources to promoting the implementation of new Inspection/
Maintenance programs. •«
-------
-212-
II. Outline of Headquarters Activities Supporting the Regional Offices
A. QANM
1. Organic Emission Controls
1) SIP development manual for oxidants (complete 2/77)
2) Precursor/oxidant relationships (complete 4/77)
. 3) uetermination of geographic area of applicability
of oxidant control strategies (complete 4/77)
4) Policy Statement on Hydrocarbon Reactivity
(complete 4/77)
5j Conceptual regulation for commercial and industrial
surface coatings (complete 4/77)
6) Emission factors for selected natural sources
(complete 3/78)
7) Emission factors update for certain netroleum refinery
processes (complete 6/77)
8) Vapor control regulations Staoe II nasoline marketing
(9/77)
9) Revised control techniques document for hydrocarbons
and organic solvent emissions from stationary sources
(11/77)
10) Motor Vehicle emission factors (comnlete 5//7)
II) Engineering guidelines for RACT:
Date*
Surface coating 2/77
Coil, fabric, paper, can coating, auto
and light truck manufacture
Dry Cleaning 2/77
Degreasing 4/77
Rubber products 4/77
Miscellaneous refinery~ sources 5/77
Gasoline bulk terminals ' 5/77
*Date on which draft document will be circulated for external review.
Draft documents can be used for determining RACT for these sources until
final documents are published 3 to 4 months later.
-------
-213-
Gasoline bulk plants 5/77
Pharmaceuticals 6/77
Adhesives 7/77
Metal furniture //77
Fabricated metal products (doors) 8/77
Small and major appliances surface coating 8/77
Wood paneling (plywood) 8/77
insulation varnish (wire) y/77
Gasoline and crude oil storage tanks 10/77
2. Particulates Control
1) SIP development manual for TSP (draft 2/77; complete
6/77)
2) Guidelines for fugitive emissions (complete 6/77)
3) Study of resuspension problem (complete 6/77)
4) Fugitive dust technical guidance manual (complete 6/77)
5) Refined techniques for estimating fugitive dust source/
receptor relationships (complete 9/77)
6) Fugitive dust policy paper (proposed regulations:
draft by 3//7, proposed by 6/77)
7) tngineering guidelines for SIP:
- phosphate rock plants - 6/77
- crushed stone plants - 6/77
- grey iron foundries - EAF - b/77
3. New Source Control
1) Revisions to 40 CFR 51.18, new source review
(proposed 11/77; promulgated 8/78)
2) Guidelines on evaluating and auditing State NSR'programs
(draft July 1977, final November 1977)
3) Bi-monthly NSR newsletter
-------
-214-
4) Guideline on the use of air quality models and data
' bases for use in SIP revisions, new source reviews,
and PSD reviews (7/77)
5) NSR workshop (March 1977)
6) New Source Performance Standards for criteria
pollutants will be promulgated as follows:
_ . „ . • Promulgation
Test Methods Revisions 7/77
Petroleum Refinery Opacity -7/77
*
Kraft Pulp Hills 10/77
Grain Elevators 10/77
Sulfur Recovery Plants in Refineries" 12/77
" •' %
Lignite Fired Steam Generators ttin
BOF Opacity 3/78
Coal Gasification 5'78
Lime Plants 5/78
Gas Turbines 7/78
Chlor-Alkali Plants 7/78
Sulfur 1n Fuel Analysis 8/78
Crushed Stone 8/f78
Iron and Steel Sintering 9/78
Sulfur Recovery - Natural Gas Fields 9/78
Dry Cleaning 9'78
-------
-215-
NSPS - FY 79 - FY 80
Refuse/fossil Fuel Combustion
.Stationary 1C Engines
EAF in Foundries
Phosphate Rock Plants
Asphalt Roofing
Steam Generators - SO?, MOX, Particulate Revision
*» "
Lead Battery Manufacturing
Non-Metallic Minerals
*•..*. i
Miscellaneous Refinery Sources
Petroleum Storage
t
f Petrol euai Transfer
Transportation Surface Coating (automobiles and light trucks)
Industrial Surface Coating (coil» fabric, paper and cans)
.Volatile Organic Chemical Manufacturing
4. Energy - Related Activities
1) Guidance memo on SIP revisions due to gas curtailment (3/77)
2) Policy guidance on energy savings and air pollution • '(3/77)
'V 3) Long-term gas curtailment project1ons~(7/77)
-------
-216-
5.. SIPs for Lead
1) Proposal and promulgation of NAAQS and related Part 51
actions (8/77 and 11/77)
2) Control techniques document for lead (Draft 5/77)
3) Example lead control strategy (draft by 9/77; completed
by 11/77)
6. Management and Revision of SIP
1) Guidelines for CO hot spot determination and 9/77
supplemental models for more in-depth analysis
2) Reports on initial application of CO hotspot 3/78
determination-method to selected cities
3) Revised emission reduction credits for I/M 4/77
programs (Part 51 regulations, Appendix N)
4) Methodology for determining the impact of open 3/77
space on air quality
5) Statistical model to determine growth effects 2//'J
(and air pollution impacts) caused by new
sewage treatment plants
6) Studies on emission density zoning 6/77
7) Guidelines on integrating air quality consi- 7/77
derations with DOT'S Transportation System
Management requirements
8) Guidelines on the public involvement process 11/77
for developing transportation system-related
air pollution control measures
9) Guidelines on the proper implementation of bus 11/77
lanes
10) _ReRorts_on the ambient air_quality effects of 9/77
auto restrieted zones
-------
-217-
Date
11) Guidelines for developing systems for keeping 9/77
track of growth in relation to air quality
maintenance
Interim_
12) A Guidelines for coordinating air quality and *//77
coastal zone management planning programs
13) Guidelines for air quality planning in non- 7/78
coastal energy activity areas
14) Guidelines for air quality planning in coastal (0/78
energy activity areas
Monitoring
1) Revisions to 40 CFR Section 51 _._7_ (reporting of data
to EPA) and section 51.17 (air quality surveillance
regulations proposed by December 1977.
2) Guideline on ancillary information to accompany 10/77
NAQTS air quality data
3) Guideline on site information for SLAMS 10/77
4) Guideline on developing ambient concentration 9/77
isopleths
5) Guidance (from ORD) on implementation of a minimum
quality assurance program for ambient source monitoring
6) Guidance on development of quality control checks
f-o.p._scFeening. air quality data ^.-. i:-;-—_-,-
-------
- • •.;-' -218- . :
8. NESHAPS
- A NSPS will be promulgated for chlor-alkali plants (see list of
NSPS for FY 78). This MSPS will supplement the existing NESHAPS*
-essentially prohibiting the construction of new mercury-cell, chlor-
::', alkali plants.
"., .-.•«, c- ^- --•-"'--'•
-v" A revision to the asbestos regulation was proposed in FY 77 and
:- ? •*"'.•.*• " •
should be promulgated in FY 78. This revision extends the scope of
the present prohibition on asbestos-containing insulation to include
decorative sprays.
Work is also underway to define control methods for arsenic from
non-ferrous smelters, polycyclic organic natter from by-product coke ovens,
and benzene, in anticipation of possible Section 112 regulation.
-.:-. An assessment and determination of the need to control high volume
Industrial organic chemicals has been initiated. The potential impact
of 60 to:90 HVIOC will be assessed by 9/77; the likely control requirements
are not deterainable at this time.
9. 1TI(d) Actions .
Non-criteria pollutant guidelines for implementing
emission standards applicable to existing sources (Section lll(d))
are planned for:
a. Sulfuric acid plants by 11/77
b. Phosphate fertilizer plants by 3/77
c. Kraft pulp mills proposed by 3/78
d. Primary aluminum*
A general guidance document on implementing the require-
ments' of Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act will be issued
by June 1977.
*In litigation. No projected dates'.
-------
-219-
B. Stationary Source Enforcement
1. Provide legal and in-house technical support
for 400 enforcement actions and commencement of
100 court actions. (Continuous)
2. Provide technical support via contractor
assistance for 400 additional enforcement actions.
(Continuous)
3. SIP Revisions
Assist in developing new emission requirements
resulting from 75 SIP revisions. (Continuous)
Provide additional guidance on requirements
for compliance schedules in forthcoming SIP
revisions. (2/78)
NSPS
Develop enforcement inspection manuals for:
0 coal preparation plants (6/78)
0 phosphate fertilizer plants (3/78)
0 other standards promulgated in FY 77 (ongoing)
Provide guidance on questions on reconstruction
for NSPS purposes (12/77)
— Publish NSPS determinations and update
quarterly (Continuous)
New Source Review
— Provide clarification of provisions of offset
policy (joint with OAWM) (1/78)
— Develop technical support documents for new
source programs by specific industry category
to cover control requirements.
0 coke oven batteries (11/77)
0 basic oxygen furnaces (5/78)
0 preheated coal coke batteries (8/78)
Publish NSR determinations and update
quarterly (continuous)
-------
-220-
6. NESHAPS
— Publish NESHAPS determinations and update
quarterly (continuous)
— Provide guidance on use of local permitting
authorities to identify prospective NESHAPS
demolition sites (5/78)
— Provide guidance on approaches to enforcement
against demolition contractors (4/78)
7. ESECA
Provide guidance and assistance on second
round of ESECA prohibition orders and any
subsequent rounds of orders during FY 78
(ongoing)
Provide guidance relating to control (retrofittability,
design, upgrading of control systems) of criteria
pollutants from sources subject to 'FEA prohibition
orders (7/78)
Revise and update guidance on compliance date
extensions (9/78)
8. PSD
— Publish PSD determinations and update quarterly
(continuous)
9. Emergency Episodes
Develop technical information relating to control,
monitoring, and public health and environmental .
impact of selected non-criteria pollutants
potentially subject to §303 enforcement actions
(7/78)
— Provide guidance on use of §303 for non-criteria
pollutant enforcement (3/78)
10. Continuous and Remote Monitoring
Develop guideline for use in enforcement of
continuous monitoring reports data (6/78)
Prepare guidance series on continuous monitoring
activities
0 technical resource file (2/78)
0 compilation of case histories (2/7.3)
-------
-221-
— Provide guidance on legal implications of
remote and continuous monitoring as
enforcement tools (8/78)
Conduct regional and State enforcement
workshops on implementing NSPS, NESHAPS,
and SIP continuous monitoring regulations
(Continuous)
11. Compliance Testing
Develop and conduct State and regional office
enforcement workshops on observation and
evaluation of stationary source compliance
tests (12/77)
— Prepare manual series - planning, observation
and evaluation of stationary source compliance
tests:
0 requirements for conduct of NSPS performance
tests (3/78)
0 sampling and analysis problems and
solutions (6/78)
0 source specific compliance testing
procedures for:
- fossil fuel fired steam generators (9/78)
- hot-mix asphalt plants (8/78)
Coordinate (ORD, OE, consultants) guidance
programs for quality assurance activities
relating to stationary source compliance
tests (8/78)
Revise visible emission guideline (8/77)
12. Class A Source Categories
Publish bimonthly status report on flue gas
desulfurization systems installed, under
construction and planned for combustion
sources - developments in FGD technology for:
a) electric utility plants
b) industrial/commercial boilers
-------
-222-
— Develop summary documents of operational
experiences of installed control systems (9/78)
Provide guidance on inspections of installed
control systems for adequacy of performance
in achieving emission limitations (3/78)
— Publish analysis of emissions from coke
quenching operations (6/77)
— Provide technical guidance on particle size
distribution of emissions from coke battery
operations (10/77)
— Provide guidance on enforcement program for
inspection and maintenance requirements (8/78)
13. Conduct annual air enforcement workshop (11/77)
14.. Administer .contracts program, processing about
40 task orders per month, and develop with the
regional offices a plan for use of contract
monies (continuous)
15. Publish Users Manual for Compliance Data System (10/77)
16. Conduct national CDS users conference (5/78)
17. Provide guidance on policy issues:
— Implementation of new/amended portions
of CAA (continuous)
— Use of non-compliance penalties in civil
consent decrees (8/77)
— Evaluating claims of economic and technological
infeasibility alleged in enforcement proceedings
(6/78)
— Use of administrative search warrants vs.
administrative orders (3/78)
Force Majeure clauses in §313 orders .(6/77)
— Procedures to expedite cases where consent
decrees are issued prior to filing of compliants
(joint with Department of Justice) (2/78)
Substance of litigation reports (joint with
Department of Justice) (4/78)
-------
-223-
Mobile Source Enforcement
1.. Headquarters v;ill provide in excess of $175,000
in support of Regional contracts with State/local
governments and private contractors to perform
unleaded gasoline/vapor recovery inspections.
2. Headquarters will provide $20,000 in assistance
to the Applied Chemistry Branch, RTF, for quality
control programs in support of unleaded gasoline
inspection programs.
3. Headquarters will issue Regional guidance packages
for the unleaded gasoline, Stage I Vapor Recovery,
and Stage II Vapor Recovery programs as needed.
• 4. Headquarters will develop and promulgate, during
• the summer of 1977, Stage II Vapor Recovery
regulations.
5. For each affected AQCR, Headquarters will coordinate
Stage II Vapor Recovery inspections and tests to
be performed by personnel from the National
Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) and provide
inspection and test results to Regional enforcement
personnel.
6. Headquarters will provide Regional personnel with
technical and policy guidance regarding implementa-
tion and enforcement of inspection/maintenance
programs.'
7. Headquarters will provide Regional personnel with
technical'and policy guidance regarding enforcement
of the Federal tampering prohibition.
8. Headquarters will provide State and local government
enforcemen^ personnel with technical assistance
(e.g., the'Inspectors Guidebook) regarding emission
'control system components of in-use vehicles and
with enforcement assistance, when desired, in the
form of Federal prosecution of state-detected
tampering violations.
-------
-224-
Program Priorities
The priorities listed below are national priorities and as such are
based on evaluation of air pollution problems nationwide. The priorities
for a given State or AQCR can vary from the national priorities. For
example, the choice of organic control regulations as a high priority item
is based on the extent of the oxidant problem nationally and its complexity.
However, in an area with no oxidant problem and no major organic emitters
another priority viould be selected by tHexRegional Office. Such deviations
from national priorities will be accepted if justifiedd.
First Priority
• Regulate emissions of organic substances in non-attainment AQCRs
for photochemical oxidants.
• Regulate emissions (especially sources of fugitive emissions and
fugitive dust) in non-attainment AQCRs for TSP.
• Attain and maintain the National. Ambient Air Quality Standards
for criteria pollutants by achieving compliance with SIP emission
regulations, and New Source Review, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, and New Source Performance Standards requirements.
•Enforce lead-in-gasoline regulations.
« Ensure that States have adequate new source review programs.
• Carry out energy-related activities.
9 I&plement SflMWS recommendations for ambient air monitoring.
r Develop SIPs for .the control of lead where required.
• Implement transportation control measures that are part of the SIPs.
-------
-225-
Secnrri Priority
Manage n*» SIP process in a •fagfrpon 'that win minimize delay
in acting on SIP revisions^
eniissions of SO?, CD, and NGL. in ?T"?qp with substantially
fnr
^1 "1 sraTnnpj? of Viay.arr»j<3g ai-r pnThTt-aft+'S OCOply wi
^aqnT r^iit-mi g under National 'PVn-j gcri nrt Standards for
Air Pollutants.
h force complifmcg with the Stage H Vapor Recovery Regulations.
