United States Region 10
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue
Agency Seattle WA 98101
Office of the Regional Administrator
v>EPA Environmental Programs in
Washington
An EPA Report
1983
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, like all other States in the country, is being urged by EPA to
assume more of the authority that Congress gave State governments for
implementing the body of environmental laws enacted in the last twelve years.
Each of those laws expressed Congress1 intent for EPA to work in partnership
with States. EPA supports State pollution control efforts with Federal grants
and technical assistance and carries out Federal programs for which the State
does not assume responsibility. In State Fiscal Year 1982, EPA provided
Washington with almost $47 million to support State environmental efforts. In
State Fiscal Year 1983, EPA has approximately $47 million available for
Washington. (See Attachment A.)
A key role for EPA is to help Washington develop, manage, and enforce
environmental programs. Most of the nine major programs that EPA can legally
delegate have been assumed in full or in part by Washington. EPA will
actively encourage Washington to take on more programs that EPA now
administers. EPA's purpose is to have Washington itself administer
environmental programs that satisfy Federal requirements and are flexible and
responsive to local situations.
The following pages describe major issues facing Washington State and the EPA,
and list major grant programs by which EPA supports Washington's environmental
activities. Below is a roster of top management officials in EPA's Region 10
who can provide more information.
Regional Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Regional Counsel
Water Division Director
Air and Waste Director
Environmental Services Director
Management Division
John R. Spencer (206) 442-5810
L. Edwin Coate
James Moore
Robert Burd
Alexandra Smith
Gary O'Neal
Nora McGee
Washington Operations Office Director Al Ewing
(206)
(206)
(206)
(206)
(206)
(206)
442-1220
442-1152
442-1014
442-1352
442-1295
442-1233
(206) 753-9437
-------
Washington
PRIORITY ISSUES
I. Delegation of Environmental Programs to Washington
The State of Washington over the past 10 years has assumed responsibility
for implementing most major Federal environmental programs. State
agencies are working toward assumption of the remaining programs. We
expect these delegations to be complete within the next 15 months. Major
programs yet to be delegated to the State include:
A. Hazardous Waste
Federal laws regulate the generation, transportation, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes. The Department of Ecology in
cooperation with other affected State agencies is moving rapidly
toward full responsibility for this program. Some changes in State
law are necessary. The needed statutory changes are expected to be
accomplished during this session of the Legislature.
B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The PSD program is designed to keep clean air areas clean. It
applies to areas where National Ambient Air Quality Standards to
protect human health are already met by a wide margin. The
Department of Ecology now administers part of this program. We
expect full delegation by September 1983.
C. Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC program has construction and operating requirements to
assure that wells that inject fluids underground do not contaminate
groundwater. Under a delegated program, the State would assure that
injection wells comply with Federal minimum standards or any more
stringent requirements the State chooses.
The Department of Ecology was designated by the Governor as the lead
State agency. It is coordinating with other State agencies. The
State Department of Natural Resources has the lead role in oil--and
gas-related injections. The State Department of Social and Health
Services has jurisdiction over uranium mining and certain domestic
waste disposal wells. The Department of Ecology is preparing
documents for the State to assume responsibility for enforcing the
national regulations. Approval is expected in September 1983.
-------
D. Wetlands Protection - Section 404 Permits (Dredge & Fill)
The 404 permit program administered by the Corps of Engineers under
EPA guidelines is intended to protect the wetlands resource against
unintended adverse effects from nearby developments. Permit
decisions are basically land-use decisions. EPA is encouraging the
State to assume as much of the program as Federal law will allow.
II. Hazardous Waste Sites Cleanup (Superfund)
Federal Superfund money is available to clean up—if responsible parties
do not—hazardous waste disposal sites that may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. Ten such sites have been tentatively
identified in Washington. Before Federal funds can be spent, the State
must contribute at least 10 percent of the cleanup cost if the site is
privately owned and 50 percent if the site is publicly owned. Lack of
State matching funds is an impediment to cleanup in Washington.
The ten sites identified in Washington:
A. Tacoma - Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats area including ASARCO
at Ruston
The Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats area has been an industrial
area for over 50 years. Occupants of the area include chemical
companies, refineries, an aluminum plant, a pulp and paper plant,
and a smelter.
Nearshore Waterway sediments are contaminated with hazardous
chemicals. Industrial waste has been dumped as fill throughout the
Tideflats area. The Health Department has issued warnings on fish
consumption.
The State and EPA are negotiating a cooperative agreement to deal
with the problem. Investigation will address known and suspected
problems and determine appropriate corrective measures. The
Cooperative Agreement is expected to be signed in March 1983.
B. South Tacoma Channel
The South Tacoma Channel includes areas of groundwater
contamination, uncontrolled dumping and disposal, and a City
landfill. The site has been a light industrial/business area for
nearly 80 years.