ThiTti Priority
• Qcctintie to ^«gg(»«gq tjT^» adegpacy of SIPs in aTtaa« ^iaere the NMQS
Develop control plans for existing" grnni-»->
-------
-226-
IV. ORD Multimedia Technical Support
to the
Air. Program and Regional Offices
ORD technical support and technical assistance will experience
about a 10% reduction in FY 1978 over FY 1977 as a result of direct
manpower reductions (5%), added responsibilities, and inflation (5%).
The FY 1978 Carter budget provides for a slightly reduced level
of effort in the ORD technical support category. Air funding is $487K
lower than FY 1977 with no position change. Interdisciplinary research
has been reduced by eight positions.
The ORD position ceiling overall was held to the FY 1977 level,
with a.direction to reprogram 37 positions to toxics, water supply,
and the Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) from other program areas.
The combination of adding new responsibilities for TSCA and RCRA with
no position increase will result in less manhours being available for
all inhouse activities including technical assistance.
In implementing the technical support and assistance function,
ORD will continue to try to be fully responsive to those requests for
technical assistance which depend on:
1. Uniqueness of ORD expertise or equipment.
2. Urgency of request requiring Agency action.
All other requests will be handled on the basis of availability of
manpower or equipment.
-------
-227-
In addition to the continuation of technical services, the
following major research outputs directly relating- to the air
•
program are anticipated for delivery sometime during FY 1978:
* Control of Organic Compound Emissions Stationary and Mobile Sources
Report on sampling and analysis methods for non-regulated con-
densible organics. 9/77
Evaluation of pulirionary and cardiovascular function in laboratory
animals following exposure to catalytic exhaust emission. 6/77
Report on reactive hydrocarbon natural emission factors. 8/77
Sampling strategies and sampling analysis support in the
organic chemicals industry. 4/78
Report on the development and validation of analytical methods
for hydrocarbons and oxygenates from motor vehicles (spark
ignition). 6/77
* Non-Criteria Pollutants
Report on the determination of rate constants for S02 oxi-
dation in the atmosphere. 6/77
Report on the development of urban sulfate model. 9/77
Report on the development and application of three dimensional
finite difference line source model for simulation of the
advection, dispersion and transformation of automobile emissions. 9/77
Report on the distributions of halogenated compounds in the
atmosphere. 2/78
Report on an improved analytical method t6 determine atmospheric
sulfates. 8/77
Report on the measurement of gas chromatographic mass spectro-
scopy measurement techniques for selected organics. 6/77
Complete final background documents on halomethanes and
nitrates. 5/77
-------
-228-
Report on epidemiological and experimental data indicating the
health effects associated with exposure to asbestos. 1/78
Initial report concerning the effects of environmental pol-
lutants on cancer motality including the identification of
geographic areas in the United States where increased
incidence of type-specific malignant neoplasms exist. 2/78
Modelling report describing potential impacts of acid rain
phenomenon. 6/77
Characterization of pollutant emissions from coal and oil
shale-synthetic fuel production. 12/79
* Ambient Air Monitoring
Airborne earth reflected differential absorption system (EROS)
to remotely monitor molecular pollutants in the atmosphere
by measuring ozone, to be followed by the measurement of
vinyl chloride and S02. 9/78
Photo techniques as candidate standard method for measuring
plume opacity. 10/77
Western energy air monitoring system operations. Continuous
* Stationary Source Air Monitoring.
Report on the sampling techniques for the measurement of
arsenic and selenium. 6/77
Report on the sampling and analysis methods for non-regulated
condensible organics. 7/77
* Criteria Pollutants.
Report on the role of N02 in rural photochemical oxidant
formation. 9/77
Report on the development of an oxidant/NOx/EC for use in
updating SIP revision. 9/78
Report on the importance of natural emissions of oxidants and
their precursors. 9/78
-------
-229-
Final report on estimation of population a,t risk to sulfur dioxide,-
suspended particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone pollution. 9/78
Report on effects on NAAQS air pollutants on soybean growth
and yield. 1/77
* NSPS
Report on the evaluation of sulfuric acid dewpoint measurement
system. 2/78
* Fuel and Fuel Additives.
Report on the emissions products from additives in gasoline fuel
single-cylinder engines. 12/77
Quarterly reports on usage of additives in gasolines, diesel fuel,
and motor oils.
* . Industrial
Feasibility report for waste gas blending in primary copper
smelters. ~8/77
Feasibility report on reverbatory furnance controls. 9/77
Manual for electrostatic precipitator design criteria for
collection of metallic fumes in seconday smelters. 11/78
Report on teller baghouse performance in a Secondary
Aluminum Smelter. 11/77
Summary assessment of the environmental impact of non-ferrous
industry. 6/77
Summary reports on SOx scrubber sludge disposal. 1/78
* Interdisciplinary
Regional Environmental Management Handbook containing recom-
mended procedure for comprehensive regional environmental
quality planning and implementation for all environmental media,
and considering technological, economic, legal, institutional,
administrative, and social aspects. 4/78
* Quality Assurance
Validated measurement method for lead in ambient air. 3/78
Modified calibration procedures for ambient CO monitors. 2/78
-------
-230-
Evaluated measurement methods for totally reduced sulfur
and participates in emissions from stationary, sources. 12/77
Performance evaluation reports on measurement methods for
sulfates, sulfuric acid, and. fine particulates in ambient
air; and lead, arsenic, nonciethane hydrocarbons, and
condensable organic emissions from stationary sources. 10/77 as
scheduled
Approved equivalent methods for monitoring compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 1/77 Ongoing
A repository of standard reference samples to include .302,
N02,. CO, S04, N03, lead, and arsenic. Continuing
New quality control samples for measurements of copper, cadmium,
zinc, and maganese in ambient air; and for measurements of
02/CO, S02, NOx, and H2S in stationary source emissions. 3/78
Performance audits of stationary source measurement methods.
10/77 as scheduled.
Performance evaluation reports to Regional, State, local and
other laboratories participating in regularly scheduled
interlaboratory testing program. 10/77 as scheduled.
Technical assistance as needed to upgrade laboratory performance
and improve the precision and accuracy of the data. 10/77 as required.
* Integrated Technology Assessment
Completed report on phase I of the electric utility assessment. 11/77
Participation in the revision of SOx NSPs for electric, utilities. 9/78
Completion of phase II Western regional energy assessment. 8/78
Completion of phase I Ohio Valley regional energy assessment. 6/77
-------
-231-
V. Regional Commitments
A. Introduction .
The following is a list of outputs and activity
indicators requiring commitments and/or reporting
through the Formal Planning and Reporting System
(FPRS) during FY 1978.. The list indicates for
each output and activity indicator the reporting
unit, the milestone and/or reporting frequency
and whether or not an FY 1978 start level is
required.
Abbreviations used to indicate the unit
and frequency are:
1. Reporting Units: Abbreviations
Regional Total T
Regional Total Excluding
State Activity E
States' Total Activities ST
Total by State By S
2. Frequency:
Quarterly Q
Semiannually SA
Annually A
No reporting No
Note: Stationary Source enforcement outputs and activity
indicators are indicated by an asterisk, mobile
source enforcement outputs and activity indicators
by two asterisks and abatement and control outputs and
activity indicators by no asterisk. In completing
commitment forms, where an output title has both
abatement and control and enforcement output units,
the Region must indicate the manyears coming from
abatement and control and those coming from each
enforcement appropriation separately. Therefore, for
each output title, there may be as many as three
levels of manyears that must be identified - one for
abatement and control, one for stationary source
enforcement, and one for mobile source enforcement.
-------
8. NESHAPS "
- A NSPS mill be promulgated for chlor-alkali plants (see list of
NSPS for FY 78). This WSPS will supplement the existing HESMAPS.
essentially prohibiting the construction of new mercury-cell, chlor-
, alkali plants. .
' - A revision to the asbestos regulation was proposed in FY 77 and
should be promulgated in FY 78r This revision extends the scope of
the present prohibition on asbestos-containing insulation to include
- . •
decorative sprays.
Work is also underway to define control methods for arsenic from
- non-ferrous smelters, polycyclic organic matter from by-product coke ovens.
and benzene, in anticipation of possible Section 112 regulation:
. : * ' / .
~".v An assessment and determination of the heed to control high volume
Industrial organic chemicals has been initiated. The potential impact
of 60 to 90 HVIOC will be assessed by 9/77; the likely control requirements'
are not determinable at this time. I
• - . . • ••• .:. •' • • • i
9. ni(d) Actions
Non-criteria pollutant guidelines for implementing
emission standards applicable to existing sources (Section lll(d))
are planned for:
a. Sulfuric acid plants by 11/77
b. Phosphate fertilizer plants by 3/77
c. Kraft pulp mills proposed by 3/78 .
d. Primary aluminum*
A general guidance document oh implementing the require-
ments of Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act will be issued
by June 1977.
*In litigation. No projected dates.
-------
-233-
• • v . '
B. Outputs and Activity Indicators
1A.' SIP DEVELOPMENT AND REASSESSMENT
All commitments to actions related to the assessment and revision
of SIPs for TSP, S02, CO, oxidants, and N02 consist of the workplans
developed with the States (as required by the Deputy Administrator's
memorandum of January 27, 1977). Progress reporting, on a quarterly
basis, is to be achieved by using the Form A described in Appendix A.,
If SIP revision workplans are not on file at OAQPS, then commitments
to SIP revision have to be made on a revised EPA Form 3720-2A, as
illustrated by Form B of Appendix A. In any case, the resources data
required by these forms is to be submitted.
Commitments to the development of SIPs for lead should be made
in a format similar to the workplans for SIP revision, taking into
account the factors unique to the development of. a. new SIP. The.
commitments for SIP development should be made (on the Form C of
Appendix A) after a determination is made as to the need for an SIP for
specific AQCRS, i.e., by November 1977. (The statutory deadlines for
SIP development imply that this determination must be made during the
period following NAAQS proposal and prior to the promulgation of the
NAAQS, i.e., by November 1977.) Resources data is to be submitted at
the time of operating plans submission. Progress will be reported
against the workplans by using the Form A described in Appendix A.
Reporting will be on a quarterly basis, after submission of the workplans,
c
There are no activity indicators related to the non-quantified
outputs. In addition to these outputs, the following quantified
t
outputs require commitments:
-------
. -234-
2A. CONTROL OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND PARTICULATES
-. V • - - . ; ".' - '' ":
Outputs Units Freq. Start Level?
A. Percentage of organic emissions
reductions which are to be achieved
, through regulations employing RACT / 7 SA No
* B . Total number of Class A sources
of hydrocarbons in non-attainment
AQCSs for oxidants that are in
violation or of unknown status with
respect, to either final emission " " .
limitations or compliance schedules. T q Yes
C. Number of reviews of metropolitan
planning organization plan and
program consistency determinations
made pursuant to Section 109(j) of
Title 23, U.S.C. . T SA No
<
D. Number of non-attainment AQCRs with
programs or regulations to address
particulates problems T SA Yes
** E. Number of Stage I Vapor TO; No
Recovery inspections
V^.; ~ FV Number of Stage II Vapor - T Q No
Recovery reports reviewed***
* Identifies outputs related to stationary source enforcement
activities
** Identifies mobile source enforcement activities.
No asterisk identifies abatement and control activities.
Definitions for all air outputs and activity indicators
are contained in Appendix
o
*
*** TO be suspended until regulations are promulgated.
/ The methodology for calculating this emission reduction
will be specified, through a guideline to be issued by
OAQPS by May 10, 1977. Detailed tracking of progress
will be for one or two areas per region for which
significant control programs will have to be developed;
these areas will be chosen by the regions and OAQPS
as part of the operating plan de-velopment process.
-------
-235-
2A. (Continued)
Activity Indicators pnits SSS2- Start Level?
1. Number of strategies, developed in
conjunction with States to assure
compliance of Class B hydrocarbon
sources that are subject to emission
limitations in non-attainment AQCRs
for oxidants. T SA No
<
'2. Percent of EPA-inspected and . :
State-inspected Stage I
facilities in violation. T Q No
3. Number of 113 notices of
violation issued for Stage I t
regulations. -- T Q No
4. Number of 113 notices of
violation issued for Stage II
regulations. *** T Q No
3A. NEW SOURCE CONTROL
Outputs
A. Number of State Programs
evaluated by EPA for New
Source Review T SA Yes
B. Number of State Programs
evaluated by EPA for
NSPS"T SA Yes
Number of State programs
evaluated by EPA for
~"PSD " ___ T SA Yes
Number of State programs
evaluated by EPA for
...__NESHAPS T SA Yes
*•** To be suspended until regulations are promulgated.
-------
-236-
3A. (Continued)
Units Freq. Start Level?
E. Number of States delegated—
New Source Performance.
, Standards*** T SA Yes
P.. Number of States delegated—
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration*** T SA Yes
Number of subject sources deter-
mined to be in violation, anticipated
to be in violation, or of unknown ,
compliance status with respect to
any procedural and/or emission
requirements for. (G and H) ,
* G. New Source Performance
Standards T Q .Yes
* H. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration T Q Yes
*" I. Number of State^issued NSR and
PSD permits audited by EPA By S , SA No
* J. Number of enforcement actions
taken by EPA for violation of
NSR, NSPS, or PSD T Q No
Activity Indicators
1. Number of airports, and high-
ways reviewed by EPA under the
National Environmental Policy
Act (and Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act); Section 109 (j)
of Title 23, U.S.C. and the Air-
port and Airway Development Act
of 1970. T SA No
2. Number of PSD area reclassifica- '
tion actions approved By S SA Yes
**.* For States where the delegation is made to a lower organizational level
within the State government, such as an air pollution control district,
delegations to these entities are to be counted as State delegations. The
commitments should be so footnoted at the time of plans submission. The
PSD delegations for this output are related to the review of new sources
under the PSD provisions.
-------
-237- \/
3A. (Continued)
Units Freq. Start Level?
Number of subject sources deter-
mined to be in compliance with all
procedural and emissions require-
ments for: (3 and 4)
* 3. New Source Performance
Standards T Q Yes
* 4. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration T Q Yes
* 5. Number of NSR, NSPS, and PSD
sources inspected by EPA T Q No
Number of permits issued by
State and/or EPA for: (6 and 7)
* , (6. NSPS T Q No
* 7. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration T Q No
4A. ENERGY-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Outputs
None
Activity Indicators
1. Number of SIPs reassessed due
to natural gas curtailments T SA Yes
2. Number of SIP revisions re-
quested or initiated due to
natural gas curtailment T SA Yes
* 3. Number of sources for which
rulemaking and notification/
certification to FEA are
complete T . Q Yes
-------
-238-
Units Freg. Start Level?
SA. CREATE AND MAINTAIN PRIORITY SOURCE
FILE IN THE COMPLIANCE DATA SYSTEM
6A. ENSURE COMPLIANCE BY ALL CLASS A
SOURCES WITH SIP EMISSION
LIMITATIONS FOR ALL POLLUTANTS
IN ALL AQCRs
Outputs
* A. Number of identified Class A
sources determined to be in
compliance with SIP emission
standards or with scheduled
increments of progress By S A Yes
* B. Number of identified Class A
sources determined to be in
violation or of unknown
compliance status with *
respect to SIP emission
standards or scheduled
increments of progress By S Q Yes
* C. Number of enforcement actions taken
by EPA T Q No
7A ENSURE THAT ALL STATES IMPLEMENT
FULLY EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE
M3NITORING AND FIELD SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAMS
Outputs
* A. Number of States having adequate
source compliance inventories for
all Class A sources for all
pollutants in all AQCRs T Q Yes
-------
-239-
7A. (Continued) f
Units Freq. Start Level?
* B. Number of facilities in-
spected by EPA - T Q No
Activity Indicators
* 1. Number of plans developed and
implemented by EPA and States
to correct problems in each
State. T SA No
* 2. Number of facilities for which
field compliance determinations
were in variance with State
determinations T Q No
8A. MONITORING
Outputs
A. Number of State plans developed
for implementation of SAMWG
recommendations T SA Yes
There are no activity indicators for this output. However,
the plans are to be submitted to OAQPS and progress reports sub-
mitted as indicated in the Monitoring narrative and Appendix A.
9A. MANAGE THE SIP PROCESS
Outputs
None
Activity Indicators
1. Number of. routine SIP revisions
received T • SA No
2. Number of routine SIP revisions
approved T SA No
3. Number of routine SIP revisions
disapproved T SA No
-------
• • -240-
IOA. COMPLIANCE WITH lllCd) REQUIREMENTS
Units Freq . Start Level?
12A.
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NESHAPS
Outputs
A,. Number of State plans developed
in conjunction with §1.11 Cd)
regulations for: Sulfuric acid,
plants, Phosphate fertilizer
plants, Primary aluminum reduction
plants, and Kraft pulp mills T SA No
Activity Indicators •
None
11A. FUEL ADDITIVES ENFORCEMENT
Output ' . ' .
A. Number of unleaded fuel
inspections T Q No
Activity Indicators '
1. Number" of contaminations
detected T Q No
2. Number of major nozzle
violations T *• Q No
A. Number of non-transitory sources
subject to NESHAPS determined
to be in violation or of unknown
status with respect to standards
or waivers of compliance. T SA Yes
B. Number of States delegated
NESHAPS enforcement T SA Yes
C. Number of enforcement actions
taken against violators of spraying
and demolition requirements by EPA T SA No
D. Number of enforcement actions taken
against non-transitory sources by EPA T SA No
-------
-241-
12A. (Continued)
Units Freq. Start Level?
Activity Indicators
* 1. Number of non-transitory
sources subject to NESHAPS T SA Yes
* 2. Number of spraying and
demolition operators whose
compliance procedures have
been investigated by EPA
and States T SA No
* 3. Number of enforcement actions
taken against violators of
spraying and demolition
. requirements by all States
in Region T SA No
* 4. Number of enforcement actions
taken against non-transitory
sources by all States in
Region T SA No
-------
-242-
A to
Section V. Regional Commitments
EPA Air. Program GUJ dance, FY 1978
I. Introduction
This appendix contains the forms (and instructions for using the forms)
to be used in making cortmitments to performance and for progress reporting
for non-quantified output commitments. There is one reporting form (Form A)
wich is to be used for exception reporting against 616 work plans documented
for (1) the SIP revision process; (2) the development of SIPs for lead; and
(3) the implementation of monitoring programs required by the Air Monitoring
Strategy developed by SAMKG.
The workplans are also documented in forms B, C, and D. Form B, is to be
used to document commitments to the SIP revision process; Form C is to be used to
document comnitments for the development of SIPs for lead; and Form b is to be
used to document commitments to the implementation of the Air Monitoring Strategy.
The actual workplans developed with the States can be submitted in lieu of these
forms, with these forms representing the minimum acceptable information. Specific
instructions for each form follow.
*It is expected that these forms will be issued as part of the EPA forms system.
As such, they will be available through normal supply channels.
-------
-243-
II. Form A — Reporting
Instructions for Using Form A
Regional Reporting Form (Air) Non-Quantified Outputs)
A. Introduction
This form is to be used to provide progress reports on the SIP
revision process, the development of SIPs for lead, the implementation
of the Air Monitoring Strategy, and to update certain program infor-
mation. The Form's format assumes (1) that program commitments have
been made on Forms B, C, and D (or equivalent, such as workplans for
SIP revision required by the Acting Administrator's memorandum of
January 27, 1977 and (2) that these commitments are updated if there
is a change.
Specific Instructions for Using the Form
B. SIP Revision Process Reporting
Reporting using this form is to be on a quarterly basis. The
information is required only for the areas and pollutants affected by
SIP revisions. There is no need to provide progress reports on area/
pollutants for which formal SIP revisions were not requested. However,
it is expected that area/pollutants for which revisions are ordered
in the future will be documented in revised Form 3720-2As and added to
quarterly reporting on this form.
Block Information Required
1. "SIP revision" is entered on the form.
2. Region Identify the appropriate Regional Office.
3. Date Enter date form is prepared.
•
4. Identifier
(a) Enter AQMA or AQCR number
(b) . Enter title of AQMA or AQCR
(c) Identify whether area is an AQCR or AQMA
-------
-244-
5. Pollutants/Milestones
Enter poTlutants(s) causing non-attainment
or for which the AQMA has been designated.
647 OFF/ON schedule
8. Remarks
C. SIPs for Lead Reporting
This column is to be used to report progress
in carrying out the work plans.* If the
responsible agency is meeting the negotiated
schedule, then a check mark should be
entered in the "ON SCHEDULE" column. If the
agency is not meeting the schedule, then a
check mark should be entered in the "OFF
SCHEDULE" column. This column should be
left blank when no formal calls for revision
have been made, or when the work schedule
has not yet been developed for an AQMA.
This column should be used for appropriate
footnotes or other explanatory material
that regions may want to provide.
In reporting progress in the development of SIPs for lead, the
fol 1 owi ng changes rfrom"the precedi rig (SIP revi s i bri)""~i ns triicti ons are" appl i cable:
Block
1.
5. Pollutants/Milestones
Information Required
"Lead" is entered on the form.
Leave blank
P. A1 r Moni tori ng Strategy Imp! ementati on Reoorti n'q
The following changes are applicable:
Block Information Required
1. "AMS" is entered on form.
4.
Identifier
(a)
b)
c)
(a) Leave blank
(b) Enter appro
(c) Leave blank
\c
(b) Enter appropriate State
(<"
*Work plans should be available for all areas for which formal calls
for revisions have been issued. Although the FY1977 guidance places a
a high priority on attainment plan revisions, it is de'sirable to report on
al^workplans, including work plans related Jto revisions limited to
maintenance.
-------
-245-
5.^Pollutants/Milestones Enter the following milestones applicable
to the Air Monitoring Strategy:
a. Quality Assurance program operational
v b. Completion of SIP monitoring networks.
/ *
, . c. Population exposure trends.
d. Data submission systems operational.
e. SLAMS annual report.
-------
FVVQ.A "A"' REGIONAL K £T PO A.T-'I M (f F-'ofc/vA /"AllSA
U>K/\A f-^ (NON-QUANTIFIED OUTPUTS) '
A. *Tc>£fiJT~t'F't &£^ . ',
~"
NO.
1
TITLE
(hi
'
'
AQMfl
'
i
i
I
\
,
.
•
.
•
*
.
i •";'.
S. POLLUTANTS/
-
"OFF-
•
SCMc-
-
2. REtrlOM 3. DATE
S. iQe7 AA.f\A KS
•
1
K)
r
•
-------
-247-
• III. Form B — SIP Revisions Commitments
'••.. This form is used to document significant milestones and commitments
related to the reassessment, adequacy determination, and revision of
SIPs for TSP, S02, oxidants, CO, and N02« This form is to be submitted
as an initial commitment form when acceptable workplans are not on file
with OAQPS, or whenever there are changes in the workplans.which have not
been reflected in revised workplans submitted to OAQPS.
Specific Instructions
Block Information Required
2. Region Identify the RO
3. Date , Enter date form is prepared.
4. Resources «
a. Work-Years Enter the work-years to be committed to '
the output during FY 1978.
b. Amount Enter the funds (excluding control
agency resource supplementation) allocated
to this output for FY 1978.
5. Identifier Identify AQCRs and/or AQMAs. '.
6. Pollutants Enter pollutants causing non-attainment
or for which the AQMA has been designated.'
7. SIP Adequate This column is to be used to indicate
whether a SIP is adequate in a non-attainment
- . . AQCR:
, 8. Revision Process Enter the dates agreed to with the State
for completion of the milestones indicated.
-------
-248-
a. Emission Inventory
b. Control Strategy
c. Selection of Emission
d. State Approval of
Regulations
e. Public Hearings
f. State Adoption
Enter date when the appropriate emission
inventory is to be completed.
Enter date when the analyses and recommen-
dations related to the development of a
control strategy are to be completed.
Enter date by which the process of
determining emission limits or other
controls is to be completed.
Enter date by which the State will have
developed the regulations for the revised
SIP.
Enter date by which the public hearings on the
SIP will have been completed.
Enter date by which the State will have
adopted the regulations as part of the SIP,
g. Regulations Submitted to
EPA
Enter date by which revised SIP, regulations,
adopted by State, are to be submitted to EPA.
-------
MR.
a.wo«>«-»eA,?: i. ^.•w
i
NO.
(nl
S-
. POLLUTANTS
7- SIP
ADEQUATE
8-
a. £-MI5E(0*J
ir. CONTROL
»F CMIStl
1.1/MITS
. STATE
TO ere*
i
N)
-------
-250-
IV. 'Form C - SIPs for Lead
This form is used to document the SIP development process for lead
for which a NAAQS is planned for promulgation during November 1977. This
fonn_isjtp_be filled out fpr_thpseAqCRs determined to_require_a specific
SIP control strategy for teacLTherefore, it is to be initially sub-
mitted within two weeks of NAAQS promultation (i.e., by November 30, 1977).
This form accounts for all steps of the SIP development process,
including plan promulgation. Since it is highly unlikely that dates
for all of the milestones can be stimated at the time of NAAQS
promulgation and assessment of the need for an SIP, this form is to
be filled as completely as possible at the time of initial submission
within additional data updated as appropriate, but not less frequently
than on a quarterly basis.
Specific Instructions
Block Information Required
2 &- 3 . . Same as for Form B.
4. Resources Enter resources (excluding control agency
resource supplementation) allocated to the
lead SIP development process.
5. - - Identify AQCRs for which a SIP is to be .:'.
developed.
* • .
6. • Enter date by which a work plan for
•'••'.'. development of the SIP will have been
developed with the State.
8 to 13 • Enter dates by which the identified
milestones will be achieved.
14'. * Enter dates by which the region will
approve or disapprove the SIP.
15. Enter date by which the region will '
• promulgate the SIP if appropriate.
-------
St.fA
(NON-QUANTIFIED OUTPUTS)
«f. AQCR IDENTIFIER
NO.
TITLE
(b)
t
%?;£*
•7- PA.«e-
Ll/Jt
OATft
8.
gMissifl(45
t;J. (Vift
. MEDIA |
(O. AAOOC-
AM ALMS it
. RPIO
Sr^rS
3. DATE
(Z. PwiB-
Ll'C-
S»XP TO
<<. ftcsoo/
3Mi*y
^7 .
•ZeCS.
*
'S. P/5O-
MULOA-
Ti:>f4
EPAFnnt
-------
-252-
V. Form D — Implementation of Air Monitoring Strategy
This form is to be used to make commitments to the implementation
of the Air Monitoring- Strategy (including quality assurance) developed
by the Standing Air Monitoring Work Group (SAMWG). The forms are to.
be submitted as part of the formal plans submission unless the workplans
are on file with OAQPS or submitted with the operating plans.
Detailed instructions on the program required to implement SAMWG
is provided in SAMWG guidelines.
Specific Instructions
Block
2. Region
3. Date
4. Resources
a. Work years
b. Funds
5. Name and organization of
RO contact
6. State
7. Commitments:
a. Quality Assurance
Program Operational
b. Completion of SIP
Monitoring Networks
(i) Review of
Networks
(ii) Review of State/
local Monitoring
Resources
(iii) SLAMS/NAQTS
Designation
Information Required
Identify'the RO
Enter date form is prepared
Enter the work years to be committed to
the output during FY 1978
Enter the funds (excluding control
agency resource supplementation)
allocated to this output for FY 1978
Enter name of person responsible for
implementing strategy
Enter appropriate State
Enter the date by which a minimum
Quality Assurance program will be
developed for the State
Enter the date by which the review of
current State/local ambient air
monitoring networks, for purposes of
Enter date by which estimates of
additional resources needed to make
necessary network changes and to
implement an operational quality
assurance program will be made.
Enter date by which SLAMS and NAQTS
sites will be identified, including
NAQTS needs for areas wi-thout a
monitoring site.
-------
-253-
(iv) Completion of
Network
Population Exposure
Trends
d. Data Submission Systems
e. SLAMS Annual Report
Date by which NAQTS and SLAMS networks
will be operational
Enter date by which the review of air
quality bases, emission inventories
and available models for purposes of
developing population exposure trend
displays in metropolitan areas of more
than 1,000,000 population will be
completed.
Enter the date by which a negotiated
schedule for the flow of valid and
complete NAQTS air quality data to the
NADB will be obtained from the State
Enter the date by which the State/RO
capabilities to prepare annual summary
reports of SLAMS air quality will be
established
-------
A! ft. AA.owiTOR.iMG-
rAtpt_eM<5wr/vn%o*J
3. DATE
AWO o««-«wi tflTi
Ro CONTACT-
g;
STATE
i.
-' KIT'S
•. C.oMPCc Ti
A- DATA,
So6M.tS.SloK)
-------
-255-
APPENDIX B
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITY INDICATORS
To ensure continuity with the Regional Office and
State program plans established in FY 1977, changes to basic
terms and definitions used in that guidance have been kept
to a minimum. New or modified terms used in the FY 1978
guidance are explained in this Appendix.
To alleviate the need to define identical terms through-
out the guidance, the following definitions are of general
applicability. Definitions relating to specific outputs
will be included with the output narrative.
1. Class A Source - means 'any facility capable of emitting
100 tons per or more per year of any single regulated
pollutant, assuming no pollution control. A facility is
counted as a single Class A source even if its potential
emissions for more than one pollutant exceed 100 tons per
year, or if more than one stack (or other point of emission
in the facility) can emit over 100 tons per year. Federal
facilities are to be included if subject to emission limita-
tions.
2. Class B Source - means any facility having an emission
potential of under 100 tons per year of any single regulated
pollutant. The lower limit cut-off for these sources
will vary from region to region depending upon the nature of
the air. pollution problems present, but should not be
higher than 25 tons per year. Federal facilities are to be
included if subject to emission limitations.
3. Selected Class B sources - a selected Class B source in
a non-attainment AQCR is usually a category of a Class B
source which regions and States have identified and which
are believed to contribute to the non-attainment status of .
the AQCR. Because there are inadequate SIPs in some AQCRs,
it is possible that selected Class B sources may not only
include those facilities in violation of or unknown compliance
status with emission standards, but also facilities which
may be in compliance with existing emission limitations.
4. Determined to be (in, out, or of unknown compliance
status) - As in the past years, reporting under the manage-
ment by objectives system for enforcement-related outputs is
to be based upon substantiated information. Start levels of
source compliance status and each subsequent quarterly report
should therefore address only identified sources; that is, only
those for which the region and State have a name, address, and
knowledge concerning the type of source and general magnitude of
-------
-256-
emissions. All adequately identified Class A sources should
be reported as either in, out, or of unknown -compliance
status. In projecting milestone and end commitments, however,
new sources or sources which have yet to be adequately identi-
fied should result in a predicted increase in the total number
of sources. The difference between the known start level and
predicted higher milestone and end levels is one index of how
much surveillance work the regions and States expect to
accomplish during the year. The total number of actually
identified sources reported each quarter is an indication of
how close the regional office and State surveillance programs
track with the goals established at the beginning of the
fiscal year.
Criteria for reporting source compliance status, detailed
below, are essentially the same as in past years. In general,
these definitions require:
J . That the compliance status of both Class A and•B
sources be determined in accordance with Table
1.