-------
EPA has already spent about $350,000 in two investigations dealing
with the Tacoma Aquifer and the South Tacoma Swamp. The Aquifer is
contaminated with chlorinated organics which threaten the drinking
water of the City of Tacoma. The swamp was investigated because of
waste disposal known to have taken place. Investigations are
underway to characterize the landfill and to further identify
sources around Well 12A, the most contaminated well. Measures to
correct the problem at Well 12A so that it can be on line in time
for peak summer drinking water demands are being pursued. The
shortage of State and local match dollars may impede cleanup.
C. Kent - Western Processing
This industrial waste recycling and reclamation company has polluted
local surface water with heavy metals and solvents. Work is
underway to identify soil and groundwater contamination and to
determine whether pollutants are getting off the site. If this is
so, EPA will take action under Federal hazardous waste law. If
these actions do not provide adequate cleanup, the next step would
be a Superfund feasibility study. The State would have to pay at
least 10 percent of the estimated $100,000 cost of the study and
additional monitoring.
D. Seattle - Harbor Island
High concentrations of lead have been measured in surface dust on
Harbor Island, in the Duwamish River in an industrial area of
Seattle. Heavy accumulation of lead in soils and dust have resulted
in lead runoff into surface water, percolation into unused
groundwater, and exposure of some 6,000 workers in the immediate
industrial area.
The City of Seattle and industry in the area have programs to pave
dusty areas and control lead-laden dust and emissions of lead.
It must be determined to what extent the lead problems are caused by
current emissions as opposed to the re-suspension of lead-laden soil
and dust on the surface.
E. Lakewood - Ponder's Corner - (Tacoma, Washington)
In 1981, two major drinking water production wells of the Lakewood
Water District were found to be contaminated by synthetic organic
compounds. Over 10,000 people are served by this water district
adjacent to Tacoma. Subsequently, these wells were shut down and
EPA initiated a field investigation to determine the exact source of
the problem.
-------
One potential source is McChord Air Force Base. Some of the Base's
operations over the past 30 years have used degreasers and organic
solvents. In addition, the Base's landfill is near the well field.
These sources and possible contamination routes are all part of the
ongoing investigation. So far, 21 wells have been drilled in the
investigation without making a clear connection to the source of the
contamination. Sampling results will be available by late Spring.
The local Water District is waiting for results to determine the
final disposition of the wells. The District anticipates difficulty
meeting summer drinking water demands.
Future options include keeping the wells closed permanently or
providing treatment to clean and restore them to use. Groundwater
monitoring in the area is expected to continue for the foreseeable
future.
F. Vancouver - Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Process waste from the chrome finishing plant contains significant
concentrations of chromium. The waste stream has been drained to
the ground, contaminating soil near the drain and groundwater.
There is a potential impact on the major aquifer serving the City of
Vancouver. The next action will be to perform a field investigation
for this site. The State has ordered the company to stop
discharging wastes into the dry well and to conduct a groundwater
monitoring program.
G. Yakima - FMC Corporation
From 1952 to 1959, the FMC Corporation and other firms disposed of
agricultural pesticides and herbicides in a pit on the Company's
property. The unlined pit contains at least 36 cubic yards of mixed
chemicals and residues, and the surrounding soil appears
contaminated.
A high potential exists for contamination of groundwater, which is
the source for private domestic wells in the area. Groundwater
monitoring data is needed to confirm whether contamination has
occurred.
The plan is to have the company voluntarily take appropriate actions.
H. Yakima - Pesticide Experimental Laboratory
Wastes from the pesticide facility are disposed into a septic tank
drainfield. The pesticides have permeated the soil and may have
contaminated groundwater.
-------
The site is approximately three miles from backup sources for the
Yakima drinking water supply. Irrigation is now the primary use of
downstream surface and ground-water. The site operator is
responsible for investigating the problem and cleaning it up as
necessary. Superfund money is not expected to be needed to clean up
this site.
I. Spokane County - Colbert Landfill
The Colbert Landfill, 10 miles north of Spokane, is owned by Spokane
County. For five years, its operators buried liquid solvent wastes
in unlined pits in permeable soil.
Some drinking water wells nearby are contaminated by liquids
chemically identical to those dumped at the landfill. In addition,
similar contaminants have been detected in groundwaters
down-gradient from the landfill. The contaminants are considered
toxic and persistent.
The rural area near the landfill is dependent on groundwater for
drinking and irrigation. No other supply is readily available.
The next phase of the project is to do a feasibility study which
will discuss cleanup alternatives and costs. The estimated cost of
the study is $50,000. This site will require at least a 50 percent
State or local match.