That Class A source compliance status be verified
once each year. (The compliance status established
in the preceding 12 months should be used for start
levels.) There can be exceptions to this annual
/^verification of each source. In cases where an
j inspection of one source guarantees compliance by
other sources, it is not necessary to verify the
( ' status of each individual source. For example, if
\j J, ten sources are burning only low-sulfur oil and
- < receive all oil supplies from one distributor, and
if inspection of that distributor will verify the
compliance status of each of those ten sources, only
the one inspection of the distributor must be made.
Other such exceptions may be approved by the Regional
Office in accordance with established Agency policy.
That on the order of 10% of the Class A sources for
which the State has made compliance determinations
are verified by EPA. The percentage of sources
investigated by EPA in any single State will vary
greatly in accordance with the Region's assessment
of State enforcement effectiveness. Regional commit-
ments/reporting in this regard are to be accomplished
under Output Titles 2, 6, and 7.
5. Non-attainment AQCRs - means air quality control
regions that the region and State have determined are
exceeding the primary national ambient air quality standards
for a particular pollutant. The designation of non-attainment
status for an AQCR should be based on the regions' best
-------
Table 1.
OF TI
- EPA OH STi
ULS IUR VtlUmNJ
ENFORCEMENT -
vu-Ct Sl.Yioa
VALIDITY. Of
TECHNIQUES
.-
f
ACCEPTABLE
Note: At least
one increment of
progress In every
schedule should-
be verified by a
by a preferred
technique
• • "
HOT ACCEPTABLE
..
Development of final
. control plan
. Copy of plan
• (preferred)
. Letter from
responsible
corporate
officer certi-
fying achievement
V
ft
Telephone calls or other
INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS IN SO
Date of binding commitment
to purchase 'control eqpt.
,
,
• . Copy of contract
(preferred)
. Letter from responsible
corporate officer certi-
fying achievement
....
such unsitstantiated evidence
* '•
UEDULES
Initiate on site
construction
1
. Inspection
(preferred)
. Letter from .
responsible
corporate
officer certi-
fying achieve-
ment ,
.
Complete on site
construction
j
1
I
1 •
\
t
i
V
. Inspection
(preferred)
. Letter from
responsible
corporate
officer certi-
fying achieve-
ment
/
FINAL
COMPLIANCE
(in order of accuracy)
.Emission test conducted
and results evaluated by
EPA (or State) and proper
installation and opera-
tion of continuous emis-
sion monitors.
.Emission test conducted
and results evaluated by
EPA (or State).
.Emission tests observed
and results evaluated by
EPA. (or State).
.Opacity observation.
where applicable, by
certified observer.
.Inspection by qualified
EPA (or State) personnel
to obtain adequate opera-
ting data to calculate
compliance or conpare to
operation during previous
emission test.
.EPA (or State) contractor:
report of inspection or
emission test when
evaluated by EPA or State.
.Emission factors for S02
emissions at fuel burning
Installations with no
pollution controls (data
submitted in- response to
§114 or equivalent State
statute requirement).
.Emission factors for SO?
from combustion sources
with controls and all
other pollutants based on
data from 6114 letter re-
sponses when calculated
emission are much less
(generally a factor of
ten) than allowed.
.Unobserved emission test
report submitted by. source
which Is evaluated and be-
lieved to be accurate. -
. emission test not
observed & report
unevaluated
. Opacity observations
not substantiated by
inspection of plant
operations
. Unevaluated contrac-
tor's operations
. Unsubstantiated
emission factor
analysis
. Emission inventory
data
I
N»
(SI
-------
-258-
available information. If it is uncertain whether air
quality levels are exceeding the primary NAAQS, the bias
should be toward non-attainment classification.
6. Facility inspection - means determination of the
compliance status for all emission points within a facility
for all regulated pollutants and determination of compliance
by the facility with all enforceable procedural requirements.
Individual field surveillance actions comprising a facility
inspection must be completed within the fiscal year.
7. Field Surveillance actions - means a visible emission
observation in accordance with method 9, a stack test,
or process evaluation for an individual emission point.
When field surveillance actions are completed within the
fiscal year for all emission points within a facility for
all regulated pollutants a facility inspection should also
be reported.
8. Facility compliance status - is to be reported on a
worst case basis using the compliance status of individual
emission points within a plant.
Worst Case - is determined in the following order:
Worst - In violation of emission standards and not
on a schedule
In violation of scheduled increments of
progress
Unknown compliance with respect to emission
standards
Unknown compliance with respect to scheduled
increments of progress
In compliance with scheduled increments of
progress
Best - In compliance with emission standards
-------
-259-
Specific Reporting Definitions
2A. .CONTROL OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND PARTICULATES
In light of the large number of non-attainment areas
for oxidants, assuring compliance by regulated Class A
hydrocarbon sources in these areas should receive a high
regional enforcement priority during FY-78. In addition,
while recognizing that many SIP revisions will be initiated
(with respect to hydrocarbon sources), the regions are being
asked to develop, in conjunction with states, plans to
assure compliance by regulated Class B sources that are
^postulated to be contributing to non-attainment problems.
2AB -- is the total number of Class A sources of hydro-
carbons in non-attainment AQCRs for oxidants that are in
violation of standards or schedules or that are of unknown
status. This output refers only to those subject to
final emission limitations. The region should commit on
.a quarterly basis to the number anticipated as a result of
SIP revision calls.
2AE —. The number of inspections at those facilities
storing gasoline (MOGAS, AVGAS, Marine Gas)
located in applicable Air Quality Control Regions
(AQCR's) to determine installation of vapor
recovery systems and/or compliance with vapor
recovery procedures. It is possible for the
inspection of a single facility to count as both
an unleaded inspection and a Stage I inspection.
2AF -- For this output, each facility for which a report
is submitted should be counted separately. That
is, if a single submission covers 10 facilities,
' ' the output to be reported is 10. In addition,
each successive report for a particular facility
•r. is to be counted separately. Therefore, after
all three reports have been submitted for a
. particular facility, the output to be reported
is 3. Thus, if there are 3,000 service stations
subjected to Stage II regulations in a particular
region and reports are submitted for all stations
and all such reports are reviewed, the output to
"be reported would be 3,000 after the compliance
date for report fl (inventory report),. 6,000
•after the compliance date for report £2 (system
type report), and 9,000 after the compliance
date for report §3 (post installation test
report).
-------
-260-
2A1 -- refers to those non-attainment areas
for "oxidants where categories of Class B sources are subject
to regulations.. The region should commit to development, in
conjunction with the states, of enforcement strategies to
assure compliance by these sources where they are considered
to pose part of the non-attainment problem. This commitment
should be on a semi-annual basis, considering anticipated
SIP revisions. .
2A2 __ T*16 percentage of EPA and State conducted Stage I
inspections which have uncovered violations of
Stage I Vapor Recovery regulations . EPA and
State conducted Stage I inspections are those
inspections, by EPA or State personnel, of
facilities which have or are required to have
Stage I Vapor Recovery equipment, for the purpose
of checking for compliance with Stage I regulations.
Violations include failure to have Stage I Vapor
Recovery equipment installed.
2A3 -- 'The number of section 113 notices of violation
issued for noncompliance with Stage I regulations.
•'•-•"•.;•"-• •
..2A4 -- Tne number of section 113 notices of violation
issued for noncompliance with Stage II regulations
-------
. . --261- .. '
3A. NEW SOURCE CONTROL
It is becoming increasingly apparent that attainment of
standards in many areas and certainly maintenance of standards
in all areas will depend to a large degree on the comprehen-
sive implementation of new source programs.. They are combined
in the FY 1978 guidance to reflect their interweaving role in
accomplishing the goal that new source construction be
accomplished in a manner that interferes as little as
possible with air quality standards. Because this is a
relatively new program it is felt that a need exists to
highlight activities through separate commitments which will
evolve into a single commitment when.the programs are fully
implemented. For the most part, States now have authority
to implement new source review programs and generally
have adequate programs on paper. However, in many cases they
are not enforcing these standards at all or are issuing
grossly deficient permits. Some States have been delegated
only some portions of NSPS to date, and PSD has been dele-
gated to only a handful of States. Regions are expected to
complete during the first and second quarters of FY 1978 an
'inspection/audit program of State new source efforts and to
identify and recommend solutions for deficiencies. When
these audits are made, all aspects of these programs that
apply to each State should be investigated and every effort
made by regions to encourage States to request a package
delegation of all new source requirements, including new
NSPS and PSD. . The primary thrust of this program in FY 1978
should be to see that States can handle as much of this new
source problem as possible with EPA providing guidance and
technical expertise rather than replacement air quality
evaluations/enforcement, especially with respect to new
source review where resource demands make replacement of
state efforts an impossible task. It is worth, however,
putting a relatively large portion of federal resources
into this effort in FY 1978 so that States will undertake
the bulk of these programs.
3AA, 3AB, SAC, SAD --
' _ call for an evaluation of how all States
are implementing all. aspects of new source programs, including
..enforcement of those programs for which they have authority.
This is in no way to be construed as those States simply
having an effective program on paper. EPA is to thoroughly
review the procedures followed, permits issued and permit
conditions enforced by each State in determining whether
each .program is adequate. This audit program will be
conducted jointly by all appropriate Regional Office elements
with any needed headquarters assistance from both Enforcement
and Air & Waste Management.
-------
-262-
At a minimum, adequate state programs should include*:
1. A program to identify sources subject to the require-
ments
2. An established procedure for review of permit applica-
tions, including:
emission limitations compliance
air quality assessment (modelling capability)
complete inventory and accounting procedure to
track PSD increments
determination of BACT, RACT, and LAER
description of air quality
3. Established procedures by which the State is to seek
public comment and by which the State notifies EPA of
NSR applications
4. A program for State enforcement of applicable require-
ments.
In conducting the audit, the region must overview on
the order of .10% of the State's Class A source determinations
and actions.
SAG S 3AH--calls for the total number of Class A sources
subject to NSPS or PSD, respectively, that are in violation
or of unknown status with respect to any procedural or
emission requirement. Compliance status in these cases, as
with Class A sources, is to be determined on a worst case
basis. '. That is, if a source is in compliance with all
.reporting requirements but is of unknown status with respect
to emission requirements following startup, it is to be
listed as of unknown compliance. If the source is of
unknown compliance status with respect to reporting require-
ments but is in violation of emission requirements following
startup it is to be listed as in violation. Additionally, a
source may be subject to one or both of the programs included
in this Output. If a source, for example, is subject to
both, and is in compliance with one set of requirements but
in violation of the other it is to be counted appropriately
under each unit.
3AI -- requires each region to commit to a level of
Class A source NSR and PSD permits which it will audit in
each State. It is expected that a substantial number of
those permits issued will be audited at least in the first
two or three quarters of the fiscal year as EPA conducts its
extensive inquiry into the adequacy of the State programs.
Sf«?«detaiieS 9uidance "ill be developed and provided to
Regions and States to assist them in evaluating State programs,
-------
-263-
3AJ -- calls for the number of enforcement actions
taken by EPA and is just that, the number of actions
regardless of how many of them were at one source and
regardless of how many different new source programs they
relate to.
3A3 § 3A4 -- the total number of Class A
sources that have been determined to be in compliance with
all procedural and emission requirements for NSPS and
PSD, respectively. If a source is subject to both programs,
it is to be counted separately.
3A5, 3A6, § 3A7 -- reflect federal and State
activity levels in new source programs. The regional offices,
in negotiating outputs with States, shbuld strongly consider
incorporating such indicators as outputs for^Jihe _S tatejs.
3AS -- calls for the number of sources
inspected by EPA, not the number of inspection actions
undertaken. A source is not considered inspected until
it has been inspected for all the programs to which it
is subject. That is, if the source is subject to two or
three of the new source programs, inspections must cover
requirements for each of these programs before the source
can be counted as having been inspected. 3A6 and 3A7 --
calls for the combined total of permits issued, whether by
EPA or the States, for -NSPS and PSD.
4A. ENERGY-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The Federal Energy Administration's authority to issue-
prohibiton orders against burning gas and petroleum products
has been extended to June 30, 1977 and more orders will
be issued by that date. Substantial resources will have to
be applied to this program by affected regional offices in
granting compliance date extensions, revising compliance
schedules, and tracking compliance with scheduled "incremenTs..
FEA is now considering orders for some 63 power plants and
about 70 other major fuel-burning installations.
Regional offices, in conducting this federal program,
should be sure to consult with State/local agencies when
evaluating sources and issuing certifications so that
consideration is given to cross-media problems and cross-agency
responsibilities. ' I
-------
-264-"
4A1. Tne number of SIP control strategies, by AQCRs, or State portions
thereof, that are being reassessed due to natural gas curtailments which
. lead to changes in fuel use. Report both State and EPA' reassessments.
4A2 The number of SIP revisions, by AQCR or State portions thereof,
tnaVhave been initiated as a result of natural gas curtailments. The
reporting is to be made as of the receipt of a State request for approval
a SIP revision or the date on which the Regional Office formally notifies
the State of the need or plans/for an SIP revision.
4A3 -- "number of sources for which rulemaking
and notification/certifications to PEA are complete" represents
those plants which have received FEA prohibition orders and
for which EPA has completed action.
-------
-265-
5A. CREATE AND MAINTAIN PRIORITY SOURCE FILE IN THE
COMPLIANCE DATA SYSTEM
One of the major changes in emphasis in the guidance
this year revolves around the commitment to maintain the
Compliance Data System (CDS) for all programs by entering
certain groups of sources so that they relate to the other
outputs in this guidance and maintaining a minimum specified
level of detail and currency of information for all sources
to be entered. The regional reporting burden over the year
should be alleviated greatly as a number of reports will
be generated directly from the CDS file. Much of the
detailed information needed to properly assess regional and
state performance in FY 1978 will be obtained by accessing
the information contained in CDS. While the following
discussion of CDS requirements is somewhat detailed, it.
represents, as noted above, the minimum necessary to ensure
consistent national program reporting for Class A sources.
The availability, of an easily maintained and accessed
recordkeeping system for tracking the compliance of sources
with procedural, emission limitation, and compliance schedule
requirements is requisite for successful implementation of
an effective stationary source air enforcement program. As
existing SIP enforcement strategies evolve into compliance
maintenance programs and emphasis is shifted to programs
such as selective enforcement in non-attainment areas, New
Source Review, Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
NSPS, and ESECA, the ever increasing burden of recordkeeping
requires that adequate Agency resources be allocated to this
priority function. In order for enforcement managers to
more effectively use their limited resources, a flexible and
responsive recordkeeping system must be utilized that not
only stores and reports data on past performance, but also
one that provides these managers with a capability to
analyze compliance information so that resources can be
directed to those areas where they will have the greatest
impact.
The Compliance Data System (CDS), which has been in
operation since 1973, has not been used by most regions to
its fullest potential. CDS, while not a panacea for all
enforcement recordkeeping problems, has proved to be one of the
Agency's most successful and efficient data systems, its phi-
losophy being that of relative simplicity of operation with a goal
of supporting rather limited enforcement functions. In order to
achieve this goal, certain minimum input and maintenance require-
ments must be met. The information tracked in CDS is no dif-
ferent from that which is required to operate an effective
-------
-266-
enforcement program. The goal of this output then is to
ensure that adequate enforcement inventories are being main-
tained nationwide for all programs and that specific enforce-
ment related events are receiving the attention they require to
carry out an effective enforcement program. Much of the
required information is currently in CDS; however, this
output commitment establishes the minimum information require-
ments for all stationary source air enforcement programs.
Nearly all of the following requirements were based on the fact
that one or more EPA regional offices is already tracking some
of the air enforcement programs in CDS to the level of detail
required--in this guidance.
CODING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
In general, every facility entered into CDS must
include:
1) A complete name and address for each facility,
showing the actual location' in the address field
and the division or works and mailing address in
one of the comments fields.
2) An accurate SIC designation based on the primary
.product produced or service provided at that
facility.
3) A completed AQCR field.
4) A completed NEDS Cross Reference field.
5) For federal facilities, a completed Federal
Facility code.
6) For all facilities in CDS, an accurate Air Program
code designating whether the facility is subject
to SIP, NSPS, etc.
7) At the Entire Source (000) point, the Emission
Category, field must be completed for all SIP
sources to indicate whether the source is Class A
or Class B.
8) For those SIP facilities contributing to non-attain-
ment in a non-attainment AQCR, the card 3 must be
utilized indicating the pollutant, AQCR attainment
status, and pollutant compliance status.
-------
-267-
9) The overall compliance status of every facility in
CDS with applicable emission limitations and
enforceable procedural requirements for the
particular program under which the source is
entered must be coded into the Entire Source
(000) point.
Appendix A of the CDS User's Manual describes the applicable
codes and their associated meanings and the considerations
to be weighed in coding each field mentioned in this guidance.
Further clarification of coding procedures will be provided
by DSSE upon request for each data element of concern.
In addition to these general requirements, specific
groups or categories of facilities must be entered into CDS
depending on the programs to which they are subject. The
facilities in these categories must be identified by the SIC
codes designated in Table 2 so that there is a means whereby
certain groups or categories of sources can be retrieved
from the system. Inaccurate and missing SIC codes have been
major problems in the past in attempting to identify sources
in CDS.
For SIP sources, all facilities to be included under
Output Title 5, "Ensure Compliance By All Class A Sources
With SIP Emission Limitations For All Pollutants In All
AQCR's", must be coded into and maintained in CDS. These
sources must at least include all facilities in the industries
listed in Table 2.
The level of detail to be maintained in CDS for each
source will vary, but generally all actions listed in Table
3 must be tracked in CDS. Past regional experience indicates
that, with the exception of the continuous monitoring actions,
most regions have been tracking the actions for facilities
subject to SIP requirements on Table 3. In addition, some
regions use CDS to select those Class A facilities which have
not been inspected by either EPA or a state within the period
of a year. This is one method used to ensure that the state
is conducting an "adequate" compliance monitoring program.
Since a region needs to track all of the actions listed
in Table 3 applicable to a source, it behooves a region to
maintain all of the SIP action items in CDS. Process infor-
mation for those industries listed in Table 2 should be
maintained in CDS for the process description, SCC code,
emission category, and compliance status code,'or as specified.
in such specific enforcement strategy guidance as the iron and
-------
-268-
TABLE 2
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
TO BE INCLUDED IN CDS
Category
SIC Code
Comments
Power Plants
4911
Coal-Fired Industrial
Commerical Boilers
(The requirement is to
enter these boilers at
the process level)
Iron and Steelmaking
Facilities
Primary Copper, Lead
Zinc, and Aluminum
Smelters
Kraft and Sulfite Pulp
and Paper Mills
Municipal Refuse and
Sewage Sludge Incin-
erators
Petroleum Refineries
Portland Cement Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer
Plants
Ferroalloy Plants
Gray Iron Foundries
See
Comment
3312
Utility companies should be included
here; companies that generate their
own power should have their boilers
included under industrial/commercial
boilers below.
Only those coal-fired boilers with a
heat input of 35 million BTU's/hour
or greater should be entered; since
there, is no one SIC code applicable,
the SCC code at the process level
must be coded.
Any facility with a coke battery,
blast furnace, sinter line, open
hearth, basic oxygen, or electric
arc furnace should be included.
3331, 3332
3333, 3334
respectively
2611, 2621
4953
2911
3241
2874
3313
3321
-------
-269-
TABLE 2 (continued)
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES
TO BE INCLUDED IN CDS
Category
SIC Code
Comments
Coal Cleaning Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
1111, 1112,
1211,. 1213*
2951
Sulfuric Acid Plants
See Comment
Lime Plants
Phosphate Rock
Processing Plants
Sulfur Recovery Plants
Carbon Black Plants
(Furnace Process)
Petroleum Bulk Stations
and Terminals
3274
1475
See Comment
2895
5171
* SIC designation depends on type of
coal.
Many highway construction companies
(SIC 1611) operate an asphalt
concrete plant; if the asphalt plant
is the major stationary source at the
facility, then the SIC should
be 2951. (SIC 2950 does not exist as
a valid code)
When sulfuric acid is the major pro-
duct produced at the plant, the SIC
should be 2819. If, however, the
sulfuric acid plant is a subsidiary
process in the production of some
other product, then the SIC should
be that relating to the major pro-
duct and the SCC code at the process
level must be coded appropriately for
sulfuric acid plants.
The SIC should be coded only when
the facility's primary product
produced is lime.
Same as for sulfuric acid plants
except that the SCC sulfur recovery
plants should be used where appro-
priate.
-------
TABLE 3
ACTIONS TO BE TRACKED IN CDS FOR
VARIOUS PROGRAMS
Note: The order In which actions appear In this table Is not necessarily the order In which they will occur. Some actions pay not be applicable to a source.
Facilities Subject
To SIP Requirements
Relating to a Compliance
Schedule-
Submission of Control Plan
Purchase of Equipment
Start of Construction
End of Construction
Final Compliance
Relating to EPA Field Surv-
eillance -
EPA SIP Inspections
EPA SIP Stack Tests
EPA SIP V.E. Observations
Relating to EPA Enforcement
Actions-
EPA SIP Notices of Violation
EPA SIP Orders
EPA SIP Civil/Criminal
Actions
EPA SIP §114 Letters
£307 Challenges
3 "
Relating to Continuous
Monitoring Requirements-
SIP Notice of Continuous
Monitoring System Demonstr
tion
SIP Continuous Monitoring
System Demonstration Date
SIP Continuous Monitoring
System Demonstration
Report Submit tal
SIP Excess Emissions Report
Submission
SIP Continuous Monitoring
System Inspection
Deferral of Enforcement
Action to State
Source Listed Under Section
306
Facilities Subject
To NSPS Requirements
NSPS Construction Connience-
roent
NSPS Notice of Construction
Commencement
NSPS Notification of Antic-
ipated Start-up
NSPS Notification of Start-
up
NSPS Start-up
NSPS Notification of Perf-
ormance Test
NSPS Performance Test
NSPS Notification of Cont-
inuous Monitoring System
Demonstration
NSPS Continuous Monitoring
System Demonstration
Date
NSPS Excess Emissions
Report Submission
NSPS §114 Letter
NSPS Inspection by EPA
NSPS Order by EPA
NSPS Civil/Criminal Action
by EPA
NSPS Modification or Recon-
struction Notification
NSPS Modification or Recon-
struction Start Date
NSPS Continuous Monitoring
System Demonstration
Report Submit tal
Notification of Malfunction
NSPS Continuous Monitoring
System Test Results
NSPS Continuous Monitoring
System Inspection
Deferral of Enforcement
Action to State
Source Listed Under 'Section
306
Facilities Subject
To NESIIAPS Requirements
NESIIAPS Start of Const-
ruction
NESIIAPS End of Construc-
tion
NESIIAPS Final Compliance
NESIIAPS Submission of
Control Plan
NESHAPS Purchase of Equip
ment
NESIIAPS Registration Re-
ceived • •
NESHAPS Permit Applica-
tion Received
NESIIAPS Request for Waiv-
er of Compliance
NESIIAPS Waiver of Compl-
iance Granted
NESHAPS Waiver of Source
Test Request
NESIIAPS Waiver of Source
Test Granted
NESHAPS Inspection
NESHAPS Source Test
NESIIAPS Source Test Sub-
mission
NESHAPS Start-up
NESHAPS Order by EPA
NESIIAPS Civil/Criminal
Action by EPA
NESHAPS Permit Granted
NESIIAPS Equivalent Test
Method Review Request
NESHAPS Equivalent Test
Method Submission
Request
NESIIAPS Leak Detection
Submittal (Vinyl Chlor.)
NESHAPS Vinyl Chloride
Semiannual Report
Notification of Discharge
(Vinyl Chloride)
NESIIAPS (Vinyl Chloride)
Notification That
Equipment and Proced-
ures Required in S61.6E
& $61.68 Are Implement-
ed"
Deferral of Enforcement
Action to State
Source Listed Under Sect-
ion 306
Facilities Subject
To ESECA Requirements
FEA Notice of Intent to
Issue Prohibition
Orders
Draft Certification
Final Certification
Coal Availability
Assured
FEA Notice of Effect-
iveness
Source Notified by EPA
of ESECA Responsibil-
ities"
FEA Prohibition Order
CDE Proposed in
Federal Register
CDE Promulgated in
Federal Register
j
Postponement Pending
SIP Revision
Submittal by Source
Under Part 55
Submittal Under Part 55
Evaluated
Draft Notification'
Final Notification
Withdrawal of Proposed
CDE In Federal Reg-
ister
Withdrawal of Promul-
gated CDE in Federal
Register
EIS or EA Completed
by FEA
CDE Regional Limitation
(SIPJ/Prlmary Stan-
dard Condition
Meeting with Source
Scheduled Increments
Facilities Subject
To PSD Requirements
PSD Application Receiv-
ed by EPA
Application Complete
Preliminary Determina-
tion by EPA
Public Notice by EPA
Comments to Source
Response Due from
Applicant
Additional Information
Requested
Final Determination by
EPA
EPA PSD Notice of Vio-
lation
EPA PSD Order
EPA PSD Civil/Criminal
hf t inn
AC i ion
EPA PSD Inspection
Facilities Subject
To NSR Requirements
NSR Application Received
, (by State) j
Preliminary Determination
(by State)
Final Determination-State
Response Due from Appli-
cant
Final Compliance Report
Additional Information
Requested
Comments to State
EPA Notified by State
Preliminary Determination
(by, EPA)
Comments to Source
Final Oeterminatlon-EPA
NSR Application Received
by EPA
Public Notice by State
Public Notice by EPA
Offset Under Consider-
ation
Application Complete
EPA' HSR 'Not Ice of Viol-
ation
EPA NSR Order
EPA NSR Civil/Criminal
Ac 1 1 on
EPA NSR Inspection
I
I-J
-------
-271-
steel enforcement guidance pertaining to CDS. Additional
guidance for the remaining categories will be issued by DSSE
when appropriate. Until coding guidance on a specific
industry is issued, only facility and action level information
is required. Coding guidance for power plants and primary
smelters will probably be issu'ed first, requiring that the
major process units be entered into CDS in a prescribed
manner. Contractor support is available to support the
regions in this area.
For sources subject to NESHAPS regulations, all non-
transitory facilities subject to these regulations should be
entered into and maintained in CDS. In addition, the
process information relating to hazardous pollutants and
requested on the OMB-approved NESHAPS Information Form (EPA
form 7600-1) should also be entered and maintained for all
facilities subject to NESHAPS. The form was designed so
that keypunching could be done directly from the form.
However, even if the form is not utilized, the items listed
on the form should be maintained in CDS in the fields
specified on EPA form 7600-1. For FY 1978, there is no
requirement to track spraying and demolition operations or
operators in CDS; however, regions are encouraged to list
the sites and operators in CDS — which should be identi-
fied by an "8" in the Air Programs Code field and an "S" in
the Air Program Status field for sites and a "C" in the Air
Program Status field for. spraying and demolition operators
(contractors). If a region is to perform the primary
enforcement role for NESHAPS in states that are not delegated
enforcement authority, all of the NESHAPS actions listed in
Table 3 should be tracked in CDS where applicable to a
facility. A number of EPA regions do currently track
NESHAPS sources to the level of detail required in this
guidance, and all regions really should be tracking NESHAPS
sources in accord with Table 3 whether they are undertaking
primary enforcement or not.
For sources subject to NSPS regulations, all facilities
with processes (affected facilities), subject to these regula-
tions should be entered and maintained in CDS. At a minimum,
the actions listed in Table 3 should be tracked for each facil-
ity with subject processes where applicable. Each individual
process (affected facility) must be entered in CDS under the .
appropriate facility with sufficient detail to enable identifi-
cation of the subject process. For FY 1978, the overall number
of NSPS facilities will again be counted by compliance status
-------
-272-
with reporting/emission requirements rather than the individual
processes (affected facilities). As additional subject pro-
cesses are added to a facility already subject to NSPS reporting/
emission requirements, the new process need only to be added in
CDS to the existing NSPS facility with a new set of actions
listed under the appropriate process. As in FY 1977, the Air
Program code for NSPS facilities must be coded with a "9" and
the Air Program Status field coded with "P" for facilities with
subject processes only in the planning stages, "C" for facilities
with at least one subject process under construction, and "0"
for facilities with at least one subject process in operation.
i
For facilities subject to ESECA requirements, all facili-
ties to which FEA has issued a notice of intent to issue a
prohibition order must be entered into CDS. The reason
for this requirement is to supplement and eventually replace
the monthly ESECA reports currently provided to Headquarters
by the regions with a monthly CDS retrieval by Headquarters
of ESECA facilities. All ESECA facilities should be identified
in CDS with an Air Program code of "4". At a minimum,- the
actions listed in Table 3 should be tracked for each ESECA
facility.
For facilities subject to New Source 'Review requirements,
the facility and associated processes should be entered
.into CDS if either:
a) the subject process (or subject facility) will
be capable of emitting 100 tons per year of
any regulated pollutant, or
b) the subject process (or subject facility) will
be required to meet NSPS requirements.
As with NSPS facilities, each subject process should be
entered and maintained at the point level in CDS with a defini-
tive process description, SCC code, emission category, and
compliance code. Since the NSR (and PSD) program can logically
be broken into two distinct functions, the permit application
review and permit enforcement, the actions listed- in Table 3
for NSR that relate to permit enforcement should definitely be
tracked. However, since EPA will only monitor and audit
selected permits reviewed by states, the actions tracking the
application review process need only be tracked for these
sources. If a permit is granted and specific conditions are
set that must be enforced, CDS should contain a description in
-------
-273-
a comments field of the permit conditions and, if appropriate,
new action types (e.g., progress reports due) should be
established by calling the National CDS Data Bank Coordinator
at FTS-755-0103.
All facilities and processes subject to Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements must be
entered and maintained in CDS regardless of size. The
general coding requirements for PSD sources are the same as
for NSR sources. At a minimum, the actions listed in Table
3 should be tracked in CDS where applicable.
Since it is possible that any one facility may be
subject to the requirements of several programs, such as
SIP, NSR, and NSPS, it is important to ensure that the same
facility is entered into CDS one time for each of these
programs, each time with the appropriate Air Program code.
The CDS User's Manual and operating guidance for CDS detail
how the source coding should be conducted. The result is
that the same facility will occur several times in CDS.
However, under each facility, only the points (processes)
which are subject to a particular program should be coded.
In order to track facility compliance in non-attainment
AQCR's by pollutant, it will be necessary that the Card 3
be utilized in CDS. Guidance relating to the use of CDS
Card 3 will be issued in May 1977.