J. Spokane County - Kaiser Aluminum, Mead
Old pot liner wastes piled on site are identified as the source of
cyanide contamination in the groundwater. Kaiser has developed and
implemented a groundwater monitoring program and source control.
All water supplies known to be affected (27) have been connected to
alternative water. The next phase of action at Kaiser will be to
oversee the groundwater investigation to verify that the corrective
actions to date lower the contamination to acceptable levels. It is
expected that Kaiser will continue to fund the investigation and
implementation through this year.
III. Air Non-Attainment Area Sanctions
The Clean Air Act requires compliance in all areas with primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate, sulfur dioxide
(S02), and nitrogen dioxide (N02) by the end of 1982 and with the
NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone by that date unless an extension
was given. In general, if compliance is not attained in any area by the
set date, the Act provides for sanctions such as construction bans on
sources contributing to the problem and suspension of certain Federal
grant funds.
-------
EPA will take a two-tier approach. In those areas where the air is close
to the standard, the State will have a chance to show the standard has
been reached. Those areas where the air is far from meeting the standard
are presumed to be out of compliance. Sanctions will be applied only
after certain procedures are followed. These procedures include a formal
finding of inadequacy along with the nature and scope of possible
consequences. If enough information is obtained to indicate that the
standards and other Clean Air Act requirements are met, no sanctions will
be imposed. Sanctions are to be imposed for non-compliance, for
inadequacy of plans, and for improperly meeting conditions of approved
plans. EPA notices of deficiencies were issued in the Federal Register
February 3, 1983. Four areas in Washington currently designated
non-attainment for one or more pollutants include Seattle, Tacoma,
Vancouver and Spokane.
IV. Field Burning
Washington has regulations to govern agricultural field burning. This
activity is limited primarily to fields for grass-seed production.
Annually, approximately 50,000 acres are burned in Eastern Washington and
Northern Idaho. Regulations are intended to minimize smoke impact on
populated areas. However, intrusion of smoke into neighboring towns and
suburbs and across State lines does occur and citizens complain.
EPA now has limited authority to control this activity. However, Region
10 is willing to work with the State to solve or further reduce this
problem if it is seen as a major priority by the State.
Washington
EPA GRANTS TO STATE AGENCIES
FY 83 Funds
I. Water Pollution Control
A. Municipal Sewage Treatment Grants (Section 201) $42,500,000
Construction grants now provide 75 percent of the funding to build
eligible parts of municipal sewerage works. Eligible are all or
part of treatment plants, interceptor sewers, final effluent
discharge lines, and sewage collection systems. The Department of
Ecology administers the program. The $42.5 million is the amount of
new FY 83 funds. In addition, the state has $30.5 million remaining
in unobligated FY 82 funds. Projects are scheduled for funding
under a priority list established annually by the Department of
Ecology. Projects scheduled for funding in FY 83 include Okanogan
($4.5 M), Raymond ($10.8 M), and Pierce County ($33 M).
-------
The Washington allocation contains $6.7-million reserved for
constructing facilities to use innovative and/or alternative
technology. If not used, a portion of those funds will be lost to
the State on October 1, 1983, and the balance on October 1, 1984.
Special efforts would be required by both EPA and the State to
identify opportunities to use these funds.
B. State Management Assistance [Section 205(g)] $1,702,000
A maximum of 4 percent of Washington's annual funding to build
sewage treatment plants can be used to pay the Department of
Ecology's cost of managing the EPA and State sewage treatment plant
construction programs. The Department is expected to use any excess
funds from this program to support certain other water pollution
control program activities; in 1983, $309,948 is being used for this
purpose.
C. Water Planning Grant [Section 205(j)] minimum $100,000
maximum $422,000
A minimum of $100,000 a year to a maximum of one percent of
Washington's annual funding to build sewage treatment plants can be
used for water quality planning. This is a new provision of the
Clean Water Act. These are the only Federal planning funds now
potentially available to local water quality agencies, but also are
to support State projects.
D. Water Programs Grant (Section 106) $1,167,000
This is an annual EPA grant to help the Department of Ecology manage
its statewide water pollution control program. Activities partly
supported by these funds include planning, permitting, enforcement
and monitoring. Problems addressed by the State under this program
range from protection of shellfish beds to the control of
municipal/industrial discharges into State waters.
E. Underground Injection Control $90,400
The Department of Ecology receives an annual grant to develop ana
implement a program to protect drinking water sources by regulating
the underground injection of waste materials. The Department is
working in conjunction with other state agencies that may have
overlapping jurisdiction over injection wells.
-------
II. Air Pollution Control
Air Program Grant (Section 105) $2,868,000
This is an annual EPA grant to help pay for the Department of
Ecology's program and the air programs of seven local air pollution
control agencies. Due to the budget crisis in Washington, the FY83
grant includes a special one time supplemental grant of $165,267 to
operate programs in the current year. EPA also has been able to
provide high-priority special-project funding. Over $665,000 was
made available to start the inspection and maintenance (automobile
emissions testing) program for the Seattle area.