-------
-274-
6A. ENSURE COMPLIANCE BY ALL CLASS A SOURCES
-' WITH SIP EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR ALL
POLLUTANTS IN ALL AQCRs
This commitment encompasses activities to ensure
initial compliance and continued compliance by Class A
sources in both attainment and non-attainment AQCRs in each
state. As in past years, it is essential that the compliance
status of all Class A facilities (currently estimated at
about 22,000 nationally) be verified in an acceptable manner
by the responsible state or local agency. It is also
necessary for EPA to verify the compliance status of a
number of Class A facilities as part of its field surveillance
effort to provide a check on state enforcement. A Class A
facility will not be considered in compliance unless a
definitive determination has been made by the state or EPA
that the source is, in fact, in compliance. To achieve and
maintain Class A source compliance, each facility should
have its compliance status verified once per year by the
state or EPA. The extent to which the Federal and state - ..
programs can achieve this goal will be reflected in $AA and
6AB.
Table 1 of this appendix provides a summary of techniques
considered acceptable for verifying compliance by either the
state or EPA. In addition to enforcing against sources
where states cannot or will not enforce, regions must
for the first time make commitments to ensure that all
states have implemented fully effective compliance monitoring
and field investigation programs under Output 6.
6AA -- Class A sources determined to be in compliance
with SIP emission standards or with scheduled increments of
progress — includes only those sources which have been
verified to be in final compliance with emission limitations
or verified to be no more than 90 days overdue in achieving
all currently due increments of progress. In determining
compliance with schedules, sources with a number of increments
or schedules falling due during the fiscal year are counted
only once.
Final compliance is to be verified by the State or
EPA in accordance with acceptable criteria. If one or more
of the emission points within a Class A source is out of
compliance, the whole source is judged to be out of compliance,
Table 1 indicates the acceptable methods of EPA-determined
compliance. Regions are to ensure that the criteria used in
State determinations are comparable. As indicated elsewhere
in this Appendix, EPA must evaluate State effectiveness by
making an independent check of the compliance status of
approximately 10% of the Class A facilities for which
the State has made compliance determinations.
-------
-275-
6AB_-- _ is composed of Class A sources that have been
"determined" to be in violation of final emission limita-
tions or compliance schedules, or that are of unknown
compliance status with respect to either standards or
schedules. Although the "in violation" and "unknown"
categories are combined in this output, the specific
status is to be coded into CDS so that source-by-source
reports can be pulled to yield accurate information about
each source counted under this output. Sources will be
determined to be in violation according to one of the
acceptable criteria established in Table 1. Until all
violating emission points come into final compliance
or are complying with scheduled increments of progress,
a source may not be accounted for under any other output
commitment. Sources behind in meeting any currently due
increment of progress must be reported under this output
unit, and coded as violators even though other increments of
progress are currently being met or compliance status with
respect to other increments is unknown. As indicated in
Table 1, acceptable criteria for determining compliance with
an increment include:
i) copy of a control plan or contract for appropriate
increments;
ii) inspection of the source to evaluate completion of
construction;
iii) information supplied pursuant to a section 114
inquiry or by other regulatory means of certifying
compliance. These commitments should be as low as
resources permit in order to approach 100% compliance.
If one or more of the emission points within a facility is
known to be out of compliance, the whole source- is judged to
be in noncompliance. This commitment also includes all Class
A sources on schedules whose status regarding compliance
with currently due increments of progress is unknown.
Sources determined to be complying with some currently due
increments but of unknown status with respect to other
increments should be reported in this output and coded as
unknown. If, however, a source is more than 90 days overdue
for one or more increments of progress, it is counted here
and coded as being in violation even if the status with
respect to other increments is unknown. It is important
that a sufficient compliance monitoring and field surveillance
effort by both States and Regions should be undertaken to
reduce the number of sources listed in this commitment.
-------
-276-
6AC -- is the number of enforcement actions .taken by EPA
xri each state and is the sum of all notices of violation
issued, enforcement orders issued, and civil or criminal
proceedings initiated by EPA in the region. The projection
of the number of these outputs should be based upon prior
EPA experience as to the percent of sources which can be
expected to be out of compliance, and the resources committed
to enforcement proceedings should relate to the surveillance
and compliance monitoring program planned by the region.
Enforcement actions should be taken first against
Class A sources contributing to non-attainment which have
had or will have the most serious impact on air quality,
rather than against those polluters whose violations are
easy to resolve but are less significant. Enforcement
actions should be commenced when warranted, not just to
meet output commitments. Since the number of sources
in violation vastly exceeds those which the Agency can
address within existing resource limitations, enforcement
resources can and should be used productively. Variation
among regions in the level of outputs for enforcement
actions may exist because of. exceptionally high levels of
compliance or because large amounts of resources must be
devoted to resolving significant cases. Where these factors
result in lower commitments than expected, they should be
justified by a narrative description of those factors.
-------
-277-
7A. ENSURE THAT ALL STATES IMPLEMENT FULLY EFFECTIVE
--- COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FIELD SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAMS
Correcting non-attainment problems and ensuring continued
compliance in all areas continues to be among the Agency's
/first priority objectives in FY 1978, and it is felt that
solutions- to many of these problems may revolve around
one crucial aspect of the program that needs immediate
attention. That is, the adequacy of both the emissions and
compliance data that are being provided by State and local
agencies to EPA. Although some States do have good source
inventory and field programs, others do not. This concern is
reflected in the inclusion of Output 6 and regions are urged
to make every effort to ensure that all States are adequately
employing good existing inspection techniques and that
technological and management gaps in these areas are pointed
out so that expertise and guidance can be provided. This is
especially true with respect to non-attainment areas.
Determinations as to precise causes for non-attainment
cannot be made if the emission and compliance inventories
for the sources in those areas are either not up to date or
are in error. Regional offices are to work closely with
States during the fiscal year in establishing criteria
for good field surveillance programs and in judging State
performance against those criteria. The assessments and
any corrective measures instituted should reflect a joint
Federal-State effort to effect improvements.
The goal of this output is to establish fully effective
compliance monitoring and field investigation programs in
each State by tailoring assistance to the critical needs
of the State program and by inducing State action through a
strong federal presence. Two outputs and two activity
indicators are listed which provide EPA Headquarters with a
broad understanding of the actions that are to be taken and
the progress of enforcement efforts.
7AA -- requires the region to commit to the number of
States within the region that will possess and begin main-
taining adequate compliance inventories throughout FY
1978. It is expected that this commitment will approach 100%
for each region by the end of the fiscal year.
7AB -- is the number of facilities that are to be
inspected by EPA. ... In past fiscal years the
operating guidance has required regions to make an independent
assessment of the compliance status of a number of Class
A sources in every state in order to check those compliance
determinations already made by the State. The FY 78 guidance
highlights this requirement with a separate output since it
is critical for EPA to independently evaluate and improve
-------
-278-
° Execution of an Active Comprehensive Plan -
While priorities vary from State to State and county
to county, every Class A source within the Agency's
jurisdiction must be adequately investigated approximately
at least once each year. The frequency of compliance
investigation determinations may be higher in non-attain-
ment areas and will encompass Class B sources in the
non-attainment areas as appropriate. Furthermore, these
investigations must be timed to determine source compliance
when the source is creating the greatest environmental
impact (for example, processes having seasonal variations
in productivity must be inspected during the peak of
their operating season. Cyclical or batch-type operations
must be inspected when under maximum production).
This activity indicator provides for each region to
prepare an assessment of the efficacy of State compliance
monitoring and field investigation programs based upon the
audit investigations that the region is-conducting as well as
quarterly program reviews with the State and informal contacts
with State programs. The analysis should identify the areas
where the State program is deficient, and recommended measures
for correcting these problem areas should be discussed with
States and contained in the formal reports to the States.
Regions are urged to use all of the tools at their disposal to
assist the States and recommend corrective actions for problems
identified in the evaluation. Included in these tools are the
use of expertise and assistance from Headquarters program
offices, assistance from the NEIC, short-term level of effort
contractor efforts available through DSSE, and reformulation of
the amounts of money provided in the State program grants.
Potential problems and possible remedies using these tools are
listed below:
0 Adequate Manpower - is a recurrent problem that
plagues many State agencies. At a minimum each State's
program grant must provide funds to be devoted towards
enforcement activity. Substantial funds should be allocated
specifically to compliance monitoring and field investigations
since States are principally relied upon to provide the
ongoing accurate assessment of the status of compliance.
Conversely, for States
-------
-279-
This output commitment is tied to the more general output of
developing a correctional compliance and field investigation
program; therefore most of the audit investigations to be
undertaken by EPA should be scheduled for the first quarter
of the fiscal year.
7A1 -- calls for the number of plans developed
and implemented to correct state compliance monitoring and field
investigation program problems. The detailed information
obtained through the auditing of source compliance outlined
above and the quarterly reviews of progress with the States
should culminate in a plan to improve the State's field investiga-
tion and compliance monitoring programs to a minimum acceptable
level. Such a plan may include a closer, more productive
process of working with the State, a more substantial Federal
enforcement presence, institution of air grant conditions, or
more in depth involvement of other EPA programs. At a minimum,
an effective field surveillance program should contain the
following elements*:
0 Complete Compliance Inventory - The State or local
program should possess a complete inventory of sources
affected by the SIP emission limitations with the following
key elements of information: the source's location; the
processes the source contained; the compliance status of
each of these processes, an idea of the size of the source
in terms of air pollution impact, when the source was last
inspected, how compliance determinations were made, and the
status of the source with respect to any abatement program.
This information in large state agencies is most appropri-
ately placed in automated data handling systems. However,
where relatively few sources are concerned (i.e., less than
250 facilities) it is feasible to maintain an effective
source compliance inventory with a paper filing system.
0 Employment of Precise Compliance Determination
Techniques - As indicated in Table 1, some methods of
determining compliance are more accurate than others and
some are unacceptable for determining compliance.
More detailed guidance will be developed, in consultation
with regions and States, to ensure design of a comprehensive
evaluation program.
-------
-280-
the accuracy of the State field investigation and compliance
determination efforts. Previous guidance provided that.on
the order of 10% of the Class A sources in the State be
investigated by EPA. This general level of activity for
each State holds with respect to Class A sources and may
vary somewhat from state to state depending upon current
regional office understanding of State programs. However,
regions should ensure that attention is also given to State
programs for ESECA and NESHAPS sources and to all new sources.
In preparing for this output, regions should compile a list of
the facilities to be investigated in the forthcoming fiscal year
after considering:
0 the attainment status of areas within the State—
priority should, of course, be given to non-attainment
areas;
0 the stringency and specificity of SIP emission
limitations—priority should be given to sources where
regulations are less specific or could cause issues in
interpretation;
0 the reported compliance status—priority should be
given to sources which the states report as finding
initially in compliance with applicable emission
limitations, then to sources which the State reported
to come into compliance upon completion of an abatement
program, and last to sources which the State has found
to be in violation of emission limitations; it should
not include sources listed of unknown compliance
status with respect to regulations as resolution of
compliance status for these sources is addressed by
other outputs;
0 whether EPA has deferred to State enforcement action
in past fiscal years—high priority should be given to
facilities to which EPA had issued notices of violation
in previous fiscal years and referred further action
to the State for resolution.
Since EPA's inspections are designed, in part, to conduct an
in-depth evaluation of the accuracy of State programs, as well as to
direct EPA enforcement priorities and tailor them to provide assistance
to States willing to accept aid, the list of sources to be investigated
must be drawn up by EPA independently. Similarly, the credibility
of the evaluation requires that States should not be notified of
which sources have been chosen and when the inspections will take
place, except such minimum notice (normally not exceeding 48 hours)
necessary to enable the State to accompany EPA inspectors if the
States wishes, where the region determines this is appropriate. For
sources found to be in violation, EPA may defer to the State only if
the State initiates its own enforcement action within 30 days of the
issuance of EPA's notice of violation and the region considers the
State capable of achieving a satisfactory resolution of the violations
found. If a violation is documented at a source which had previously t
been deferred to the State for enforcement action, the region must
initiate a Federal enforcement action assuring compliance.
-------
-281-
unwilling to implement fully effective field investiga-
tion and compliance monitoring programs these funds
should be either redistributed to other States more in
need of the funding or diverted into contractor efforts
at the regional level to accomplish the compliance
monitoring and field investigation program.
0 Adequate Compliance Inventory - Many State
compliance inventories date from the initial emission
inventory effort in the late 60's and early 70's which
was used to develop the original control strategies in
the State Implementation Plans. In the intervening
years, new sources have started operation and others
have closed down, and some additional gaps in the
inventories have not been remedied. Potential forms
of assistance in this area include short-term level of
effort contract assistance through the Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement to complete, update, or
validate existing compliance inventories. In addition,
some assistance may be available from the NEIC in
completing these inventories in priority areas.
* Training - In some areas, the State program
staffs have inadequate or dated understandings of
techniques of visible emissions observation, emission
test observation and evaluation, process control
engineering, or electronic data system usage. Potential
remedies to these problems should include courses and
seminars offered by the Region, by Headquarters program
offices, or by level of effort contractors available
through DSSE.
11A. FUEL ADDITIVES ENFORCEMENT
11AA. The total number of retail outlets inspected for
. 'compliance with the- unleaded gasoline regulations.
• It includes inspections made by EPA and for EPA
by contractors (State or otherwise).
11A1 The number of gasoline samples•which have tested
higher than 0.05 grams of lead per gallon using
the atomic absorption testing method.
HA2 *he number of nozzles, dispensing leaded gasoline,
which have been found to be less than 0.930 inch
in outside diameter.
-------
-282-
12A. ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH NESHAPS
By FY 1978, approximately 1,000 additional sources of
asbestos and vinyl chloride will be covered by new NESHAPS
requirements, requiring developing of inventories, registration
of new sources, processing of waivers, annual inspections of
sources, and enforcement actions as needed. The FY 1978 output
units differ from previous FY units in that NESHAPS sources are
divided into two categories: transitory (spraying, renovation,
and demolition), and non-transitory (all other) and output units
far...iQ7ft__i deluding reporting for transitory sources.
12AA -- for non-transitory sources is basically the same
as contained in FY 1977, and includes the number of sources
subject to NESHAPS that have been determined to be in violation
or of unknown compliance status. As with Class A sources,
violators and unknowns are combined and a source list will be
pulled from CDS with the formal report.
12AB -- is the cumulative number of States delegated a major
portion of the enforcement responsibility for emission standards
for all categories of hazardous pollutants, whether applicable
to transitory or non-transitory sources. Every effort should,
of course be made to encourage States to accept NESHAPS delegations,
12AC --• is the number of enforcement actions taken against
violators of spraying and demolition requirements by EPA.
12AO -- is the number of enforcement actions taken against
"non-transitory sources by EPA. . _ . .-• - • •
12A1 — is the total number of non-transitory
sources subject to NESHAPS.
12A2 — for transitory sources requires reporting
of the number of operators of spraying, renovation, and demolition
whose compliance procedures have been investigated. An
investigation of an operator is defined to mean an. examination of
the general pattern of the operator's methods of compliance with
the* applicable standards; this can include an examination of the
operator's training program for new employees, examination of
directives to supervisory field personnel, and/or examination of
the operator's records and reports submitted, all as they relate -
to compliance with applicable standard. The purpose of this
activity indicator is to make the field presence of EPA and the
States more acutely felt by contractors, and regional efforts
are to be directed only toward the larger operators, those whose
head offices can be identified/located. This type of. investigation
should be strongly considered after finding several different
site violations by the same company or can be used to:identify
contractors whose sites should receive increased field inspection
attention due to the deficient nature of compliance instructions
given to employees.
-------
-283-
12A3 -- _ is the total number of enforcement actions
taken against violators of spraying and demolition requirements
by all States within the Region.
12A4 -- _ is the total number of enforcement actions
takenTagainst nori-trarisitory sources by all States within the
Region.