III. Hazardous Materials Control
Hazardous Waste Grant $715,000
The Department of Ecology receives an annual EPA grant to develop
and implement a hazardous-waste regulatory program. The Department
is expected to receive interim authorization in 1983 to operate the
State program in place of the Federal program. The State is
developing a system to track the generation, transportation and
disposal of hazardous waste as well as a permit program regulating
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Interim authorization of the State program is the first step to full
program delegation. Amendments to State laws are needed to provide
a smooth transition in December, 1984 from Federal to State
administration of the Federal program.
IV. Public Water System Supervision Program $962,200
The Department of Social and Health Services administers the State's
program to assure safe drinking water for residents and visitors.
EPA has developed national drinking water standards. The States
assure that water systems which serve the public comply with these
standards or any more stringent requirements the State chooses. For
the programs to be most effective, they must be preventive.
The Department took responsibility for implementing the national
drinking water standards in 1978 after operating a comprehensive
State program for many years. Grants to the Department have allowed
the State to expand its program, but the Federal program has not
significantly changed the basic emphasis of the State's program.
-------
10
V. Pesticides Program
A. Applicator Certification Grant $18,000
An annual EPA grant to the State Department of Agriculture helps to
maintain its testing and licensing program for pesticide
applicators. This program is to ensure that persons using
restricted-use pesticide products are competent in handling and
using these highly hazardous pesticides.
B. Cooperative Enforcement Grant $195,000
The Department of Agriculture has primary responsibility to ensure
that pesticide use within the State complies with label
restrictions. Under this grant, the State enforces Federal and
State laws regarding pesticide use and product manufacturing and
sales.
VI. Dredge and Fill Program (Section 404) Delegation Study $54,000
A $54,000 grant to the Department of Ecology was made by EPA's Office of
Federal Activities September 1981 to determine the feasibility of State
takeover of the Federal permit program for discharge of dredged or fill
material into certain navigable waters. The study is being conducted by
the State agency staff. The final reports are nearly completed.
Under the State's shoreline management program, local jurisdictions have
responsibility for issuing permits for most dredge and fill activities.
If the Department of Ecology disagrees with a local decision, the
Department may appeal to the State Shoreline Hearings Board for
resolution. The Department's strategy for assuming the 404 program
would rely heavily on the use of local jurisdictions to administer most
of the program.
-------
11
Attachment A
EPA Grants Summary
State of Washington
1983
Funds
awarded or
Department of Ecology available
Consolidated Programs*
Air $2,867,655
Water (106) 1,133,124
(205g) 309,948
Hazardous Waste 715,564
Total $5,026,291
Water Planning (205j) $422,000
Underground Injection Control $ 90,400
Department of Agriculture
Pesticides
Certification $ 18,000
Enforcement 198.289
Totals $ 213,000
Department of Social and Health Services
Public Water Systems Supervision $ 962,200
*The Consolidated Grant figures are for July 1982 to June 1983, the
State fiscal year. All other figures are for October 1982 to September 1983,
the Federal fiscal year.
Some of these figures include "carryover funds"--funds awarded the State
in FY 82, but which are unspent at the end of the Federal fiscal year. They
can be used in FY 83 for the continuation of ongoing projects.
-------
Municipal Sewage Treatment Grants (as of 1-14-83)
FY 83 Funds
General Fund
Increase Reserve
State Mgt. Asst.
Innovative Tech.
Alternative Tech.
Small Communities
Advance Reserve
Water Quality Mgt.
Totals 42,542,000
(FY 83 funds expire 9-30-84)
Appropriation
$33,006,540
4,004,999
1,701,680
212,710
1,488,970
1,701,680
1
425,420
Obligated
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Unobli gated
Balance
$33,006,540
4,004,999
1,701,680
212,710
1,488,970
1,701,680
1
425,420
-0-
42,542,000
FY 82 Funds
General Fund
Increase Reserve
State Mgt. Asst.
Innovative Tech.
Alternative Tech.
Small Communities
Advance Reserve
Water Quality Mgt.
Total 41,777,700
(FY 82 funds expire 9-30-83)
Appropriation
$32,323,501
4,023,097
1,671,108
208,888
1,462,220
1,671,108
1
417,777
Obligated
$11,270,682
13,086
-0-
-0-
3,123
-0-
-0-
-0-
Unobligated
Balance
$21,052,819
4,010,011
1,671,108
208,888
1,459,097
1,671,108
1
417,777
11,286,891
30,490,809
Appropriations for municipal sewage treatment grants prior to 1982 and not
yet obligated amount to $1,413,886.
------- |