-------
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FY 1978
-------
-287-
The Office of Planning and ManagementfMias a broad range of responsibilities
which impact regional operations either directly or indirectly. These
responsibilities normally take the form of conducting studies, providing
agencywide guidance and technical assistance, and operating agencywide
planning, budgeting, and administrative systems.
*
The Office of Planning and Management is currently assessing Regional
responses to the guidance contained in the Management Division's Role
in Effective Regional Operations. One major indicator of .this response
has been the individual Management Improvement Plans submitted by the
regions. As soon as all plans have been received, their content will
be summarized and shared with the Regional Management Division
Directors — and will provide the basis for further joint development
of 0PM guidance.
The following description of planned activities is not meant to represent
a complete list of 0PM FY 78 activities but is meant to serve as a guide
to regional management in anticipating those currently planned 0PM efforts
which would be of special interest to the regions. It should also be
emphasized that the efforts described below do not address most ongoing or
routine activities but rather hit on those activities which are new,
substantially changed or which will receive increased emphasis.
uW«/. -"X^r
-------
-288-
Office of Planning and Evaluation
Policy Planning Division
The Policy Planning Division has three primary responsibilities —
assisting in the development and evaluation of EPA policy on energy issues
which have a significant environmental impact, conducting studies of
long-range interest, and assisting in the development and analysis of
legislative proposals for the Agency. Several of the Division's longer
term studies could have particular significance for the Regions:
1) A Regional study of the economic and environmental impact of
Electric Power Development in the Southwest. The study, which would address
the problems of satisfying electric power needs in the southwest without
jeopardizing public health in urban areas or the aesthetic and environmental
benefits of the Four Corners area and the coastal areas of California, would
be conducted in conjunction with Regions VI, VTII and IX, other Federal
agencies and relevant State agencies. This study should be completed by
July 1, 1978.
2) A program of jointly funded studies with OAQPS on the economic and
air quality consequences of alternative new source review policies in non-
attainment areas. These studies include a detailed examination of (1) two
industry groups: iron and steel (see Economic Analysis Division) and
petroleum refining and petrochemical industry; and (2) two air quality control
regions: Chicago-Gary Interstate and Houston-Calveston (possibly later to
include a third region). These studies should be completed by October 1977.
i
Interim outputs will be made available to affected Regional Offices for
review.
-------
-289-
Standards and Regulations Evaluation Division
The Standards and Regulations Evaluation Division is responsible for the
coordination of the regulations development process, including assuring that
there is adequate opportunity for Regional participation in developing /
regulations which will affect Regional operations.
In addition, an effort currently planned which will be of special
significance for the regions will be the preparation and distribution of
a videotape course which discusses common difficulties in preparing Federal
Register documents (especially SIP's). The tape will include a detailed
discussion of the new format for preambles required by the Office of. the
Federal Register. It will be useful for training existing and new staff
in the correct procedures for preparing Federal Register notices, thus
saving time in the publication of important Regional materials. In
addition, a revised EPA manual describing the regulation development
process including regional participation, is currently being prepared and
is schedule for approval during May 1977.
Economic Analysis Division
The Economic Analysis Division will continue .in FY 78 (1) to attempt to
insure that economic analysis of Agency actions is performed and considered
appropriately prior to all significant regulatory actions and (2) to
analyze and report on projected and actual economic impacts of the EPA
program. These efforts include a number of studies of impacts of regula-
tions, individually and collectively, that have been promulgated or are
being considered. Furthermore, guidance and assistance regarding economic
analysis 'requirements, economic impacts, and economic studies are provided
-------
-290-
to the program offices and Regions to supplement their efforts to analyze
the impacts of actions they are considering.
Many of the analyses performed by the Economic Analysis Division are done
in response to specific problems that arise during the year and cannot be
planned in advance. Some of the planned activities that will be of
interest to the Regions are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Action Items
Impact on the Steel
Industry of Non-
attainment Policies
Economic Impacts of
All EPA Regulations
on the Automotive
Industry
Manual for FWPCA '
Section 301(c)
Economic/Financial
Calculations
Impact on Iron and
Steel Foundry In-
dustry of all EPA
Regulations
5.
Milestones
Draft report
October 1977
Draft Report -
September 1977
Draft Report -
April 1977
Draft Report
October 1977
Economic Impact of Draft Report
Proposed BAT Revision July 1978
for Steel
Estimated Completion Remarks
Date
December 1977
November 1977
Fall 1977
December 1977
September 1978
Jointly sponsore
by OAWM
Exact timing
depends on the
301(c) regula-
tory package
prepared by OE
Timing depends
on OWHM techni-
cal/cost work
Program Evaluation Division
The Program Evaluation Division (PED) performs systematic analyses of Agency
programs to determine what they accomplish, how well they are designed,
planned, and managed, and how efficiently they operate. The following major
program evaluations of special significance to the Regions are planned for
FY 78:
-------
-291-
1) Evaluation of the "front end" planning elements of the Construction
Grants process. This evaluation will consist of a series of contract studies
to be initiated in the latter part of FY 77 and completed by February 1978.
2) Impact assessment of the 208 program. This evaluation will be
undertaken early in FY 78 and completed by August 1978.
3) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the technical assistance services
which EPA provides to State and local governments. This evaluation will
also be undertaken early in FY 78 and completed by August 1978. In addition,
FED is planning a new effort to support the regional evaluative capabilities
with the following major thrusts:
1) FED will provide on-site assistance in the development of
analytical efforts to all ten Regions upon request.
2) FED will accept rotational assignments from Regional staff for
the purpose of familiarizing them with the planning and conduct of
evaluation studies.
3) FED will provide comment and advice on Regional study plans upon
request.
Office of Resources Management
Grants Administration Division
The Grants Administration Division will assist Regional Offices in imple-
menting an effective consolidated Grants Program. This will involve
either seeking improvements in the current Consolidated Grants Program or
implementing a broader program, either administratively based on a consoli-
•
dated grant appropriation or legislative mandate, depending upon Administra-
tion and Congressional action. This includes revising the appropriate
-------
=-292-
chapters of the Grants Administration Manual, convening regional conferences
for training purposes, participation with regional offices in grant negotia-
tions (as required), monitoring regional efforts and recommending improvements,
The tentative schedule for this program is as follows:
- Draft bill and section-by-section analysis ready for discussion
with State and local government and regional office personnel — end
of April.
- Submission of draft bill through OMB to Congress — end of June.
- Anticipated enactment — end of FY 77.
- Implementation regulations and instructions drafted — end of
calendar year 77.
In FY 78, the Grants Administration Division will continue to emphasize
efforts to assure integrity of EPA grants, actively monitor Agency grant
activities, modify and adapt GIGS to better meet regional needs, and continue
its role as Headquarters focal point for activities under the Federal
Regional Council System. A renewed effort will be initiated to monitor
and review regional office grants operations to assist in assuring
consistency with grant regulations and the overall application of Agency
grant policy.
The Grants Administration Division will provide basic grants management
training seminars for each regional office not covered in FY 77 (antici-
pated eight regions in FY 77, two regions in FY 78) and appropriate
follow-up sessions. Systematic training for grants administration personnel
and prospective project officers will be initiated. This will involve a
required regimen of courses for which certificates will be issued upon
completion.
-------
-293-
An effort is currently underway to revise and simplify existing program
grant regulations as follows:
Drinking Water (Underground Source Protection) May 1977
Solid Waste June 1977
Toxic Substances June 1977
Consolidated Grants December 1977
Program Analysis Division
1. The Operating Planning Manual will be revised and is expected to be
issued in the latter part of FY 77, in order that it will be available
for use in the planning activities to be carried out during FY 78.
Additional areas to be covered in the revisions are the implementation of
zero-based budgeting within EPA, Agencywide implementation of OMB
Circular A-76 (which covers acquisition of commercial or industrial products
and services for Government use) and Ar-11 (which deals with uniform
administrative procedures for State/local jointly funded grant projects),
changes in the preview and operating plan development process, and new
contract management procedures.
2. The Agency's effort in zero based budgeting will be greatly expanded
to permit its use as a basic management technique as well as a budgetary
method. The President has directed that the FY 1979 budget estimates of
all agencies be prepared on a ZBB basis, and procedures for doing this within
EPA are now being developed. Our experience in performing more Agencywide
zero based budgeting will be evalated and combined with other experience in
performing more detailed ZBB analyses of selected areas of program activity;
this will be reflected in the manual revision referred to above. As
presently envisioned, we expect to develop a specific process for involving
-------
-294-
all regional offices in the development of Agencywide ZBB estimates for
FY 80. We also expect to continue the detailed ZBB analyses of the type
now underway on a pilot basis in Regions V, VI, and IX and to better
integrate such studies in the overall planning process. Selection of
other regions to participate in these more detailed ZBB analyses will
be made following discussions with Regional Administrators and Management
Division Directors.
3. Beginning in FY 77, and continuing into FY 78, PAD expects to give
greater attention to resource utilization reviews to be conducted at mid-
year and at the third quarter. These reviews will serve as the basis for
reallocation of resources among competing programs and will be tied into
the contract planning procedures outlined in Chapter 6 of the Planning
Manual and those described in Mr. Aim's December 10, 1976, memorandum,
"Contracts, Grants, Interagency Agreements, and Commitment Procedures."
These reviews will examine the use of manpower as well as financial
resources and will be conducted by PAD on an Agencywide basis; input from
program/regional offices will be requested as needed.
4. PAD will serve as the focal point for the implementation of OMB Circular
A-76 which requires that federal agencies rely on commercial enterprises to
the maximum extent feasible in meeting their needs for goods and services.
In FY 78 the following steps will be taken to implement this circular:
(a) Develop and maintain an inventory of commercial or industrial
type activities now operated by EPA.
(b) Establish procedures which will require that new activities of
this type be thoroughly examined prior to their initiation as in-house
activities.
-------
-295-
(c) Identification, through the zero-based analyses and other
selective evaluations, of program activities which can be cost effectively
converted to contract operations.
I
Budget Operations Division
During FY 1978 the Budget Operations Division (BOD) is studying the
possibility of enhancing the Resources Management Information System (RMIS).
This has been requested by a number of regions over the past several years.
The enhancement would give those regions desiring it the ability to track
actual obligations and manpower against their plan at a level below that
of the program element. The current policy would continue by which the
regions provide Headquarters with only that data aggregated at the program
element level or above.
If these RMIS changes are implemented, the Budget Operations Branch would
also provide a programming, service. This service would include both a
standard set of programs allowing the region to manipulate its own data
as desired, as well as providing a service in those cases where a region
would require a unique program.
The intention of this effort is not to provide Headquarters with a greater
level of detail or to relate the data to outputs commitments, but to fulfill
specific requests made by a number of regions for additional tools to
assist in managing their own regional resources.
Milestones Est.' Compl. Date Remarks
1. Develop system require- November 15, 1977 Includes visits to two
. ments or three Regions, prep-
aration of system
specifications and con-
tract (programming)
specifications.
-------
-296-
Milestones
Est. Compl. Date
2. Award progrannning December 15, 1977
contract
Establish pilot
installation
April 15, 1978
4. Operate pilot region June 30, 1978
5. Make systems avail- September 30, 1978
able to other regions
Remarks
Prepare RFP, evaluate pro-
posals and award contract.
(This completion is based on
using the DM&O contractor
selected by EPA (MIDSD) . .
Otherwise date must be
extended.
Select and notify pilot
region, determine detailed
regional requirements, complete
and test programs and train
regional personnel.
Closely monitor for three
months, modify system/programs
to meet operating needs and
prepare System Operating
Manual .
Includes presentation and
assistance to regions in
establishing the system
System Operating Manual) .
Program Reporting Division
The Program Reporting Division is planning the following two major activities _
which will impact regional operations:
1. Provide, on a quarterly basis, status reports and analyses of the regional
and Headquarters offices' progress in achieving Management-by-Objective (MBO)
output commitments. This report repertoire includes the Management Summary,
Executive Summary, Program Summary, and State Activity Reports. In FY 78,
PRO will survey regional internal reporting requirements which could be
satisfied by producing regionally-specific data from the FRS to meet regional
needs. This effort will include regionally-specific graphs for each MBO
output, comparing the regional performance to the national average, and a
review of the micrographics possibilities with each region.
-------
-297-
In the Reports Management Program, conduct an internal review of all
reporting requirements. Work with the Reports Management Officers (Deputy
Assistant Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators) and Project
Officers to review and evaluate reports to determine need, adequacy,
reporting burden, designs, economy of preparation, and use for all existing
EPA reports. The overall aim is to eliminate unnecessary and unused reports,
eliminate duplicative reporting, and reduce paper work and reporting burdens.
In addition, the PKD will complete an analysis using zero-based budgeting
principles on all EPA reporting. This zero-based reporting analysis is
to be completed in FY 78 and will be coordinated with Headquarters and
the regions.
Financial Management Division
The reduction of 14 full-time permanent positions (which is^approximately
(
11% of the Division's previously authorized staffing) by 'the end of FY 77
makes any expansion of FMD support for the regions highly unlikely. FMD has
taken the reduction by attrition in all areas except the Financial Systems
Branch to minimize the impact on field offices, including the regions.
2. FMD's major on-going support to the regions involves fiscal policy and
procedures, continuous payroll support, financial reporting and design, and
maintenance and operation of a financial system which supports Agencywide
financial control and accountability.
3. FMD's major emphasis will not be on major new initiatives in FY 78 but rather
on fine tuning and improving our current operations.
4. FMD is proceeding in FY 77 with decentralization to the regions of
certain payroll input and. time and attendance data to the DIPS system.
-------
- 29 8 -
5. FMD plans to proceed in FY 78 with Agencywide implementation of
accural accounting processes and procedures, assuming approval of the
Agency's accounting systems design by the Comptroller General during FY 77.
6. FMD plans to hold its regular semi-annual financial management
conferences during FY 78.
7. In late FY 77 or early FY 78, FMD contemplates moving the financial
management system from the HEW/HSA computer to the Comnet facility,
contingent upon a demonstration of the new systems costs and capabilities.
Office of Administration
Contracts Management Division
1. The Contracts Management Division will visit regional offices on a
periodic basis to evaluate the effectiveness of locally established procure-
ment procedures. The review will evaluate compliance with regulations,
operating efficiency, and the degree of standardization throughout all
purchasing activities.
Action Items Milestones Estimated Completion Date-
Procurement Management Regional notification Region IX 10-20-77
Reviews in Regions IX, 30 days prior to visits Region X 10-20-77
X, II, III Region II 11-17-77
Region III 11-17-77
Report to region 30
days after review
2. The recently completed report entitled "Feasibility of .Delegating
Contracting Authority to Regional Administrators," recommends that a pro- .
curement support position be established in each regional office as a
focal point for all regional direct contracting activity. While the
-------
-299-
report states that additional contracting officer, authority should not
be delegated to the Regional Administrators at this time, it does
recommend that action be taken by the Contracts Management Division (CMD)
to plan for and develop eventual contracting officer delegation in those
regions which desire such authority. The CMD in revision with the regions
will now develop a comprehensive region by region plan to evaluate the
contracting capability of the regional offices and their desire to
receive such authority.
3. A Contract Project Officers seminar is tentatively scheduled for
presentation at each of the ten regions. The seminar, which is 20 hours
in duration, will address such subjects as:
Statement of work preparation
Justification for non competitive procurement
Technical evaluation criteria
Source evaluation and selection procedures
4. As recognized in the annual objectives package developed by the
Contracts Management Division for FY 77, leadtime reduction and program
responsiveness are of paramount importance. Actions specifically taken
to improve these goals especially in dealing with the regional offices
include:
(a) A task force report developed in the Contracts Management Division
to streamline the procurement process.
(b) An independent study conducted by Don Sowle Associates to
identify areas and recommend actions that would shorten procurement
leadtimes.
(c) A detailed management study of the Headquarters Contract
*
Operations, conducted by the Contracts Policy and Review Branch.
(d) The establishment of a negotiation section in the Headquarters
Contract Operations specifically to support regional contracting.
-------
-300-
(e) A regional project officers course to be given at each regional
office during May and June 1977.
(f) The development of a standard contractor source selection
procedure which will provide guidance to both the contracting officers
and project officers in what has been a long leadtime area in the procure-
ment cycle.
(g) The decentralization report concerning the development of
contracting officer capability in the regions.
It must be pointed out, however, that procurement leadtime is in part a
result of Federal Procurement Regulations requirements (i.e., synopsis,
proposal preparation, etc.) and the program office input (statement of
work, evaluation criteria and technical evaluation) which are beyond the
control of the procurement division.
Management and Organization Division
The Management and Organization Division focuses primarily on the.develop-
ment and review of proposed Agency organizational structures, the design and
implementation of special studies dealing with internal management issues,
and the provision of Agencywide guidance and technical assistance in the
areas of Federal Advisory Committees, Administrative Management (the
Agency issuance system and records management — including microfilm, forms,
and files) Automated Word Processing, and Library literature-search services.
For FY 78, Management and Organization plans the following actions with
particular significance for regional operations:
1. Establishment of a structured assistance capability to support
regional management analysis activities. This would include the assignment
-------
-301-
of MOD staff to work on specific management studies under the direction of
regional officials, rotational assignment for regional personnel, and the
provision of technical assistance in reviewing regional study proposals.
Project coverage would include organizational/functional analysis, work-flow
studies, and administrative management.
2. Development of a self-evaluation process to enable Agency managers
to review their word processing needs and determine optimum equipment/
personnel mixes.
3. Development of training and background materials to support Regional
Librarians and local officials in the establishment of state environmental
libraries and information centers.
Personnel Management Division
1. The CSC will initiate a new Factor Evaluation System for position
classification in FY 1977. During FY 78 all Federal agencies will be
deeply involved in the implementation of the new system. EPA must take
steps to implement the system and must fully coordinate action in FY 78 to
reduce to a minimum duplication of efforts in the development of bench-
marks, etc.
Action Item • Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Implement Factor Evaluation Develop Agency FES 10/1/77
System Implementing Policies/
Procedures (FMD)
Schedule Planning meeting 10/5/77
for Regional Position
Classification Specialists
(PMD)
-------
-302-
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Begin Training of Super- 12/31/77 and
visors and Managers on continuing thru
new FES (Regions) FY 78
Develop Agency Bench- 12/31/77 and
mark Guides as CSC continuing thru
Standards are issued FY 78
(PMD & Regions)
2. The EPA Upward Mobility Program is in its second year. During FY 78
the plan must be evaluated to determine if objectives are being met and
changes made as appropriate. Successful implementation of the program
remains a high priority.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Upward Mobility Request Regions to 10/5/77
conduct self-evaluation
of their Upward Mobility
program, following Head-
quarters guidelines (PMD)
Conduct local self- 11/10/77
evaluation and submit
findings and recommended
changes to Agency Policy/
Guidance (Regions)
Review recommendations 12/31/77
and make necessary changes
to Agency Policy (PMD)
Issue new Agency Program 1/31/78
Guide (PMD)
3. Increased union activity can be expected in 'the Federal Government in
FY 78. EPA must assure personnel staff members, managers and supervisors
are fully trained in the labor-management relations area. Increased guidance
from the Headquarters and more frequent exchanges of data and other information
are needed to assure adequate understanding of changes in labor-relations
policy, court decisions, etc.
-------
-303-
Action Item
Labor-Management
Relations
Est. Compl. Date
10/3/77
10/10/77
10/1/77 thru
9/30/78
Milestones
Revise Agency Labor-
Relations Manual and
issue new policy on
use of official time
by union representa-
tives (PMD)
Regions to determine
in the labor-relations
area (guidance, exchange
of information, training,
etc.) (PMD)
Provide training to
personnel staff members
managers, and super-
visors. All managers
and supervisors should
have completed at least
a basic seminar by end
of FY 78. (Regions —
with PMD assistance if
needed)
In regions where there
is no union activity,
at least five mid-
level/top supervisor
managers should be
trained in contract
negotiations at least
120 days before any
negotiations begin
(Regions)
Develop system responsive 1/1/78
to Regional -needs as
result of the 10/10/77 '
survey (PMD)
4. In FY 78,, priority attention will be given to establishing local
•*.-
personnel self-evaluation systems. Efforts will be made to develop and
publish quarterly personnel feedback data for use in local self-evaluation
efforts. On-site personnel evaluation and selected studies will continue to
be conducted by the Headquarters and CSC.
PMD will review with selected Field Personnel Officers
and Management Division Directors areas for improvement in
content, methodology, and delivery of Evaluation Reports as
result of Dallas feedback; and implement results (target
date 5/31/77). 3
10/1/77 and con-
tinuing as needed
-------
-304-
Action Item
Personnel Management
Evaluation
Milestones
Issue Agency Guidance
in local self-evalua-
tion procedures (PMD)
Review and revise as
needed EPA on-site
evaluation procedures
and report format (PMD).
Note: Comments and
suggestions from Regions
to be solicited
Issue quarterly
personnel data to
Regions for Comparative
Analysis in self-evalua-
tion activities (PMD)
Issue annual report oh
status of Personnel
Management in EPA (PMD)
Conduct on-site surveys
in Region V, VIII and
one or more selected
laboratories (PMD)
Implement local person-
nel self-evaluation
system (Regions)
Eat. Compl. Date
12/31/77
10/31/77
1/15/78 and each
quarter thereafter
9/30/78
1/15/77 - Region V
3/15/78 - Reg.
All Regions by
6/30/78
5. EPA began implementation of a new Merit Promotion Program in April 1977.
In FY 78, emphasis will be given to assessing impact of the new plan on
morale, personnel office workload, processing time for MPP actions and
whether the integrity of MPP operations has been changed as a result of new
provisions Implemented.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
6/30/77
Merit Promotion
Plan Operations
Evaluate MPP PLan
Operations - Request
Regional comments and
suggestions — convene
task force to review and
make recommendations for
program changes (PMD and
Regions)
-------
-305-
6. A New Performance Evaluation and Rating Plan will be issued for
implementation in FY 78. Top priority effort must be made by EPA organi-
zations to assure understanding and effective use of the plan. Managers,
supervisors and employees in general must be indoctrinated and made aware
of the provisions. Personnel Office staffs must be provide expert advice
and assistance during this critical program implementation phase.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Implement New Performance Complete all training Fully complete by
Evaluation and Rating Plan for managers, super- 10/1/77
visors and employees
(Regions)
Complete Phase I New 10/30/77
Performance Evaluation
and Rating Plan (Regions)
Complete Phase II New 4/30/78
Performance Evaluation
and Rating Plan (Regions)
Evaluate results of program 7/31/78
implementation using PMD
guidance (PMD and Regions)
7. Increased attention will be given to local implementation of the
Executive Development Program in FY 78. Plans for local recertification
of program participants must be developed and executed. Continuation of
the process to identify skills, knowledges and abilities for all managerial
positions will continue with increased emphasis on meeting needs identified
through the process. IDP's for all managers will be required. The total
program will be evaluated during FY 78 and needed changes made.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Executive Development Review and assess data Beginning in May '77
Program collected through SKA and continuing thru
process (PMD) 10/10/77
-------
-306-
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Prepare IDP's for all 1/31/78
Regional Managers
(Regions with PMD
assistance as needed)
Develop plans to meet Beginning 3/1/78
identified management and continuing
needs (Regions/PMD)
Recertify/determine new 6/30/78
program participants
(Regions with PMD assist-
ance as needed)
Evaluation of Agency
Executive Development
Program and recommendations
for program change (PMD/
Regions)
Management Information and Data Systems Division
1. MIDSD is now beginning planning for providing computer services over the
period 1981-1990. To begin this process we are about to enter into a con-
tract for development of a RFP for procurement of ADP services to meet
those anticipated needs. Regional contacts will be required to define our
needs and will be utilized in the development of that RFP.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
1981-1900 ADP Service RFP EPA HQ & Regional Review 10/77
Completion and Approval of Needs
Reports
Review and Approval.by:. 1/78
OMB and Congress
Develop RFP 2/78
EPA HQ & Regional Review 4/78
and Approval of RFP
GSA Review and Approval 6/78
of RFP
-------
-307- •/
2. MIDSD in conjunction with Regions III and V and OA Cincinnati are planning
to develop a Laboratory Sample File Control Package which may be installed as
a Pilot Operation on the Cincinnati DEC 11/70 for use by Regions III and V.
It is expected that subsequent to stabilized operations of the Region V DEC 11/70
that a copy of the system will be installed in Chicago.
Action Item Miles tones Est. Compl. Date
Installation of Laboratory Award Development 9/77
Sample File Control Package Contract
for Region III and V
Install on Gin 11/70 4/78
Begin Reg III operations 5/78
Begin Reg V operations 6/78
Provide softward & data 9/78
to Reg V
3. During the FY 76 transition quarter MIDSD sponsored an Agency ADP
Conference. We plan to sponsor another such Conference early in FY 78,
with emphasis on Regional ADP operations, including such topics as Regional
minicomputer experiences and expectations.
4. During FY 78, the National Computer Center in RTP is planning to enhance
its software services to the Regions and others, this providing users with
a more versital computer service.
Action Items Milestones Est. Compl. Date
UNIVAC, Statistical Analysis Award Contract 10/77
System - Replacement or
enhancement " "~ Delivery of system and 6/78
beginning testing
Available to users 10/78
t
Complete full implementation Available to users 10/77
of IRS, with UNIVAC file
compatibility
-------
-308-
Action Items Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Develop Mini-UNIVAC Feasibility study initiated 11/77
interface software
Specifications developed 3/78
Development completed 6/78
begin testing
Available to users 9/78
5. MIDSD is now recompeting the facility management contract for the UNIVAC
1110 in RTF. Th'e new contract which will take effort with the start of FY 78
calls for a number of additional services to be performed by the contractor.
These services will allow NCC to provide a number of new Regional services.
Action Items '• Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Provide additional Regional Begin enhanced produc- 10/77
support services tion control support
for Regional systems on
the UNIVAC
Provide IBM-UNIVAC cost • 1/78
analysis and conversion
support
Begin production system 1/78
operation-assuming on
request-responsibility for
production of Regional
systems
Provide in-depth UNIVAC Conduct a 1-2 week on-site 7/78
training for non-RTP hands on UNIVAC training
personnel course
Facilities and Support Services Division
1. The Joint Committee on Printing requires and our Printing Policy directs
that periodic audits be made of all printing/duplicating/printing procurement
%
operations. We plan to perform these audits during FY.78.
-------
-309-
Action Item Miles tones Est. Compl. Date
•
Assistance and inspection Regional notification Region IV - 10/77
visits to Field Printing 30 days prior to IX - 10/77
operations in Regional visit X - 3/78
Offices. II - 5/78
Report any corrective - V - 5/78
actions to Region within I - 6/78
30 days of visit III - 6/78
VI - 7/78
VIII - 7/78
VII - 7/78
2. A GAO report dated May 31, 1976 made recommendations concerning improvement
of the utilization of scientific equipment at EPA Laboratories and Field
Activities. Efforts to determine the degree to which rep.ort recommendations
are being implemented will continue to be made during FY 1978 by planned
assistance and inspection visits to Field activities.
Action Item Milestones Est. Compl. Date
Scientific equipment utili- Regional notification Region IV - 11/77
zation review and supply 30 days prior to visit VII 2/78
program inspection visits. . VIII - 5/78
IX - 8/78
Coordination of items
requiring further imple-
mentation of report
recommendations within
30 days of visit
3. Consistent with the objectives outlined in the Presidential Management
Initiatives and the Interdepartmental Audio Visual Advisory Group, a study
will be conducted throughout the Agency with the objective of: (1) standardizing
and pooling of equipment; (2) reviewing graphic and photographic standards of
performance\ and (3) substitution of TV productions in lieu of motion picture
productions.
-------
-310-
Action Item
Management Study A/V
Equipment Region IV, V, IX
Milestones
Notification 90 days
prior to visit
Est. Compl. Date
Region IV - 6/15/78
V - 6/30/78
IX - 7/78
Security and Inspection Division
Action Item
Milestones
Prepare and administer Conduct briefings
Standards of Conduct briefings
in all Regions and Principal
Laboratories
Est. Compl. Date
9/30/78
Office of Occupational Health and Safety
Health Monitoring Program
A health monitoring program for laboratory employees has been initiated which
will impact Regional and field laboratories in FY 1978. The program involves
base-line physical examinations, medical history taking, laboratory analysis
of blood and urine, chest x-rays, etc. for laboratory employees at about 40
geographic locations. The base-line "round" is scheduled to be completed
by the end of FY 1977. 0PM will provide funding assistance for the base-line
round in FY 1977. In FY 1978, periodic reexamination and testing of laboratory
employees will begin. Frequency of exams will vary depending on such factors
as type of exposure, nature of duties, age of individuals, etc. Most follow-on
exams during will, however, be annual (occurring once in FY 1978).
Action Items Milestones Est. Compl. Date Remarks
Personnel Health Follow-up physi- Continues through Decision will be
Monitoring Programs cals and tests FY 78 made to determine
All Regions to supplement if preemployment
baseline data physicals are
necessary for
selected jobs
-------
-311-
Training
A Headquarter-developed health and safety training program being initiated in
FY 1977 will impact regional and field operations in FY 1978. Priority is
being given to training for employees engaged in high risk activities. Programs
in operation or in final planning stages include: Emergency Treatment of
Injury training for field sampling, laboratory, and emergency response team
personnel; Industrial Hygiene training for laboratory personnel (one in each
laboratory) designated as health and safety officers; Diving Safety training
for scuba divers; and, an Introduction to the EPA Health and Safety Program
for supervisory personnel. These programs are planned to continue through FY 1978.
Action Items
Emergency Medical
Training
Milestones
Est. Compl. Date Remarks
30-60 days notice One Region per Current offerings
before course month of FY 78 are for S&A and
offered
lab personnel
Five day course
for 30 attendees
EPA Diver Training 30-60 day advance 2nd Quarter
Lab Health
Officer/Director
Training (NIOSH)
notice
One session per
.FY '78, '79, '80
25 Attendees
Five day course
40 attendees
from all Regions
FY 1978
To give stand-
ardized training
to all EPA divers
April 1978
Introduction to Two day seminar
EPA Health & Safety
Program for Super- Two-three regions
Continues
through FY 78
visory personnel
per quarter
25 Attendees
Used to familiarize
personnel with law
requirements
Course emphasizing
health & safety
awareness for first
line supervisors
-------
-312-
Industrial Hygiene Surveys
In FY 1977, contractor-performed industrial hygiene surveys will be completed
in about 36 EPA laboratories. These surveys will continue into FY 78 and are
designed to identify and assess health hazards at the work site and to recommend
corrective actions to the Occupational Health and Safety Office.and laboratory
manager. These surveys will impact regional offices in at least two ways —
the actual survey may interfere slightly with the normal laboratory routine, and
corrective actions may be necessary.
Action Item Miles tone Est. Corn-pi. Date Remarks
Industrial Hygiene Report to lab on Continues Schedule of surveys
Surveys corrections needed, through FY 78 - for FY 78 may be less
Any item more than intense than in
30 days old must FY 77
have abatement
program to OHS.
------- |